Poll: manslaughter...
- Thread starter thedelightfulme
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It doesn't matter what he was saying, he was assaulted from behind when he was clearly no threat to anyone. The police then lied to try and cover it up; they victimised themselves.Snoopster said:
We have legal rule: you take your victim 'as you find them'. It doesn't matter whether he head a condition or not - he was the victim of an unprovoked assault by a police officer while on his way home from where he worked. Couple this with other bits of footage showing police assaults on protestors, yes protestors, this was not a riot, and you get a better conducted crowd than police officers.
The policeman should definitely be charged, without a doubt. Whether he should be convicted is the debatable question, but the people most qualified to decide that will be the jury.
People seem to forget that the court system is the process by which we decide these questions, not via the media. If you think a court ruling is unjust based on what you saw in the news, in most cases you would probably think differently if you had been on the jury.
To engage in just a little speculation, though: you should take into account whether it was reasonable for the police officer to expect that his actions would harm the victim. If the overwhelmingly likely outcome of shoving a person to the ground was that the person would come to little harm (and police officers are no doubt taught about these things), then the fact that the man did die doesn't necessarily make the policeman guilty. Think of the action outside the context of a protest: if a basketballer knocked another player to the ground while doing a layup and the other player hit his head and died, the player who knocked him couldn't have been expected to foresee that happening, so he shouldn't be convicted of a crime. It's not a perfect analogy, of course, because the policeman did engage in a form of assault, but it's worth considering.
People seem to forget that the court system is the process by which we decide these questions, not via the media. If you think a court ruling is unjust based on what you saw in the news, in most cases you would probably think differently if you had been on the jury.
To engage in just a little speculation, though: you should take into account whether it was reasonable for the police officer to expect that his actions would harm the victim. If the overwhelmingly likely outcome of shoving a person to the ground was that the person would come to little harm (and police officers are no doubt taught about these things), then the fact that the man did die doesn't necessarily make the policeman guilty. Think of the action outside the context of a protest: if a basketballer knocked another player to the ground while doing a layup and the other player hit his head and died, the player who knocked him couldn't have been expected to foresee that happening, so he shouldn't be convicted of a crime. It's not a perfect analogy, of course, because the policeman did engage in a form of assault, but it's worth considering.
Why is the cop pushing him referred to as an attack? it clearly wasn't, from what I?ve read about the case, the guy was a long term alcoholic who had just left rehab, the man who came forward with the pictures showing the actions of Tomlinson in the hours before the incident clearly show him drunk and harassing the police, not exactly the brightest idea in the middle of a massive protest.
At the very start of the video you can see Tomlinson get pushed by a different cop, which suggests to me that he was intentionally trying to aggravate the police, the officer who floored him obviously ran out of patience and pushed him, that?s all just pushed not 'attacked' the guy fell over which arguably caused his death. In any case the cop had no intention of killing him he was okay immediately after the incident which suggests to me that his death was an accident and no the officer shouldn't be charged with manslaughter.
As a side note I?ve noticed how no one has come out praising the officers who tried to revive him when he later collapsed whilst being pelted with bottles by rioters, obviously because stories about officers doing their duty in the face of aggression doesn't sell papers.
At the very start of the video you can see Tomlinson get pushed by a different cop, which suggests to me that he was intentionally trying to aggravate the police, the officer who floored him obviously ran out of patience and pushed him, that?s all just pushed not 'attacked' the guy fell over which arguably caused his death. In any case the cop had no intention of killing him he was okay immediately after the incident which suggests to me that his death was an accident and no the officer shouldn't be charged with manslaughter.
As a side note I?ve noticed how no one has come out praising the officers who tried to revive him when he later collapsed whilst being pelted with bottles by rioters, obviously because stories about officers doing their duty in the face of aggression doesn't sell papers.
How could the officer defend himself with that argument? Mr Tomlinson was just standing there, as seen in the video, and was attacked without provokation. Since he did nothing wrong or unlawful, then the officer cannot use judicial killing as a defence because he had no right to attack someone who was operating within the law. The officer should be charged, since he did kill an innocent passer-by and your defense argument would be quashed instantly in court.Archaon6044 said:
The question wasnt about police in general. Its about whether this one officer should be charged. The officer's attempts to revive him, are brave attempts. But saying that, the fact that their attempts were attacked by rioters, surely that should go to the inquest? Who's to say that in their haste the officers werent to rough and caused internal bleeding?jimborious said:
thats something the press over looks though. I hate the press.
