Turn on thread page Beta

Simon Harwood watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHistoryStudent)
    Hmm... I'll be honest about my ignorance when it comes to topics like law, but isn't manslaughter basically killing someone (or your actions resulting in someone being killed) without the element of malicious pre-meditation? If I'm wrong and it means something different then I might be inclined (slightly...) to agree with the jury, but at the moment, due to me thinking manslaughter is basically the above, I can't see how he was found innocent...
    There's two kinds, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary is basically murder but with mitigating circumstances (domestic abuse or something like that). Involuntary is where you don't intend to kill but because you do something wrong (leaving dangerous chemicals in the wrong place or in this case using excessive force) they die. If someone just dies and it's nobody's fault it's not manslaughter.

    Imagine if you had a bad heart and I was of a nervous disposition. You touch me on the shoulder to get my attention and I scream out and you have a heart-attack and die. I've killed you but it's not manslaughter.

    Obviously this is not like that because he did something aggressive but the question is was that aggressive action unacceptable? Rather than was it that aggression that killed him?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by monk_keys)
    There's two kinds, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary is basically murder but with mitigating circumstances (domestic abuse or something like that). Involuntary is where you don't intend to kill but because you do something wrong (leaving dangerous chemicals in the wrong place or in this case using excessive force) they die. If someone just dies and it's nobody's fault it's not manslaughter.

    Imagine if you had a bad heart and I was of a nervous disposition. You touch me on the shoulder to get my attention and I scream out and you have a heart-attack and die. I've killed you but it's not manslaughter.

    Obviously this is not like that because he did something aggressive but the question is was that aggressive action unacceptable? Rather than was it that aggression that killed him?
    Ahhh I see - so that is what the case has been effectively boiling down to yes? Was Harwood justified in his action? In that case then I'd still be inclined to say no to be honest, again, looking at that footage, Tomlinson was facing away from the police line, he had his head down and his hands in his pockets - there really wasn't any threat posed to the police, and so Harwood's actions were unjustified in my view. Aside from this, if the purpose of the baton strike was to get him to move faster, then surely a better solution, rather than resorting to violence, would be to simply ask him to move faster? Rather than just pushing him? And only if he refused to move faster/didn't move faster after being asked to, then push him slightly to encourage him?

    Anyway yeah - thanks for clarifying the manslaughter thing
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crocker710)
    The criminal court. That's the one whose rulings upon the law are upmost. The coroner's declaration of unlawful killing is his decision and opinion. It clarifies legalities such as insurance payouts. It doesn't stipulate who may have committed a crime.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13268633



    ... If you're trying to be pedantic it's not working. If your faith in the criminal justice system is waiving you're more than welcome to move away from its jurisdiction and to a country where the mob rules.
    Wow a neg and told to leave the country just for asking 2 reasonable questions in a reasonable manner. :gthumb: I know where you'd fit in well.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Our Police have a huge weight around their necks which is put there by the fear of the media and the human rights gone mad elements. This was very evident in their performance in the riots.

    While it was unnecessary for PC Harwood to push the guy out of the way, you have to take into account the huge stress an ordinary policeman is experiencing in violent protests.

    Although, I can see why Tomlinson was pushed, he was moving incredibly slowly and not exactly responding to the police when told to get out of the way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)

    While it was unnecessary for PC Harwood to push the guy out of the way, you have to take into account the huge stress an ordinary policeman is experiencing in violent protests.
    yes, and some might say that the police should also have taken that into account before they deployed a violent thug with little ability to deal with huge stress
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    I find it impossible to respect the decision to be honest.

    Ian Craven - left his dogs to die in a car
    Mark Andrews - assaulted a woman in custody
    Ali Dizaei - corrupt

    These are just examples that have been in the media spotlight in recent times.
    Yes, four incidents out of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of policemen in Britain, which some idiots have allowed to taint their views of the police in general.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    Yes, four incidents out of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of policemen in Britain, which some idiots have allowed to taint their views of the police in general.
    The actual behaviour of police officers also taints this idiot's view.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    The actual behaviour of police officers also taints this idiot's view.
    So you've met and observed the behaviour of every police officer in the UK?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The key issue to me is over the 'cause of death'. The judge said it wouldn't be appropriate that the jury hear that Freddy Patel (the pathologist who claimed that Tomlinson died of natural causes) to know that Patel has been suspended twice and is currently under investigation over his verdict on Tomlinson's death and 26 other actions of misconduct.

    That is the big game-changer and if I were to guess then it would be why the jury could not beyond reasonable doubt prove that Harwood was guilty of unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mister Dead)
    course not. manslaughter is perfectly OK now, dincha' know?

    approaching 1500 deaths in custody or following police intervention (since 1990). has there even been a manslaughter charge yet.....

    probably not. probably just very weak or clumsy prisoners
    30 constabularies, 21 years. ~2 deaths per constabulary per year given the amount of drug fuelled and suicidal people coming into custody could hardly be seen as evidence of wide-scale police brutality against prisoners.

    Speaking with frankly a lot more experience than you on the subject the level of care you need to give somebody you have arrested is staggering. Photographs are taken of wrists because even handcuffing too tightly needs to be justified, yet you think prisoner abuse is routine?

    The police did not find him innocent. If you believe justice has not been served then blame the following:
    the law
    the interpretation of the law
    your interpretation of events you know little about
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    Speaking with frankly a lot more experience than you on the subject the level of care you need to give somebody you have arrested is staggering
    please. fifteen years working with prolific offenders and psychiatric patients. i'm quite familiar with the procedure and fully aware of how most of those people become a statistic. i'm also aware that there exists a culture of apparent impunity that facilitated this man serving as an officer, despite his poor credentials. yes, I believe that statistics showing 1500 deaths post intervention without one manslaughter charge to be very suspicious, especially in the light of recent video evidence and crooked staff such a Patel. please understand I do not have a negative view of the police force in general, no more so than I do of NHS staff, or any other role faced with these sort of explosive situations.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The police are cowards.

    When it's peaceful students protesting they rough them up with over-the-top policing.

    When it's ghetto youths rioting and looting they stand there and watch.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not surprised. There's no categorical evidence that his push caused the death of Mr Tomlinson. Ergo how can he be found guilty?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pedmond)
    I'm not surprised. There's no categorical evidence that his push caused the death of Mr Tomlinson. Ergo how can he be found guilty?
    The pathologist who ruled that the push did not kill Tomlinson is currently suspended pending investigation over that particular verdict, has been suspended in the past and has also faced charges of 26 allegations of misconduct. He is also no longer on the official register of Pathologists by the home office. But somehow the judge did not think it would be appropriate for the jury to know this. Apparently this would prejudice them. Okay. Not to mention Mr Patel disposed the internal bleeding blood samples and failed to write down the bruising of Mr Tomlinson in his reports.

    Dr Nat Cary, who is probably THE most respected pathologist in this country concluded that it was quite clear Tomlinson died from being struck by the police officer. This was also supported by a 3rd pathologist and numerous expert liver Doctors. Just because alcoholism made Tomlinson vulnerable to the bleeding doesn't excuse the defendant in the eye of the law. You take your victim as you find them.

    Freddy Patel's verdict has been ridiculed and isn't accepted, this was proven at the inquest prior to the criminal trial. To suggest that there was no 'categorical evidence' is quite simply ludicrous.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    it was always going to happen they protect their own
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PVisitors)
    The pathologist who ruled that the push did not kill Tomlinson is currently suspended pending investigation over that particular verdict, has been suspended in the past and has also faced charges of 26 allegations of misconduct. He is also no longer on the official register of Pathologists by the home office. But somehow the judge did not think it would be appropriate for the jury to know this. Apparently this would prejudice them. Okay. Not to mention Mr Patel disposed the internal bleeding blood samples and failed to write down the bruising of Mr Tomlinson in his reports.

    Dr Nat Cary, who is probably THE most respected pathologist in this country concluded that it was quite clear Tomlinson died from being struck by the police officer. This was also supported by a 3rd pathologist and numerous expert liver Doctors. Just because alcoholism made Tomlinson vulnerable to the bleeding doesn't excuse the defendant in the eye of the law. You take your victim as you find them.

    Freddy Patel's verdict has been ridiculed and isn't accepted, this was proven at the inquest prior to the criminal trial. To suggest that there was no 'categorical evidence' is quite simply ludicrous.
    I hadnt seen the conclusion of the third autopsy which seems to conclude with Nat Carys view. My apologies for my previous statement however his official cause of death is internal bleeding from blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver. What is interesting though is that this is the first time Patel and Cary have disagreed on a post mortem case.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by onda)
    I have full faith in our justice system.
    There is a system, but it does not provide justice.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    So you've met and observed the behaviour of every police officer in the UK?
    Obviously not.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    Not at all surprised, the police are generally illiterate, dishonest, lazy scum anyway.
    Super generalisation there. What you know about the police and situations like this you could probably fit on the back of a matchbook.

    (Original post by TRS-T)
    The police are cowards.

    When it's peaceful students protesting they rough them up with over-the-top policing.

    When it's ghetto youths rioting and looting they stand there and watch.
    If you believe that you'll believe anything.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Super generalisation there. What you know about the police and situations like this you could probably fit on the back of a matchbook.



    If you believe that you'll believe anything.
    I know more than you might assume.

    Of course the police are cowards they are only human.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 23, 2012
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.