Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: albitz on 24 May 2011, 11:08:21
-
Is to be charged with the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson.
Discuss ?
-
What were the circumstances?
-
Well, I was always mindful of the fact (and remain so) that simply because I held the Sovereign’s Warrant I was never above the law.
I saw nothing in this incident that justified Constable Harwood's actions.
Should something ever go wrong, big boy's rules will always apply to those of us seek to enforce the law of the land by such means.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13519281
-
ahhh i remember now.
-
I saw nothing in this incident that justified Constable Harwood's actions.
Same here.
Although Ian Tomlinson was pretty drunk, he was walking away from the disturbances that were taking place and was in no way threatening at all.
PC Harwood's actions were nothing short of an all out assault that was completely unprovoked, and there is no reason he should not face the full weight of the law as any of us mere mortals would if we did the same.
-
I saw nothing in this incident that justified Constable Harwood's actions.
Same here.
Although Ian Tomlinson was pretty drunk, he was walking away from the disturbances that were taking place and was in no way threatening at all.
PC Harwood's actions were nothing short of an all out assault that was completely unprovoked, and there is no reason he should not face the full weight of the law as any of us mere mortals would if we did the same.
It's amazing what people deduce from limited exposure to a scenario.
I think Den was deliberately and automatically more restrained in his summary. :y
-
Was it proved that the man died directly from being shoved to the ground though? It was an assault yes, but was it responsible for killing him?
-
Was it proved that the man died directly from being shoved to the ground though? It was an assault yes, but was it responsible for killing him?
If it directly led to him having a herat attack then maybe. It should be noted that a heart attack does not kill you instantly. Cardiac arrest is when your heart stops beating.
If I may be a bit awkward here, if you replace police officer with 15 year old yoof, would this change anything.
Not being funny or anything, and def not trying to offend you ar anyone else.
Just my useless opinion/comments :y
-
far as im concerened the pc deserves everything he gets!! and i hope he gets sent down, there was absolutley no reason to do that to a passerby, he is supposed to be upholding the law and setting an example, instead he just launched himself on an innocent person!! could say a lot more but i have friends who are policemen currently serving and they are mostly a good bunch, one bad apple ruins the barrel as they say so get him out!!
-
far as im concerened the pc deserves everything he gets!! and i hope he gets sent down, there was absolutley no reason to do that to a passerby, he is supposed to be upholding the law and setting an example, instead he just launched himself on an innocent person!! could say a lot more but i have friends who are policemen currently serving and they are mostly a good bunch, one bad apple ruins the barrel as they say so get him out!!
Succinctly put :y
-
As said earlier, we've only been limited information and not the WHOLE episode. That said, it does not detract that someone lost their life.
We don't know what that man did before he was shoved/pushed, again, I'm not condoning the action or saying the Police Officer was right in anyway, just trying to look at it from all angles.
At the end of the day, we are only told what they want us to hear/see!
-
Tomlinson was said to be drunk, objectionable and at least initially obstructive.
He was, however, walking away from the copper when the assault occurred, and therefore Harwood's use of force was wholly disproportionate to the level of threat.
He deserves to be charged.
-
Exactly. ;)
-
Was it proved that the man died directly from being shoved to the ground though? It was an assault yes, but was it responsible for killing him?
If it directly led to him having a herat attack then maybe. It should be noted that a heart attack does not kill you instantly. Cardiac arrest is when your heart stops beating.
If I may be a bit awkward here, if you replace police officer with 15 year old yoof, would this change anything.
Not being funny or anything, and def not trying to offend you ar anyone else.
Just my useless opinion/comments :y
Don't get me wrong here, if he's responsible for Ian Tomlinson's death, then he deserves all he gets, I'm just asking if all the facts have been established
-
Yes, he should get a fair trial and then if found guilty be dismissed with loss of pension etc or even prison.
The wider issues here have been missed in my mind. We(the public) ought to see the records of what was said /written down by the officers superior after the event. Also this would NEVER have got this far without the passer by video footage that was submitted. Prior to that no policeman was to blame. Maybe there is a supervisor who also needs to be brought to account ?
-
Was it proved that the man died directly from being shoved to the ground though? It was an assault yes, but was it responsible for killing him?
The finding by the inquest jury;
3.42pm: The court was caught unaware by the jury's quick decision. They returned to the room and answered four short questions, known as the inquisition.
What was the name of the deceased?
Ian Tomlinson.
What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease?
Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver.
If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances?
Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings ... This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily.
The jury said both the baton strike and the push were "unreasonable".
"As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death." The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and "posed no threat".
What is the jury's conclusion as to the death?
Unlawful killing.
