|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Jul 22, 2010 16:30:41 GMT 1
Just got home and put on the news, and to my complete disgust found there will be no charges against the police officer who murdered the innocent by stander during the G20 protest, what an absolute joke.
If the Met are not shooting innocent men on the underground they are attacking them from behind, yet you can be dragged in front of the courts for so much as looking at a police officer the wrong way.
And people wonder why the contempt and anger towards the police continues to grow!!
Rant Over
|
|
|
Post by Dancin on Jul 22, 2010 16:38:23 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 16:46:06 GMT 1
although it may not be possible to determine an exact cause of death, it seems a pretty straight forward case of police brutality. seems there was use of unnecessary force. something should be done even if its not a murder inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by Fingers on Jul 22, 2010 16:53:09 GMT 1
although it may not be possible to determine an exact cause of death, it seems a pretty straight forward case of police brutality. seems there was use of unnecessary force. something should be done even if its not a murder inquiry. Agree with this, although not a coroner I would be inclined to believe the push did not lead to his death. However there is definitely a case for police brutality here.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 22, 2010 17:23:31 GMT 1
if anything it should be a manslaughter as i doubt the policeman had intent to kill. was there an underlying illness that was contributory? is that even how it works?
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Jul 22, 2010 17:32:19 GMT 1
if anything it should be a manslaughter as i doubt the policeman had intent to kill. was there an underlying illness that was contributory? is that even how it works? The thing that p**ses me off the most is that the officer is not even facing a single charge or for that matter any disciplinary proceedings, he is basically been told he has done nothing wrong!! The CPS and the Met quite clearly feel his behaviour is acceptable, the officer is nothing more than a coward and a bully who used his badge as protection, unfortunately like a growing number of the Met Police seem to do
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jul 22, 2010 19:00:31 GMT 1
Strong words DBTH Not taking sides on this one but why use words like coward and bully? Were you there? Do you know the exact circumstances ? An unfortunate accident ? Strong words indeed
|
|
|
Post by ambergambler on Jul 22, 2010 19:04:12 GMT 1
For every bad copper theres 99 more trying to do a very difficult job...... DIFFICULT TIMES WERE LIVING IN.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Jul 22, 2010 19:37:12 GMT 1
What would have happened if the protester had pushed over the officer and later he had died ? Hmmm, food for thought.
At the very least, it would atleast be something if the police provided some sort of apology for the way the man was treated, even if it had nothing to do with his death (let's remember though that it wasn't proven either way ).
The public don't want policemen who behave like thugs. If they can't remain calm under pressure then they're in the wrong job.
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Jul 22, 2010 19:42:14 GMT 1
Strong words DBTH Not taking sides on this one but why use words like coward and bully? Were you there? Do you know the exact circumstances ? An unfortunate accident ? Strong words indeed What other words describe someone who attacks someone from behind then hides behind his badge to escape any punishment, coward and bully will suffice IMO. I would also agree that 99% of police do a brilliant job which makes it even more imperative that when the rotten ones surface the full weight of the law is brought down on them. The bottom line is an innocent man lies dead yet no one seems to be responsible, surly this cant be right?
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jul 22, 2010 20:12:56 GMT 1
Strong words DBTH Not taking sides on this one but why use words like coward and bully? Were you there? Do you know the exact circumstances ? An unfortunate accident ? Strong words indeed What other words describe someone who attacks someone from behind then hides behind his badge to escape any punishment, coward and bully will suffice IMO. I would also agree that 99% of police do a brilliant job which makes it even more imperative that when the rotten ones surface the full weight of the law is brought down on them. The bottom line is an innocent man lies dead yet no one seems to be responsible, surly this cant be right? Innocent man dead eh? So all of you have the full facts on this case do you? Sad for the person who is dead but do you know his life story? Whilst sad when anyone dies if you knew more facts you might not have the same view?