Wrong. He was doing anti-riot maneuvers on a man he thought was part of a protest/riot that he was sent explicitly to contain. I'm as against police brutality as anyone else (Esp. In a country with unarmed citizens) but to say this officer acted outside the law is just flat out WRONG.beddo said:
And even if what he did was outside of the law, he pushed the guy to keep the police line moving forward for the kettle maneuver to close in more. That wouldn't be a valid excuse for acting outside the law by the way, I'm just saying that he knocked the guy down to carry out procedures and enforce the law. Wrong on both of your damn points.
Manslaughter sounds like a big much to me. Hit hit him low with the intent to move him, not kill him. I am completely unversed in British law, however, so I don't really know the nuances at work here. I'd say punish him at least though.
In the UK we have policing by consent. In other words the police are servants and not masters. This is why the official policy on policing demonstrations is under examination.Danzaivar said:
He knocked a man down who had his hands in his pockets and who was not a part of the protest. If you see the video you can see that he's not a protestor. Irrespetive the law garuntees freedom of movement and the right not to be arbitrarily detained which is essentially what kettling is. So far this has not been upheld by the UK courts however, the case is still to be heard before the EU.
In any case the video quite clearly demonstrates that he pushed the man over for no reason. Had he wanted to 'kettle' the man he should have asked him to move first rather than applying brute force from behind without warning. The action was clearly an unreasonable use of force and was not enforcing the law.
This is because there is no law that states it is the duty of police officers to 'kettle' the public. Just because it has not been outlawed does not imply that it is something to be enforced by the police. Thus, he cannot reasonably claim that it was valid police enforcement.
If he could show this then he would not have been suspended and certainly not being considered for a manslaughter charge. His behaviour was unacceptable, if the police cannot abide by simple laws themselves and instead engage in unnecessary violence that results in death then how are they any different from criminals?
The police are never entitled to act outside of the law which applies equally to them and the public. If they cannot abide by the law then who are they to enforce it?
If you see the video that's just seconds longer you'll see that the police repeatedly shoved him and (looked as if) they shouted at him to move, you can't say "the video quite clearly demonstrates that he pushed the man over for no reason" when the video is a few seconds long, it's completely out of context.beddo said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8000641.stm
This policeman didn't decide with his evil police friends to do it, it's a valid tactic that the police routinely use to control crowds. The man was doing his job. His duty isn't to kettle the public, but it IS their job to protect the public, and kettling is a good way to ensure a demonstration is kept away from the general public (A riot through London would leave a damn sight more than 1 dead).
His suspension and investigation are just routine for a police incident that leaves a person dead, he won't get charged with manslaughter, for the same reason the guy who shot that de-meneze guy on the tube wasn't charged. They're just doing their job but they need to make sure that the correct processes were followed. If he's found to be in violation of that he'll lose his job (and have his career destroyed), but that's about it.
Read the BBC article, kettling is (for now) still a valid crowd control method, they didn't act outside the law. You can blame the system, but the policeman was just doing his job.
Based on the "he should have asked him to move first rather than applying brute force from behind without warning" part however I'm guessing you haven't really looked at this and are just giving your knee jerk response, or getting a point about police brutality out of your system or something. *Shrug*
[Edit: Even in OP's video, if you look at the 8-10 second point you can see in the corner of the screen that the policeman with the dog shoves at the guy. The movements when it goes back to newspaper-man you can see another officer stepping back too, they either shoved him or was signalling to their murdered mate 'push him like that, and he'll die!'. I know which one seems more reasonable to me.]
He wasn't even a protester! He was just on his way home, minding his own business.SODAssault said:
A statement from the officer leading the IPCC investigation contradicts this. Also new footage shows several seconds before being approached by the line of police one of whom ends up hitting him and pushing him over, he is just standing around doing nothing.Danzaivar said:
