Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
I knew there'd be a logical explanation.
Cop who hit Tomlinson has a suspected heart attack
- Thread starter blues
- Start date
I knew there'd be a logical explanation.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Does 'deliberately dawdling' justify a violent and (given that Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets, his back to the attack and looked none too steady) potentially lethal assault though? Do they teach that at Hendon?
'If some random geezer gives cheek and/or isn't moving fast enough for your taste, feel free to attack him with your baton and charge him off his feet, if he dies you can be completely confident that the IPCC will lose the video and let you off, so get fucking stuck in there constable and let the soap dodgers know who's in charge ... '
Or to put it another way, what sort of previous exchange might have justified the attack that was made?
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
sorry in what way could he be guilty of man slaughter... let's not belittle this actions taken by officers on the day lead to this mans death. At any point any officer could have used common sense to say hang on this bloke clearly isn't part of the demo he's trying to get home and we won't hinder his progress.
when he's struck he's defenceless and not even facing the officer who attacked him had given no reason to be attacked therefore it's murder, plain and simple a premeditated act manslaughter my arse...
this killer cop should go to jail and if it's a white wash we should have our first lynching in some time.
It's about time that all police reaslise that their cosy bed fellows in govt cannot protect them from the public.
personally i'd rather see the little fucker dragged screaming from his house terrified and confused and strung from a lamppost this would at least give all police and politions cause for thought... and in some small way at least be a warning shot that unaccountable actions still have consiquences...
From my (limited) knowledge of the law though, it would have to be manslaughter unless there was an intention to kill - which no-one has suggested so far, hence why the only possible charge I've heard mentioned is manslaughter (murder has intent doesn't it & manslaughter doesn't ?)
Therein lies the issue... to get a murder charge would mean redefining what constitutes manslaughter & murder
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
The psychopath who beat up the woman has been suspended. God help any female partner he may have, let's hope she has good protective clothing and isn't late making the tea.
BBC still saying he "apparently" assaulted the victim.
NB: They dont say that protesters "apparently" smashed a window or Wayne Rooney "apparently" scored a goal.
They are cowardly and needless appeasers of state brutality.
The number to complain is 03700 100222 option 2. Be specific about where you heard /read the weasle words.
BBC still saying he "apparently" assaulted the victim.
NB: They dont say that protesters "apparently" smashed a window or Wayne Rooney "apparently" scored a goal.
They are cowardly and needless appeasers of state brutality.
The number to complain is 03700 100222 option 2. Be specific about where you heard /read the weasle words.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
If Tomlinson died of a heart attack brought on by the beatings due to a pre-existing medical condition, manslaughter would be the charge.
If he died of head injuries/other injuries as a direct result of the beatings, a murder charge should be brought. There does not need to be an intent to kill, only an intent to cause physical harm with a reckless indifference as to the consequences. That doesn't mean a murder charge would stick, but if it was an ordinary member of the public the CPS would usually charge with murder in the knowledge that the eventual conviction might well be manslaughter.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
Murder in UK law is:
The unlawful killing of a human being, under the Queen's Peace, with "malice aforethought"
not intent to kill intend to do harm which could kill.
driving at 80 into a school playground at play time = murder no intent to kill in the action just drive at 80 mph in a playground.
so murder.
manslaughter in UK law is:
Voluntary manslaughter is murder mitigated to manslaughter by virtue of the statutory defences under the Homicide Act 1957, namely provocation, diminished responsibility or suicide pact.
Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of another person whether by act or omission either while committing an unlawful act (known as constructive manslaughter) or by gross negligence.
however
English Law also allows for transferred malice. For example, where a man fires a gun with the intent to kill person A but the shot misses and kills an otherwise unconnected person B, the intent to kill transfers from person A to person B and a charge of murder would stand. The accused could also be charged with the attempted murder of A.
you might argue it's Involuntary manslaughter however one would suggest that rushing into a person with their back to you and whipping out a baton which wasn't previously involved in the interactions you had with a person to be murder as the 'malic aforethought' would be going for a weapon to further inflict damage on someone who you had reasonable expectation were not a threat to you.
so murder because the action was premeditated.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
damn my slow posting...
lol, but ta anyway ...
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
What a pity Old Bill doesn't practice what it preaches. But no, beat with the baton first, questions later.
Cretin.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
Finding it frustratingly hilarious that some R-tards appear to believe that the one, single abuse of police power on this demonstration happened to unwittingly lead to the death of a protester - confusing all perception of reality into a bundle of atomised mass coincidences. Do R-tards not think that it might be, perhaps, the fact that the protester died that this case of police brutality has been uncovered in the public eye? Do R-tards not think that this case of police brutality being brought to light somewhat strengthens the case that police regularly abuse their powers on demonstrations?
Oh, R-tards...
Oh, R-tards...
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
From a layman's understanding of English murder law:-
A homicide is murder if there's intent to kill or intent to commit Grievous Bodily Harm. Otherwise it's manslaughter, unless a) the officer didn't contribute to Mr Tomlinson's death, or b) the assault was lawful.
If the officer is guilty, he's done something very wrong, but there are degrees of wrongdoing. Murder is a uniquely selfish act. And please remember that the officer hasn't been found guilty of anything yet; he's presumed innocent until a jury convict him. Even if you disagree, your comments may fall foul of our sub judice laws. I wish we didn't have such laws, but we do for now.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
That's because "assault" is a legal term, and the BBC's lawyers aren't going to allow reporters to summarily judge someone's guilty; nor should they. So far as I'm aware the BBC haven't said the protestors accused of smashing the window are guilty of criminal damage. If they have, that's wrong.