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jul 22, 2010 20:40:46 GMT 1
The Officer can not face criminal charges for common assault as the charging standards state cases of this nature expire if no charges brought within 6 months of the incident. The manslaughter charge was dropped as there was no chance of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the shove directly caused the injury which led to his death. We all have our own opinions of what happened, but I'm sure none of us are posessed of the full facts. The crux of the matter is whether the officer was justified in using force in the line of carrying out his duty...and whether the level of force was proportionate. From what I understand, Mr T had been ordered to move on, and was for want of a better word 'dawdling' .. something a lot of people actually do as a passive way of sticking two fingers up to the bobby who's just asked you to go away. Prior to this he had been bitten by a police dog, and struck by a batton, both of which are considerably more forceful than a push - personally, if I had been bitten by a dog and hit by a batton, I wouldn't be hanging around for more. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but before we all start throwing the custard around, lets just try and stand in the shoes of that officer at that time. No doubt he has spent most of the day dealing with many testing confrontational situations, and where normally this level of use of force would have been at the very lower end of the scale, sadly for Mr T it was perhaps a level he could not sustain, given his underlying medical conditions. Is the officer not still suspended, pendinga police disciplinary investigation. "We now await the IPCC's investigation report before being able to carefully consider appropriate misconduct proceedings," he said. Deborah Glass, from the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said the circumstances of Mr Tomlinson's death will now be "rightly scrutinised" at an inquest. She said: "We will provide a report on the officer's conduct to the Metropolitan Police within the next few days. "The Met will need to provide us with its proposals regarding misconduct."
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jul 22, 2010 20:44:01 GMT 1
The Officer can not face criminal charges for common assault as the charging standards state cases of this nature expire if no charges brought within 6 months of the incident. The manslaughter charge was dropped as there was no chance of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the shove directly caused the injury which led to his death. We all have our own opinions of what happened, but I'm sure none of us are posessed of the full facts. The crux of the matter is whether the officer was justified in using force in the line of carrying out his duty...and whether the level of force was proportionate. From what I understand, Mr T had been ordered to move on, and was for want of a better word 'dawdling' .. something a lot of people actually do as a passive way of sticking two fingers up to the bobby who's just asked you to go away. Prior to this he had been bitten by a police dog, and struck by a batton, both of which are considerably more forceful than a push - personally, if I had been bitten by a dog and hit by a batton, I wouldn't be hanging around for more. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but before we all start throwing the custard around, lets just try and stand in the shoes of that officer at that time. No doubt he has spent most of the day dealing with many testing confrontational situations, and where normally this level of use of force would have been at the very lower end of the scale, sadly for Mr T it was perhaps a level he could not sustain, given his underlying medical conditions. Is the officer not still suspended, pendinga police disciplinary investigation. "We now await the IPCC's investigation report before being able to carefully consider appropriate misconduct proceedings," he said. Deborah Glass, from the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said the circumstances of Mr Tomlinson's death will now be "rightly scrutinised" at an inquest. She said: "We will provide a report on the officer's conduct to the Metropolitan Police within the next few days. "The Met will need to provide us with its proposals regarding misconduct." Stop being logical and let the rabbits chase the wolves...
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Jul 22, 2010 20:44:57 GMT 1
agree complete disgrace. You could write a very large book of similar cases over the last few years. the CPS and the so-called Independnet Police Complaints Authority are in the pocket of the police. as someone else said, if the protester had assaulted and pushed over the copper and he had died, you could bet your mortgage that he would have faced charges.
Its the many episodes like this, that actually lead people to idolise Moat for taking on the police, no matter how misguided he was.
|
|
|
Post by keithyshrew25 on Jul 22, 2010 20:56:28 GMT 1
Moat was an idiot, a disturbed idiot but an idiot nevertheless. No amount of discontent with the police in civilised society can justify what he did
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jul 22, 2010 21:12:18 GMT 1
You could write a very large book of similar cases over the last few years. Its the many episodes like this, that actually lead people to idolise Moat for taking on the police, no matter how misguided he was. The book would make for very short reading, judging by my brief trawl of Google... And I think it's Joe Average's misunderstanding of the Lawful Use of Force, coupled with disaffected sections of society; lack of decent education; unemployment; and poverty which lead some to idolise Mr Moat. 2007: PC Anthony Mulhall, 43, was investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission last year after he was caught on CCTV hitting 20-year-old Toni Comer repeatedly in the arm as he and other officers attempted to arrest her outside a Sheffield nightclub.
He was cleared of any wrongdoing.
He was put on desk duties for his own protection after footage of the incident was shown on television.
Comer later admitted causing criminal damage and was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £250 compensation.
The cost of some investigations...are they often proportionate?? PC Mulhall died on Snowdon after taking sleeping tablets, an inquest was told.
