Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
thus spake the inquest into his death
you can't hush this up!
I hope the family are successful in future civil action and get some money out of this.
I personally didn't see why there couldn't have been criminal charges against the officer but police so yeah.
So we may see a prosecution yet.
I'm not confident this will ever result in a conviction though. CPS has a lot to answer for.
"The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, made it clear last year that the decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the death of Mr Ian Tomlinson would be reviewed in light of the evidence heard at the Inquest. That review will now take place and will be thorough. It will take into account all of the evidence now available, including any new evidence that emerged at the Inquest, the issues left by the Coroner to the jury and the conclusions they reached. The review will be conducted as quickly as is compatible with the care and rigour required in a thorough exercise. It accords with our usual practice and the Attorney General's review into deaths in custody published in 2003."
I hope he gets charged
The original coroner's verdict looks schonky too
I really hope the family get justice
and that the MET and TSG stop treating ordinary citizens as THE ENEMY
that sounds reasonable
Yes they should
No they shouldn't, that's just absurdly vindictive
Your last statement - oh dear
where are you getting this from?
the officer also hasn't been convicted of anything yet. i realise he probably should and almost certainly never will be. even if he was, this doesn't look like 'murder.'
and saying you want him dead? wtf
it doesn't even entail 'killings' let alone murder and manslaughter.
Manslaughter, maybe, but not murder. And I'm not sure that personally bankrupting him would be the best outcome, no.
(well i'm certainly not). but you want him to go *bankrupt* which seems very like revenge. is it? what if he has a family? why do you want to destroy his life? do criminals not deserve rehabilitation and the opportunity to make good of their lives etc? it's just a downright terrible idea.
if you're extending my point to cover prison, that's kinda absurd. i don't know if you know how anti-prisons i am but i'm pretty anti-prison (it's a last resort and nothing else). i'm not gonna try to rule on whether i want this guy locked up cause i know so little of the circumstances. what i will say is punishing someone by taking away everything he owns, making him unable to provide for his children is not the same as sending someone to prison. i know how destructive prison can be for families but this damage is a byproduct. a pretty bad one yes but not part of the punishment itself. bankrupsty totally is (the court could pretend to be blind to the family situation but they would know full well they were punishing his family too).
if you want punitive damages, they'd have to be in proportion to personal wealth otherwise it's not an equal punishment.
and no, nothing will ever resitute something like this. cause you can't bring someone back from the dead.
you're only seeing it as a byproduct because you're choosing not to take account of the family unit. assuming he has any children, they're his dependents not just his descendants. children can't earn a living, they rely enirely on their parents for their livelihood. so the only reasonable way to view them in the equation is to give regard to their welfare. i'm not against doing this when sentencing either (and it even happens in some cases). but sometimes prison is unavoidable. taking everything from a family is not unavoidable. prison may well harm a family more than bankrupsty but they're conceptually very different.
i take issue with you saying the punishment is that the individual 'owes' money too. that's a weird way of looking at it, certainly in our legal culture. i mean i'm not just rejecting the idea of punitive damages per se. just that someone automatically 'owes' anything and that there is a definite quantum. case by case basis, guidelines, judicial discretion, that's all ok. i'm not comfortable with the idea of families 'owing' eachother stuff in criminal/public law.
there is a finality to a court's decision. their decision isn't predetermined by pure reason or something. you're only saying the only person who is making them live off benefits is the killer because you think the court should have to order full compensation. but their hands are not tied. they can decide otherwise.
yeah it's a shame that victims of crime go uncompensated. but that's just another reason why criminals are dickheads. it's not 'because' of the killer's personal circumstances but rather 'because' we, as a society, don't punish in this manner. and im glad we don't.
Don't get your point. I'm not talking about all private/civil matters here. Just against excessively punitive and exemplary damages. Whether other forms of damages have the undesired side effect of bankrupting the respondent and his family is kinda immaterial to my point.
And yeah obviously *I'm* saying the judicial system ought to care about Simon Harwood's personal circumstances insofar as he has a family who depend on his financial support. *You* don't seem to care about that. So we value different things.
And a jury would probably decide on the appropriate compensation amount (can be, and has been, overturned when they make it too £££££££££££££££££££££££)
I know I've said it already but I think bankrupsty is a really innapropriate way of administering justice. Imagine what the world would look like if every time someone was convicted of a crime, he had to give all of his property to his victim(s). Very, very, very unequal society right there.
it was making think of Banksy
I agree just chucking loads of money at it seems almost insensitive too cause it's looks like the law is missing the point about exactly why losing a loved one is bad.
