Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Interview with the disabled protester who was pulled form his wheelchair Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Im getting sick of this argument. STOP SAYING IT WOULD BE MURDER. Without Intent to murder it is not murder.

    In this case even manslaughter would be a stretch.
    If you actually read my comment, I am not saying about the copper.
    I am talking about a common assault where one party ends up dying.
    You do not need intent to be done for murder if you assault someone. There are numerous cases where an assault victim has later died in hospital and the accused has faced a murder charge.

    Well done for ignoring my main point anyway.
    The fact Ian Tomlinson was not a healthy man is irrelevent.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    If you actually read my comment, I am not saying about the copper.
    I am talking about a common assault where one party ends up dying.
    You do not need intent to be done for murder if you assault someone. There are numerous cases where an assault victim has later died in hospital and the accused has faced a murder charge.

    Well done for ignoring my main point anyway.
    The fact Ian Tomlinson was not a healthy man is irrelevent.
    Actually it would have a pretty big effect on the case. No way would it be a murder charge. There was no intent for him to die the officer did not use enough force to kill him had he been a healthy man. I mean come on there were even reports that Tomlibnson was drunk that day as well. All this would have a massive effect on any trial.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    If you actually read my comment, I am not saying about the copper.
    I am talking about a common assault where one party ends up dying.
    You do not need intent to be done for murder if you assault someone. There are numerous cases where an assault victim has later died in hospital and the accused has faced a murder charge.

    Well done for ignoring my main point anyway.
    The fact Ian Tomlinson was not a healthy man is irrelevent.
    For a killing to be considered murder, there normally needs to be an element of intent. For this argument to be successful the killer generally needs to demonstrate that they took precautions not to kill and that the death could not have been anticipated or was unavoidable, whatever action they took. As a general rule, manslaughter[24] constitutes reckless killing, while criminally negligent homicide is a grossly negligent killing.[25]
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Actually it would have a pretty big effect on the case. No way would it be a murder charge. There was no intent for him to die the officer did not use enough force to kill him had he been a healthy man. I mean come on there were even reports that Tomlibnson was drunk that day as well. All this would have a massive effect on any trial.
    It would probably affect the juries opinions yes.
    But in terms of actual law, it does not matter what pre-existing conditions a person has.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That is absolutely awful... I feel disgusted with the police. Pigs.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Jody MacIntyre is a ********, read his blog and you will see a very different side to him. At first he had my sympathy because the way the policeman acted was disgraceful. But once you type in "Jody MacIntyre" on Google, you will realise he is nothing but a disgusting thug who incites violence.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    It would probably affect the juries opinions yes.
    But in terms of actual law, it does not matter what pre-existing conditions a person has.
    read my other post then I suggest you do some research into the laws on murder
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    For a killing to be considered murder, there normally needs to be an element of intent. For this argument to be successful the killer generally needs to demonstrate that they took precautions not to kill and that the death could not have been anticipated or was unavoidable, whatever action they took. As a general rule, manslaughter[24] constitutes reckless killing, while criminally negligent homicide is a grossly negligent killing.[25]
    I'm guessing you took that off the most reliable of sources, wikipedia?

    In any case, as I have said, there have been many many assault cases where the victim has ended up dying and the accused has faced a murder charge. That is fact. You can find loads of news articles about it if you want.

    I am not saying that the police officer should be tried for murder (although he should be held accountable for Ian's death). I am saying that the pre-existing conditions that he had pay no relevence at all in terms of law in bringing to justice the person responsible.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    im gunna go ahead and say, he must have been doing something
    his answer to "reports saying you were rolling towards them" was very avoidant, he has clearly spoken to a lawyer about not incriminating himself
    the fact he didnt launch a formal complaint untill now also implies it was not a simple matter of police see him police shove him off his wheel chair
    another issue being, he could have been refusing to move for vehicles or something and the cop was moving him to get him out of the way, admittedly in a very wrong fashion
    Yeah my sentiments exactly, he was right infront of the gap between the riot vans.Were police were coming out from.

    More to the point common sense dictates if you can physically move you should be in the middle of violence, because you can escape.

    May I propose my theory, The police were trying to display their dominace and deter protesters.

    To be fair if a lone police officer was left in a crowd of rioters he would die, and Boone would make such a fuss.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    read my other post then I suggest you do some research into the laws on murder
    Again, you do some research.
    Look on the bbc website.
    Many people have been tried for murder after a simple assault because the victim died.

    And as I said, I'm not necessarily arguing the police officer should be tried for murder.
    I am arguing that the fact Ian Tomlinson wasn't healthy has no relevance at all to the case (at least in terms of actual law - of course it would be in the heads of the police, jury and judge when the make all their decisions).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Again, you do some research.
    Look on the bbc website.
    Many people have been tried for murder after a simple assault because the victim died.

    And as I said, I'm not necessarily arguing the police officer should be tried for murder.
    I am arguing that the fact Ian Tomlinson wasn't healthy has no relevance at all to the case (at least in terms of actual law - of course it would be in the heads of the police, jury and judge when the make all their decisions).
    wow u still on about this?! let it go, yes you managed to google the laws, but you dont have the brain power to put them into a real life situation
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Then just move him out of the way.
    Its no justification for dragging him violently out of his wheelchair across the road.
    As I have said many times, if the copper was in the right, why did his colleagues have to drag him away from the incident.
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    I think that is able to judge whether he is in danger or not himself, if he felt he was in danger then he would have asked for assistance of gotten himself out of there. What he did not need was to be pulled from his wheelchair and dragged across the street in such an undignified way.
    It's a difficult situation. They can't force him to leave because he has a right to be there, but at the same time they have the responsibility to ensure that more vulnerable people do not get hurt. If they have told him to move and he didn't do it they can't just let it slide because he's disabled. I'm not condoning violence against disabled people, but they had to do something. I've seen the footage and I didn't see the other policemen holding their colleague back, which part is it? I'll take another look .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emmie3303)
    It's a difficult situation. They can't force him to leave because he has a right to be there, but at the same time they have the responsibility to ensure that more vulnerable people do not get hurt. If they have told him to move and he didn't do it they can't just let it slide because he's disabled. I'm not condoning violence against disabled people, but they had to do something. I've seen the footage and I didn't see the other policemen holding their colleague back, which part is it? I'll take another look .
    You say they cant force him to leave, but he doesnt appear to have much choice in the matter. Its at the end of the video, another police officer grabs the officer and pulls him away with some force.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    You say they cant force him to leave, but he doesnt appear to have much choice in the matter. Its at the end of the video, another police officer grabs the officer and pulls him away with some force.
    They can't force him to leave if he is not causing a problem, but no one really knows how he behaved at the protest. He may have done nothing wrong whatsoever, and in that case the police shouldn't have been so rough with him. But if he was doing something wrong then they can't just let him get away with it. If anyone else refused to leave when the police told them to and they were dragged away, people wouldn't be so up in arms.

    I can see the riot policeman dragging the two police officers away, but it's not clear that he's doing it to stop them. It's certainly a strong possibility. Perhaps he's also getting them out of the way because the people all around were shouting abuse at them? They weren't protected like the riot police officers and if the crowd started throwing breeze block pieces and snooker balls again that would seriously hurt them.

    It's hard to make a judgement without all the facts.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: December 18, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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