Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[tigers_gonads]

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 

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[omegadan67]

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.

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[blackviper90210]

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

[blackviper90210]

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 

[Dishevelled Den]

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-)

[Chris_H]

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.

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[sierrapaul]

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

[the alarming man]

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....

[Dishevelled Den]

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....

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 alarming man]

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

[TheBoy]

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?