Dewi Pritchard-Jones, the coroner, sitting in Caernarfon, was told that PC Mulhall could have taken 96 Nytol tablets and a quantity of gin. The coroner said that PC Mulhall could have gone to Wales to commit suicide but recorded a verdict of death by natural causes, as the PC was already suffering from pneumonia
|
|
|
Post by SY3 on Jul 22, 2010 21:39:33 GMT 1
I disagree with a murder or manslaughter charge regarding this incident. However the copper decides to use force when it's clearly not needed. I feel the copper needs to be disciplined or make a grovelling public apology. The public need to have confidence in the police and this type of incident without action has the opposite affect.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jul 22, 2010 22:50:14 GMT 1
i dont know the facts but i saw it with my own eyes
i'd say i saw a case of manslaughter
saying that i think there was a similar case at minsterley a year or 2 ago that ended up in a similar outcome
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jul 22, 2010 23:08:00 GMT 1
Whatever your view of the police, I don't think there's any denying something stinks about this particular case.
It seems the (willful?) incompetence of the IPCC and the legal time limit on common assault prosecutions have denied the family of Ian Tomlinson any modicum of justice.
There is also no defending the false report of the incident initially given to the public by police or, if there account is to be believed, the way Tomlinson's family were misled by police.
I would agree that vast majority of police are decent men doing hard jobs, but this whole affair stinks to high heaven.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jul 22, 2010 23:28:58 GMT 1
The crux of the matter is whether the officer was justified in using force in the line of carrying out his duty...and whether the level of force was proportionate. From what I understand, Mr T had been ordered to move on, and was for want of a better word 'dawdling' .. something a lot of people actually do as a passive way of sticking two fingers up to the bobby who's just asked you to go away. He lived not far from the scene of the incident and was making his way home, he wasn't a protestor. The idea that he was dawdling to annoy police is pure supposition that there doesn't appear to be any grounds for. The actions of said officer would have been unjutifiably disproportionate even if he were. Perhaps if you'd been bitten by a dog, t**tted round the leg with a batton you wouldn't have the choice. It's hardly ideal preparation for a sprint, is it? Underlying medical conditions that may have precluded hot footing it home as an option? MartinB, why would you need to know Tomlinson's life story to form an opinion on this. And why is it relevant? I'm sure you must hold views on things of which you are not privy to all the evidence. Our country's military adventures in Iraq, for example?
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 23, 2010 0:14:12 GMT 1
The crux of the matter is whether the officer was justified in using force in the line of carrying out his duty...and whether the level of force was proportionate. From what I understand, Mr T had been ordered to move on, and was for want of a better word 'dawdling' .. something a lot of people actually do as a passive way of sticking two fingers up to the bobby who's just asked you to go away. Prior to this he had been bitten by a police dog, and struck by a batton, both of which are considerably more forceful than a push - personally, if I had been bitten by a dog and hit by a batton, I wouldn't be hanging around for more. "We now await the IPCC's investigation report before being able to carefully consider appropriate misconduct proceedings," he said. "The Met will need to provide us with its proposals regarding misconduct." i dont know anything about police procedures, but i have been involved in a fair amount of control and restraint in mental health and learning difficulty work. if somebody is not complying with your wishes, the control of force is key. the actions of the policeman(admittedly from one angle only) was in no way controlled. he was expressing his inability to deal with the situation by meeting out punishment . the police arent here to punish us, whatever the provocation. and yes, the vast majority of policemen and women are good people working hard, but every time we have a case like this it obscures them. fair play needs to be seen to be done
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jul 23, 2010 7:48:19 GMT 1
I to fail to see what his previous life story has to do with this case. If he'd been a professional middle-class gent would Martin's attitude been different? Mr Tomlinson's back was turned and he was walking away from the Police line, surely any threat he may have posed had ceased? Any serving or ex-serving member of the Armed Forces who has done guard duty in the UK will understand the RoE, doesn't something similar not apply to the Police? If not, why not? I clearly remember watching the video of Mr Tomlinson walking away from the Police line. There were officers directly behind him. The Police officer in question came from a different part of the line and shoved him over, then scuttled back to his part of the line, like a coward would. You decide www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-g20-death-videoMaybe he the officer didn't cause his death, but surely there is a case for excessive force? Also this argument about the stress and strain that the officer may have been under doesn't hold any weight. He showed a lack of disincline and is probably not up to the job. Maybe he should be a doorman or a steward down the NM. Also, maybe riot police should stop covering their faces.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jul 23, 2010 20:22:05 GMT 1
I to fail to see what his previous life story has to do with this case. If he'd been a professional middle-class gent would Martin's attitude been different? Mr Tomlinson's back was turned and he was walking away from the Police line, surely any threat he may have posed had ceased? Any serving or ex-serving member of the Armed Forces who has done guard duty in the UK will understand the RoE, doesn't something similar not apply to the Police? If not, why not? I clearly remember watching the video of Mr Tomlinson walking away from the Police line. There were officers directly behind him. The Police officer in question came from a different part of the line and shoved him over, then scuttled back to his part of the line, like a coward would. You decide www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-g20-death-videoMaybe he the officer didn't cause his death, but surely there is a case for excessive force? Also this argument about the stress and strain that the officer may have been under doesn't hold any weight. He showed a lack of disincline and is probably not up to the job. Maybe he should be a doorman or a steward down the NM. Also, maybe riot police should stop covering their faces. If I had a major heart condition and you came you made me jump with fright and I had a heart attack and died, should you be charged with murder or manslaughter? Also would you be surprised if a known football hooligan was treated differently to you or I at a football match where there was trouble kicking off?
