Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"

[Barking_Mad]

this is what it boils down to.

A child will tell you what happened is wrong, but it takes an adult to explain it away.

 

[Barking_Mad]

And they wonder why people cheered when Moat shot a copper.

Sad but true.

 

[gavman]

Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.

"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html

Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.

yup, he certainly deserved to die. one wonders what all the fuss is about- the daily mail were good enough to tell us that he was a homeless at the time, yet still people bang on about it. the police should really be rewarded and encouraged to do this sort of thing more often

 

[detective-boy]

You're getting caught up in bullshit technicalities (aka legalise), and completly ignoring the crime that has taken place.

No. I'm explaining the law and the need for evidence to prove a case. That is not "bullshit technicalities (aka legalese)".

 

[gavman]

Sadly, there's almost no likelihood of a hat dinner for you. There'll just be bullshit about how it wasn't intentional, and how the officer (and all his fellows who covered up for the sack of shit) has had "words of advice".

or asked to 'reflect on his actions' like the lunatic who tried to strangle me

 

[detective-boy]

i suppose the cut off for violent disorder's passed as well

but what about conspiracy to commit violent disorder?

Violent disorder is an indicatble offence and so not subject to any Statute of Limitations.

The CPS statement did not specifically say that they considered it as an alternative ... but there would be significant issues in pursuing it as an alternative to a manslaughter or assault charge which could not be pursued for evidential reasons. You would also have evidential issues in showing that there were "three or more persons ... using or threatening unlawful violence". The use of some force by the police would be perfectly lawful.

 

[gavman]

Yes, it seems the medical experts couldn't agree.

it seems the medical panel was designed not to agree. freddie patel was a known incompetent who could only be guaranteed to make his usual hash of things. a perfect choice for a cover up

 

[detective-boy]

You pointed me in the direction of it:

That is not a difference in the LAW ... that is a difference in the situation and, hence, the EVIDENTIAL issues which need to be addressed. The law is exactly the same.

 

[butchersapron]

That is not a difference in the LAW ... that is a difference in the situation and, hence, the EVIDENTIAL issues which need to be addressed. The law is exactly the same.

So what you say is meaningless then - there is no added burden to charge the police at all. Or is there? If there is then there is an informally different operation of law.

 

[gavman]

Well the first post mortem was carried out by Dr Freddy Patel, a doctor currently facing charges of misconduct in 4 other post mortems and currently barred from performing autopsies in cases of suspicious deaths. Hardly a credible doctor, the second found it was a result of intermnal bleeding and the third has never been made public. So, we don't actually know what 1 of the doctors thought, another is currently awaiting charges of misconduct and may do so over this autopsy. So we're left with public knowledge of the one citing internal bleeding....

c4 news reported today that the second two autopsies concurred that the death was as a result of trauma resulting from falling on his elbow / being struck

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'm not saying that the CPS "had" to make the decision. I'm not sure they're saying there is anything that meant they "had" to make the decision. They have made a decision which they are obliged to make and they have explained the rationale for it.

They had to make a decision (that's what obliged means, compelled by law, arrangement custom or necessity). They certainly weren't obliged to make the decision they did. The rationale is clearly questionable; indeed to many it seems perverse. Let's hope that this decision does get reviewed, that Tomlinson's family get the circumstances of his death discussed in open court and that the criminal justice system has a long hard look at how it works and who it works for.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

No. I'm explaining the law and the need for evidence to prove a case. That is not "bullshit technicalities (aka legalese)".

You're not though. You're defending a specific decision.

 

[detective-boy]

You can explain to me your legalise and in its narrow remit it might be completely correct ...

I have not explained that what happened is "correct". I have explained the legal and evidential issues which led the CPS to decide that no charges should be brought. There are lots of occasions where things that are "wrong" happen but it is not possible to pursue criminal charges (see fatal road traffic collisions ad nauseum). From the outset I have said that in my view the use of force appears to be excessive but to form a definite opinion I would need to know what had happened in the few seconds / yards prior to it being used. From the statement of the CPS today it does not seem that there is anything in those few seconds / yards to justify it as "lawful, reasonable and necessary".

 

[gavman]

No reason why the Tomlinson family - or other persons - can't bring a private prosecution, is there?

just one. money

 

[xes]

From the video

THE CPS CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT THE POLICE OFFICER ASSAULTED OUR DAD
[]
THE CPS Have accepted that the conduct of the OFFICER WAS UNLAWFUL.
[]

he got off on a stupid technicality. The law's an ass.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

That is not a difference in the LAW ... that is a difference in the situation and, hence, the EVIDENTIAL issues which need to be addressed. The law is exactly the same.

Only if you limit your definition of the law to the words on the page rather than legislation plus process, organisation and context. Any individuals experience of the law will be shaped by these factor as well as the words on the page. What people here are expecting is that the very different position of a police officer musn't lead to very different outcomes; if they do (as appears to be the case here...I'm not going to knock over a police man to prove my point) then the criminal justice system is damaged.

Louis MacNeice

 

[gavman]

It's isn't just an appalling stitch up, it's taking the family and entire public to be mugs. To treat everyone as irrelevant cunts and to just not a give a flying fuck for what anyone else thinks.

there is some breathtaking arrogance doing the rounds. as far as the courts are concerned, the police are untouchable. this isn't a very good idea as people will start to take matters into their own hands.....

...and they wonder why a despicable character like moat can gain massive public support.....

 

[butchersapron]

Only if you limit your definition of the law to the words on the page rather than legislation plus process, organisation and context. Any individuals experience of the law will be shaped by these factor as well as the words on the page.

Louis MacNeice

Experience should teach that all law is supposed to be applied equally but isn't in practice (writing the law treats everyone equally does not make is so) - indeed that implicit understanding underlay the assumptions of DB's posts that i replied to. He has obv become so used to operating on those assumptions that he can longer even see them.