Thanks to:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/may/03/ian-tomlinson-inquest-verdict-live-blog
When I was in uniform I policed civil disturbances many times the complexity and violence of that demonstration and I can say that I would have found it impossible to justify the assertive action Constable Harwood sadly decided to employ against Ian Tomlinson.
-
Protect and serve ::) >:( >:(
In my eyes this is manslaughter.
The poor bugger was walking away at the time.
He was not been aggresive or a threat to anybody.
Harwood was on nothing more than a power trip hideing behind his warrent card >:(
-
Aside from the unhappy circumstances which led to Ian Tomlinson's death (and the reason for the OP), from a policing perspective mass demonstrations are incredibly difficult to control - a fact that the organizers often exploit to cause as much conflict as possible with the authorities.
The police response to these demonstrations is necessary for the maintenance of good order and public safety: Oftentimes things go wrong – badly wrong as in this case – but these demonstrations must be controlled, not to do so would be an abrogation of police responsibly and an invitation to anarchy.
So, while condemning the action taken by Constable Harwood, I am mindful of how easily things can run out of control in such circumstances – the trick is to provide an environment where people have the right to demonstrate lawfully and in safety while ensuring that the gathering is not hijacked by any organized group intent on an entirely different agenda.
-
Was it proved that the man died directly from being shoved to the ground though? It was an assault yes, but was it responsible for killing him?
The finding by the inquest jury;
3.42pm: The court was caught unaware by the jury's quick decision. They returned to the room and answered four short questions, known as the inquisition.
What was the name of the deceased?
Ian Tomlinson.
What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease?
Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver.
If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances?
Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings ... This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily.
The jury said both the baton strike and the push were "unreasonable".
"As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death." The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and "posed no threat".
What is the jury's conclusion as to the death?
Unlawful killing.
Thanks to:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/may/03/ian-tomlinson-inquest-verdict-live-blog
When I was in uniform I policed civil disturbances many times the complexity and violence of that demonstration and I can say that I would have found it impossible to justify the assertive action Constable Harwood sadly decided to employ against Ian Tomlinson.
im pretty sure that if you assult someone and they die then it is murder. and ihere is a time line to determin this within the written law.
the pc should be dismissed and imprisoned.
-
im pretty sure that if you assult someone and they die then it is murder. and ihere is a time line to determin this within the written law.
the pc should be dismissed and imprisoned.
The purpose in the inquest is to determine the circumstances surrounding the death if the deceased.
In this matter, as the Attorney General has decided Constable Harwood has a case to answer in the death of Ian Tomlinson, he will be tried in a Criminal Court on the most appropriate charge.
Insofar as to whether a murder charge is justified, that is questionable as it would have to be shown (realistically) that Constable Harwood had the intent to kill or visit grievous bodily harm upon Ian Tomlinson for all the constituent parts of the definition of Homicide to be satisfied.
-
Was it proved that the man died directly from being shoved to the ground though? It was an assault yes, but was it responsible for killing him?
The finding by the inquest jury;
3.42pm: The court was caught unaware by the jury's quick decision. They returned to the room and answered four short questions, known as the inquisition.
What was the name of the deceased?
Ian Tomlinson.
What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease?
Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver.
If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances?
Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings ... This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily.
The jury said both the baton strike and the push were "unreasonable".
"As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death." The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and "posed no threat".
What is the jury's conclusion as to the death?
Unlawful killing.
Thanks to:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/may/03/ian-tomlinson-inquest-verdict-live-blog
When I was in uniform I policed civil disturbances many times the complexity and violence of that demonstration and I can say that I would have found it impossible to justify the assertive action Constable Harwood sadly decided to employ against Ian Tomlinson.
im pretty sure that if you assult someone and they die then it is murder. and ihere is a time line to determin this within the written law.
the pc should be dismissed and imprisoned.
Only if your INTENTIONS are to kill, is it murder.
If you end up in a fight, for whatever reason, and after punching someone they fall and hit their head on kerbstone and die.... did you intend to KILL them? No..
But that person still died and someone is responsible, ie YOU. In this case it is manslaughter, you killed someone, but not intentionally.
Murder is pre-planned, you attack someone with a knife and you kill them......etc
-
im pretty sure that if you assult someone and they die then it is murder. and ihere is a time line to determin this within the written law.
the pc should be dismissed and imprisoned.
The purpose in the inquest is to determine the circumstances surrounding the death if the deceased.
In this matter, as the Attorney General has decided Constable Harwood has a case to answer in the death of Ian Tomlinson, he will be tried in a Criminal Court on the most appropriate charge.
Insofar as to whether a murder charge is justified, that is questionable as it would have to be shown (realistically) that Constable Harwood had the intent to kill or visit grievous bodily harm upon Ian Tomlinson for all the constituent parts of the definition of Homicide to be satisfied.