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jul 23, 2010 20:47:11 GMT 1
I to fail to see what his previous life story has to do with this case. If he'd been a professional middle-class gent would Martin's attitude been different? Mr Tomlinson's back was turned and he was walking away from the Police line, surely any threat he may have posed had ceased? Any serving or ex-serving member of the Armed Forces who has done guard duty in the UK will understand the RoE, doesn't something similar not apply to the Police? If not, why not? I clearly remember watching the video of Mr Tomlinson walking away from the Police line. There were officers directly behind him. The Police officer in question came from a different part of the line and shoved him over, then scuttled back to his part of the line, like a coward would. You decide www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-g20-death-videoMaybe he the officer didn't cause his death, but surely there is a case for excessive force? Also this argument about the stress and strain that the officer may have been under doesn't hold any weight. He showed a lack of disincline and is probably not up to the job. Maybe he should be a doorman or a steward down the NM. Also, maybe riot police should stop covering their faces. If I had a major heart condition and you came you made me jump with fright and I had a heart attack and died, should you be charged with murder or manslaughter? Ridiculous comparison. How about 'if you had a heart condition and I assaulted you then you had a heart attack and died'? Is there any evidence that police were acting on intelligence that Tolmlinson was a danger to public or their own safety? Or are you just inventing hypothetical ficitions and using them to put this officer's actions in the best possible light? If you see someone being assaulted in the street do you think 'Ah, well , I don't know all the facts here, the chap on the receiving end could well be a mass paedophile terrorist working for Al Qaeda and Gary Glitter for all I know and is probably deserving of a shoe-ing?' No. But shove the assailant in a police uniform and suddenly you're willing to entertain all manner of outlandish hypothetical scenarios to excuse such behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jul 23, 2010 21:00:58 GMT 1
This thread is certainly guilty of the glib use of emotive language... Shrewsace, I did not see Mr T get a good 'Shoe-ing' ... although I guess the term has subjective meaning. Mr T was just prior to this incident stood next to a police marked van using foul and abusive language directed at the officers therin, and was drunk. Not saying this excused anyones actions, but he was also certainly not the innocent by stander who was conducting himself in a wholly whiter than white manner. Changing the tact slightly on this topic, rather than simply concentrating on Mr T, looking at the methods employed by the UK police nationwide to control public order situations, do we really live life under the blue cosh? Have we really got it so bad in this country? Yes we do have arguably the finest police service in the world, a statement a good number of posters may scoff at, so has this high standard meant that we micro-analyse every bad decision or contentious situation? I'm all in favour of bringing to justice those who overstep the mark, those who abuse their power, but I certainly sense that in broad terms, a wide number of people firmly believe that bobbies like nothing better than to rough people up, and that they do this on a regular basis...!