 

[detective-boy]

So what you say is meaningless then - there is no added burden to charge the police at all. Or is there? If there is then there is an informally different operation of law.

No there isn't. The law is the law. The evidence available in any particular case, and the difficulty in overcoming THE SAME evidential burdens in any particular case, are different and rely on the facts. In this instance the point I am making is that for a use of force to amount to a criminal it must be UNLAWFUL (or, if lawful, to be excessive, beyond what is "reasonable and necessary"). In a case where the defendant has a lawful reason to use force you need to adduce evidence to show that the force used was excessive. That is usually the case where the force is used by a police officer as in most cases (including here) they would say that they had a lawful reason to use SOME force. In a case where the defendant has NO lawful reason to use force you do NOT need to adduce evidence that the force used was excessive as ANY use (or even threat) of force would amount to an offence. That would usually (or at least very often) be the case where the force was used by a member of the public on another person (whether police officer or not).

 

[Kaka Tim]

Can we get Detective Boy to blow his top and flounce off again?

All he is doing is spewing of fog of legalese in a clear attempt to obscure the only reasonable conclusion from this case - that police in public order situations can get away with anything, no matter what the evidence, becasue they will collude with the rest of the criminal justice system to ensure that they will never be convicted.

The sick reality is that part of the police's job is to use violence on behalf of the state agasint the public - so they have to be allowed to get away with going too far. Like the paras on bloody sunday.

Its laughable to try and argue that a ordinary member of the public who behaved in the same way would not be prosecuted. You would be charged with manslaughter as soon as the CPS could get the paperwork done.

 

[detective-boy]

You're not though. You're defending a specific decision.

... by explaining the law and the need for evidence to prove a case. No matter how much you dislike the decision that is NOT "bullshit technicalities (aka legalese)".

 

[butchersapron]

No there isn't. The law is the law. The evidence available in any particular case, and the difficulty in overcoming THE SAME evidential burdens in any particular case, are different and rely on the facts. In this instance the point I am making is that for a use of force to amount to a criminal it must be UNLAWFUL (or, if lawful, to be excessive, beyond what is "reasonable and necessary"). In a case where the defendant has a lawful reason to use force you need to adduce evidence to show that the force used was excessive. That is usually the case where the force is used by a police officer as in most cases (including here) they would say that they had a lawful reason to use SOME force. In a case where the defendant has NO lawful reason to use force you do NOT need to adduce evidence that the force used was excessive as ANY use (or even threat) of force would amount to an offence. That would usually (or at least very often) be the case where the force was used by a member of the public on another person (whether police officer or not).

I note your repeated 'usually', your assumptions of lawful use of force and declare game over. Your other circular logic aside of course.

 

[gavman]

So the 3rd autopsy agreed with the 2nd and this is not a reason to proceed with charges but, in fact, the key reason not to. That's amazing.

yes. perhaps we should adopt this system for medical opinions, and see how well that works. one incompetent gets to stop the whole process. genius

 

[butchersapron]

... by explaining the law and the need for evidence to prove a case. No matter how much you dislike the decision that is NOT "bullshit technicalities (aka legalese)".

You haven't done that. I'd have more respect for you if you did. Your explanations always equal defence of decisions already reached. They are reasons for those decisions being reached, not reasons why they might be dodgy.

 

[detective-boy]

he got off on a stupid technicality. The law's an ass.

In relation to a charge of common assault that is a valid comment.

In relation to the evidential difficulties of causation in relation to manslaughter it is not - the causation is way more than a "stupid technicality" - for the law to be otherwise you would be deciding criminal liability dependant on random happenchance - a tragic outcome would lead to culpability absolutely regardless of whether or not the actions of the defendant actually led to the tragic outcome.

This is a major issue with the media and the public - just because something bad has happened does NOT necessarily and of itself mean that anyone is criminally liable. Bad stuff happens and it is sometimes no-one's fault.

 

[detective-boy]

Only if you limit your definition of the law to the words on the page rather than legislation plus process, organisation and context.

The law is the law - a criminal offence has certain elements which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt to lead to a conviction - the "points to prove". In different circumstances (whether or not the police are involved) how easy / difficult it is to prove those elements varies widely. (In rape, for instance, it is infinitely easier to prove there was no consent in a violent, stranger attack than in a "date rape" case).

 

[gavman]

big question now is, what the fuck is done about this? We can't go on with such a blatently fucking corrput police force/judicianal system.

here fucking here

 

[butchersapron]

No, the law is not the law. You've just demonstrated why as have the CPS today. No one, i mean no one, believes this shit.

 

[detective-boy]

Its laughable to try and argue that a ordinary member of the public who behaved in the same way would not be prosecuted. You would be charged with manslaughter as soon as the CPS could get the paperwork done.

No. You wouldn't. If there were the same evidential issues in relation to causation there would be long delays whilst different PMs were arranged and meetings were held between experts to try and resolve issues, there may well not be charges of manslaughter and there certainly may not be convictions. I have dealt with dozens of cases in which that has been the case. Every senior investigating officer will tell you the same. They do not get major publicity (or any publicity at all). But they happen.

 

[fat Andy]

it seems the medical panel was designed not to agree. freddie patel was a known incompetent who could only be guaranteed to make his usual hash of things. a perfect choice for a cover up

I totally agree that this is a poor outcome and that in this case perhaps it should have been put before a jury, but comments like these weaken the arguement. Freddie Patel was contracted to carry out the postmortem examinations on behalf of the coroner who covers the City police area. The Met have not used him for years. I know its illogical and archaic but if the death had happened in Trafalagar Square, for example, there could have been a different outcome.