Sorry Den, I jumped in on your response! Apologies :-[
-
im pretty sure that if you assult someone and they die then it is murder. and ihere is a time line to determin this within the written law.
the pc should be dismissed and imprisoned.
The purpose in the inquest is to determine the circumstances surrounding the death if the deceased.
In this matter, as the Attorney General has decided Constable Harwood has a case to answer in the death of Ian Tomlinson, he will be tried in a Criminal Court on the most appropriate charge.
Insofar as to whether a murder charge is justified, that is questionable as it would have to be shown (realistically) that Constable Harwood had the intent to kill or visit grievous bodily harm upon Ian Tomlinson for all the constituent parts of the definition of Homicide to be satisfied.
Sorry Den, I jumped in on your response! Apologies :-[
No need to Vipe - your view is as valid as mine. 8-) :y
-
im pretty sure that if you assult someone and they die then it is murder. and ihere is a time line to determin this within the written law.
the pc should be dismissed and imprisoned.
The purpose in the inquest is to determine the circumstances surrounding the death if the deceased.
In this matter, as the Attorney General has decided Constable Harwood has a case to answer in the death of Ian Tomlinson, he will be tried in a Criminal Court on the most appropriate charge.
Insofar as to whether a murder charge is justified, that is questionable as it would have to be shown (realistically) that Constable Harwood had the intent to kill or visit grievous bodily harm upon Ian Tomlinson for all the constituent parts of the definition of Homicide to be satisfied.
Particularly relevant in this case is that when the environment is one of general pushing and shoving who can say that the push/shove that was videoed was the one that triggered the collapse? There is no footage (to my knowledge) that shows Tomlinson over the preceding 5 minutes for instance.
Tricky. I just hope the people on here who've already condemned Harwood aren't on the jury. :(
-
im pretty sure that if you assult someone and they die then it is murder. and ihere is a time line to determin this within the written law.
the pc should be dismissed and imprisoned.
The purpose in the inquest is to determine the circumstances surrounding the death if the deceased.
In this matter, as the Attorney General has decided Constable Harwood has a case to answer in the death of Ian Tomlinson, he will be tried in a Criminal Court on the most appropriate charge.
Insofar as to whether a murder charge is justified, that is questionable as it would have to be shown (realistically) that Constable Harwood had the intent to kill or visit grievous bodily harm upon Ian Tomlinson for all the constituent parts of the definition of Homicide to be satisfied.
Particularly relevant in this case is that when the environment is one of general pushing and shoving who can say that the push/shove that was videoed was the one that triggered the collapse? There is no footage (to my knowledge) that shows Tomlinson over the preceding 5 minutes for instance.
Tricky. I just hope the people on here who've already condemned Harwood aren't on the jury. :(
That's right Chris, it's very easy to develop an opinion on the immediacy of evidence - especially video evidence - but that opinion may well be premature or prejudiced as the historical facts, in this case the hours beforehand, are a crucial part of the process when deciding the fate of an accused person and to ensure that the most appropriate charge is placed before him/her/it.
-
i hope he gets locked up and gets whats comeing to him inside when a few of the bods hes nicked get hold of him
-
Aside from the unhappy circumstances which led to Ian Tomlinson's death (and the reason for the OP), from a policing perspective mass demonstrations are incredibly difficult to control - a fact that the organizers often exploit to cause as much conflict as possible with the authorities.
The police response to these demonstrations is necessary for the maintenance of good order and public safety: Oftentimes things go wrong – badly wrong as in this case – but these demonstrations must be controlled, not to do so would be an abrogation of police responsibly and an invitation to anarchy.
So, while condemning the action taken by Constable Harwood, I am mindful of how easily things can run out of control in such circumstances – the trick is to provide an environment where people have the right to demonstrate lawfully and in safety while ensuring that the gathering is not hijacked by any organized group intent on an entirely different agenda.
P.C harwood is a thug in a riot suit...as a officer of the law you have to use reasonable force...how is it D.D reasonable to hit and push some walking away from you..we have all seen the video of the incident and at no point did harwood use reasonable force...i understand policing a violent demo is difficult but how hard is too understand someone walking away from you does not pose a threat.... :y
-
Aside from the unhappy circumstances which led to Ian Tomlinson's death (and the reason for the OP), from a policing perspective mass demonstrations are incredibly difficult to control - a fact that the organizers often exploit to cause as much conflict as possible with the authorities.
The police response to these demonstrations is necessary for the maintenance of good order and public safety: Oftentimes things go wrong – badly wrong as in this case – but these demonstrations must be controlled, not to do so would be an abrogation of police responsibly and an invitation to anarchy.