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jul 23, 2010 21:02:27 GMT 1
I to fail to see what his previous life story has to do with this case. If he'd been a professional middle-class gent would Martin's attitude been different? Mr Tomlinson's back was turned and he was walking away from the Police line, surely any threat he may have posed had ceased? Any serving or ex-serving member of the Armed Forces who has done guard duty in the UK will understand the RoE, doesn't something similar not apply to the Police? If not, why not? I clearly remember watching the video of Mr Tomlinson walking away from the Police line. There were officers directly behind him. The Police officer in question came from a different part of the line and shoved him over, then scuttled back to his part of the line, like a coward would. You decide www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-g20-death-videoMaybe he the officer didn't cause his death, but surely there is a case for excessive force? Also this argument about the stress and strain that the officer may have been under doesn't hold any weight. He showed a lack of disincline and is probably not up to the job. Maybe he should be a doorman or a steward down the NM. Also, maybe riot police should stop covering their faces. If I had a major heart condition and you came you made me jump with fright and I had a heart attack and died, should you be charged with murder or manslaughter? Also would you be surprised if a known football hooligan was treated differently to you or I at a football match where there was trouble kicking off? Martin, awful comparisons and what's your point? Why would I want to make a total stranger jump and I've been to enough football matches to know that all football supporters can be treated like e regardless who or what you are. Some good reporting in the Times today about this case. The on-line version is here, though you will have to pay for access to the actual stories. www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/sitesearch.do?querystring=ian+tomlinson§ionId=342&p=tto&pf=allYou allude to issues in Ian Tomlinsons life before the incident, it appears the officer in question had issues as well. I get the impression that the general consensus is that the officer had a charge to answer.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jul 23, 2010 21:07:04 GMT 1
This thread is certainly guilty of the glib use of emotive language... Shrewsace, I did not see Mr T get a good 'Shoe-ing' ... although I guess the term has subjective meaning. OK, if you must focus on semantics, how about if I edit it to this: If you see someone being assaulted in the street do you think 'Ah, well , I don't know all the facts here, the chap on the receiving end could well be a mass paedophile terrorist working for Al Qaeda and Gary Glitter for all I know and probably deserves it'. Doesn't alter the point I was trying to make.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jul 23, 2010 21:15:05 GMT 1
Mr T was just prior to this incident stood next to a police marked van using foul and abusive language directed at the officers therin, and was drunk. Not saying this excused anyones actions, but he was also certainly not the innocent by stander who was conducting himself in a wholly whiter than white manner. But that is not the point, when he was assaulted he posed no threat. Also, why wasn't he arrested ? Section 5 would have covered it. I have two very good friends who are serving officers, my brother is a CSO and my wife used to work for West Mids police. They've all told me that these Territorial Support Units and the such like are all manned by officers who don't mind a bit of a ruck and are know to be the more aggressive officers. The Territorial Support Units of the Met have been investigated as being too aggressive. Over 200 complaints had been brought against the unit and only 83 investigated after the G20 march, none have brought any disciplinary action. So either they are whiter than white or it's a cover up, it depends how you view the justice system in this country on what you want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jul 23, 2010 21:22:42 GMT 1
Thanks Shrewsace, I wasn't intimating that you should change your point. In all, my only aim has been to try to shed light that in life things aren't always black and white... Nicko, I hear what you're saying. My point is that public perception seems to be earing on the side of the negative towards the police in general; they can not be all things to all people. Maybe this is the problem, that they have become responsible for too much. If we devided the 'force' into sections similar to how the French system works, would this appease the critics? For example, cut away completely the TSUs from the rank and file police, call them something different, and give them different, more robust powers? Or keep their powers the same, and limit the powers of the rank and file? How should we manage large-scale public disorder? Internationally, most countries use very offensive methods usually left to the military...
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jul 23, 2010 21:37:38 GMT 1
Nicko, I hear what you're saying. My point is that public perception seems to be earing on the side of the negative towards the police in general; they can not be all things to all people. Maybe this is the problem, that they have become responsible for too much. If we devided the 'force' into sections similar to how the French system works, would this appease the critics? For example, cut away completely the TSUs from the rank and file police, call them something different, and give them different, more robust powers? Or keep their powers the same, and limit the powers of the rank and file? How should we manage large-scale public disorder? Internationally, most countries use very offensive methods usually left to the military... If public confidence in the police is low then incidents like the Ian Tomlinson and this: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/officers-claim-they-dont-need-law-to-stop-photographer-taking-pictures-2012827.htmlaren't going to help. Training, improved discipline and making sure that officers are mentally able to carry out duties like TSU are what's needed and the CPS having the balls and letting a jury decide if a criminal act had taken place. As for your last point, we don't need the Army on the streets. Remember the hunt for Roal Moat and the loan of armoured vehicles from NI?
|
|