As for Mr Rooney's goals, they're only criminal if you're in the title race.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
yes you are...
exactly what will it take for oyu to realise that this is a war and that you aren't on the currently winning side but will be placed in cattle trucks with everyone else unless you rise up?
when are oyu going to fucking wake up.
oh wait you think that appeasement of the tyrant is the way forward and that you've got nothing to fear cos you've nothing to hide...
let's just say that there won't be tears shed when you are spirted away from your doorstep in the middle of the night eh...
hiding retards behind a wacky kewl spelling is still using disablitiy discriminating language to denigrate people.
Don't do it. it gives no benefit to your argument which can be made without it....
erm post 160 read it, the stated reasons why it's murder and not manslaughter and STFU til you know what you're talking about layabout... in fact weren't you banned so are you a legit returnee or a sneaky illegal returning immigrant for else where...
so it's just an alledged rioter then?That's because "assault" is a legal term, and the BBC's lawyers aren't going to allow reporters to summarily judge someone's guilty; nor should they. So far as I'm aware the BBC haven't said the protestors accused of smashing the window are guilty of criminal damage. If they have, that's wrong.
As for Mr Rooney's goals, they're only criminal if you're in the title race.
or an alledged broken window etc...
it happen this is not in dispute the root cuase might be but then it's becoming more and more convincing that this was a systematic campagin of polical violence.
Indeed one could argue that such acts by the police could be seen as act's of terrorism under the recent amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. an attempt to directly influence or to exert a political action by act's of violence.
it'd be lovely to see the cops charged under terroism laws...
even thou i've seen asbestos coated snowballs in hell with greater chances...Absolutely.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
I've never been banned or suspended from Urban. I suspect you're confusing me with Azrael23, who does appear to have been banned. I don't know why as I've no connection with him. You'll have to ask a mod.
I read post #160. It appears to be incorrect. "Malice aforethought" is the name of the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary for a murder conviction. From Smith & Keenan's English law: "Murder is a crime which requires a specific intent … Moloney [R v Moloney, 1985]… decides that intent to kill and intention to cause grievous bodily harm are the only forms of mens rea for murder."
Are you a solicitor or a barrister, or do you hold a law degree? If not, then we're both laypeople. It appears that the law book backs my post. If you have a source that contradicts Smith & Keenan's, by all means post it up. There's no need for name calling.
If not, then I'd say it's unlikely that the officer in question intended to cause GBH to Mr Tomlinson, so manslaughter would be the correct charge, if any charge is to be made.
The act and the culprit are different things. The window was clearly broken; this isn't in dispute. Until someone is convicted, they're an alleged rioter. Strictly speaking, it should be alleged criminal damage, as theoretically a lawful excuse could be offered at trial. I imagine most people and news outlets don't apply the law that strictly.
Unless there's evidence that the police deliberately and systematically acted to suppress peaceful protest, alternative explanations, such as over-reaction, are available. I don't know if the Terrorism Act would apply. You'd have to ask a lawyer, but of course, chances of a prosecution under it would be remote, to say the least.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
That is for a court to decide.
If it turns out that Tomlinson died as a direct result of the assault, a murder charge has to be brought - just like it would be against a member of the public had they been videoed assaulting him minutes before he died. If intent is not proven in court, then the conviction would be for manslaughter - but it is routine to being murder charges in such cases to allow intent to be judged by a court. And rightly so.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Well, CPS to decide and a court to determine, but yes, you're right that murder shouldn't be ruled out if a prima facie case for it exists.
Of course, that case will be subjected to the "CPS tests", which would make it highly unlikely to reach the inside of a courthouse. But you never know.
What an ignorant clown you are.
Cattle trucks eh....You soppy ignorant twat.......And what are you basing that on eh?
No i dont think the appeasement of tyrants is the way forward......
But you know somewhat suprisingly some people would like to see the OB in question in charged but not with murder GLC......
Do you know why? Cos they think what he did was wrong and that the police should be accountable for their actions.......... But unlike a fantastic keyboard warrior and legal mind like yerself they think the charge and the action that led to Ian Tomlinsons death should be proportianate.
And many of them like me will take offence at what you said trying to turn this death into another crazy glc crusade.
Its nonsense to suggest that the UK is going towards a police state...Look at what happened to the young woman who threw custard all over mandelson..Did they lock her up throw away the key? Has she been disappeared? Do you know?
And look at the policing of things like the Miners strike and Poll tax at Trafalgar square.....Not notice any differences?
You probably dont you clown.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
If he died as a direct result of the injuries received, they have to prosecute for murder. They can't just say: "Oh, he told us he didn't mean to hurt him and we believe him so we won't be allowing a court to enquire into the events leading up to the assault in order to determine intent." It doesn't work like that. Well, it does if there's a cop to be believed, but still.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Or perhaps someone stuck a frozen cow-heart into a pillow case and battered the twat with it?
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
Or perhaps someone stuck a frozen cow-heart into a pillow case and battered the twat with it?
Mmmmmm, battered twat...
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
Do terriers wear hats?
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
No he doesn't.
There is far too much samey same on here.
Some posters appear to offer a useful counterpoint but. like derf on drugs, are really just pointless trolls or morons.
DB is very well informed on his topic, and (IMHO) goes beyond his own opinions to play an effective devils advocate when we degenerate into playground anti police antics.
Which we certainly do.
And, please note, I am very far from being a general supporter of either the idea or the fact of UK policing.
Especially one or two devious little cunts who will shortly have a career altering experience at the hands of a pro bono QC hahahaha.
Similar threads