So, while condemning the action taken by Constable Harwood, I am mindful of how easily things can run out of control in such circumstances – the trick is to provide an environment where people have the right to demonstrate lawfully and in safety while ensuring that the gathering is not hijacked by any organized group intent on an entirely different agenda.
P.C harwood is a thug in a riot suit...as a officer of the law you have to use reasonable force...how is it D.D reasonable to hit and push some walking away from you..we have all seen the video of the incident and at no point did harwood use reasonable force...i understand policing a violent demo is difficult but how hard is too understand someone walking away from you does not pose a threat.... :y
Yes I do agree that it is difficult to understand Constable Harwood's motivation for his chosen course of action - I certainly can't, based on what I saw in the video news reports.
The constable embarked on a course of action for which he will now have to answer in a criminal court.
We have witnessed, in this incident and many other recent incidents, a side of modern policing which dismays me.
I became a police officer to help people, not to hurt them, I wanted to uphold the law, not to break it - it now seems that some police officers aren't particularly concerned about either consideration when in the discharge of their duties.
Make no mistake, policing in today’s society is very difficult - but whatever the extenuating circumstances, the integrity of the law and of those who discharge it is of paramount importance and few circumstances excuse crossing the Rubicon of fairness, impartiality and honesty in how we, as police officers, behave in the course of our duties.
-
the problem is once some put the uniform on they think they are above the law and i have to say that is the mind set of most of city of london police :y
-
I think we need to ask questions what was he doing there. 'Normal' people wouldn't be around the front of the police line during a major demonstration, so I think the police in the front line have every right to be on edge.
The clips we have seen are a few seconds. We have not seen what happened before. Was there another argument? Who knows. The media tend to be sensationalist, and thus give a very one sided view.
If it was unprovoked - as yet unknown, as we dont have the full story - then the PC involved needs further investigation... ...remember most of us wouldn't be prepared to stand up in front of a raging mob, hell bent on criminal damage, and potentially violence towards the police. Of course, adraneline will be sky high.
If necessary, through the book at him once all the facts are known - but how can we call him what we are until we have the facts?
-
the problem is once some put the uniform on they think they are above the law and i have to say that is the mind set of most of city of london police :y
That's just a wee bit of a generalisation to be a reasonable statement TAM.
I became a police officer to help people, not to hurt them, I wanted to uphold the law, not to break it
I'm not entirely alone in these sentiments and, while there are well documented cases where police action or their behaviour was found to be lacking, I would have to say that the police officers holding true to my sentiments far outnumber those who disregard them.
-
the problem is once some put the uniform on they think they are above the law and i have to say that is the mind set of most of city of london police :y
That's just a wee bit of a generalisation to be a reasonable statement TAM.
I became a police officer to help people, not to hurt them, I wanted to uphold the law, not to break it
I'm not entirely alone in these sentiments and, while there well documented cases where police action or their behaviour was found to be lacking, I would have to say that the police officers holding true to my sentiments far outnumber those who disregard them.
Agree wholeheartedy with your comments and, in particular, the section highlit.
The press is a mean arbiter of justice. As often said, in many a diverse circumstance, why let truth get in the way of a good story.
That said, I hope that the subsequent judicial proceedings take all factors into account (pre, during and post event) and not simply the sound/video bite that the masses appear to be using to conduct a full judicial review........ ::)
-
the problem is once some put the uniform on they think they are above the law and i have to say that is the mind set of most of city of london police :y
That's just a wee bit of a generalisation to be a reasonable statement TAM.
I became a police officer to help people, not to hurt them, I wanted to uphold the law, not to break it
I'm not entirely alone in these sentiments and, while there well documented cases where police action or their behaviour was found to be lacking, I would have to say that the police officers holding true to my sentiments far outnumber those who disregard them.
Agree wholeheartedy with your comments and, in particular, the section highlit.
The press is a mean arbiter of justice. As often said, in many a diverse circumstance, why let truth get in the way of a good story.
That said, I hope that the subsequent judicial proceedings take all factors into account (pre, during and post event) and not simply the sound/video bite that the masses appear to be using to conduct a full judicial review........ ::)
Indeed so B - I have no doubt that if either of us were back on uniform duty today, we would find it challenging - to say the least.
-
the problem is once some put the uniform on they think they are above the law and i have to say that is the mind set of most of city of london police :y
You've clearly interviewed 50% in depth? Or did they just volunteer that information? ;D ;D
Pardon me, 51%.
-
I have watched the event several times..
police action is from behind.. and from experience in those events police reaction has the meaning stay away.. but instead of a simple pushing, there was more than that we can see as the period takes longer for the man to go down, although the moment blocked by some crowds..
this can not be defined as murder in our laws , but causing death because of over reactions.. if he was here he would have a few years in prison.. and need to pay for the mans family..