But if families want to pursue an aggressive form of litigation where they get as much as possible out of someone (especially where it's corporate) then I say good luck to them. Maybe money will ease some peoples' pain or sense of injustice. It's not my place to judge them for that. It's my place to be their lawyer and make a lot of money.
I'm a good person.
but i can accept it if the family want to be the ones pursuing it privately. In many other cultures (many Asian cultures come to mind), this kind of restorative justice is the norm and I wouldn't want to enforce my own sense of right and wrong on to them or to judge them.
It's a very interesting topic for me too and extends to pretty much all compensation and the principle of 'fault' being at the root of compensation. There's school of thought which advocates a system whereby we are given 'compensation' according to need and not whether our injury is as a result of fault (intentional or unitentional). The essential point is, and you've touched on it already, that one *expects* to live a certain way and it's the thwarting of this expectation that gives rise to a right to be compensated. which is indeed a bit arbitrary - e.g. why should someone who is injured at work have to *prove* is was a result of negligence, when either way, he's gonne be disabled for the rest of his life and needs compensation? NZ has a sort of no-fault public insurance system.
more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atiyah%27s_Accidents,_Compensation_and_the_Law
why should someone who is disabled from birth have any less money than someone who is injured by another party? there's simply no moral justification for it.
A tinny and a bag of Wotsits?
given their responsibilities they should be subject to increased penalties for abuse of those responsibilities
yeah lets go strip the man who pushed a man that accidently ended in his death (it was an accident, the police push people all the time, especially if you're stupid enough to walk in front of a line of riot police, just this time it ended wrongly) of all his money. Yeah the world isnt perfect but lets not jump over the middle ground and let one moment of stupidity stop the man from ever getting back on his feet again (the policeman, metaphorically)
This happened in London, not LA.
You're just using it because it sounds more extreme.
It wouldn't make it justified in any way. But it would give backing to the police claim that he was ignoring requests to move on quicker, prompting Harwood to take (highly inappropriate) action.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
You quoted a verbal use of it, you can tell by the word 'to' at the start.
i know he had been working, but he looks hammered from the way he walks and doesnt really do much to break his own fall, and he was an alcoholic.
police (and anyone) shouldn't be needlessly shoving an innocent man. and eggshell skull rule etc.
He wasn't responding to police requests. If it's because he was too plastered to realise what was going on around him then it's a different case to someone needlessly shoving an innocent man.
And factors like that have been considered. He was unlawfully killed.
Just wondered if anyone knew as I cant be arsed trawling through all the shit about the case. Not baiting, just want to know whether he was drunk or not.
Wilful ignorance, deafness, intoxification, confusion, lack of comprehension. The simple fact is that the action which was taken to deal with him was not proportionate to teh risk that he posed. Some people might have walked away with a mere scratch. IT sadly didn't, and the law oprotects vulnera\ble people like this by means of the 'thin skull' rule, which means that you take your victim as you find them, so long as there is a link between your action and teh outcome.
Therefore, his inebriation or otherwise isn't really an issue.
they AAAAlll float down here
Can everyone stop assuming that I think he deserved to die because he was drunk? Cheers.
Like 4 or 5 times, or something.
He was reputedly an alcoholic, and had been for a number of years As such, I'd expect his tolerance to be pretty high, so I'm not sure that 5 times over the limit (which is what- 6 or 7 drinks?) woudl necessarily render him blootered in the way it might you or I. (well- not me. I'm well hard, innit.)
Four times over the limit is approximately 6-7 pints right? Fair amount for anyone. Just seems to be a point that is ignored in a lot of the reporting of this, even hidden by stating that he was 'attempting to get home from work'.
by giving a more accurate, overall picture is responsible journalism, how dare they!
Moreover, it does not impact on the salient question, i.e. was the use of force disproprtionate to what the situatoin demanded. (That answer of course being FUCK YES.) Even if he was falling about singing 'I belong to Glesga', that still in no way makes the physical treatment he received from the police any better. In fact, if anything you might argue we owe a higher duty of care to somebody in an inebriated, falling abut state, and it serves to highlight a vulnerablility which- had it been apparent- ought to have been clocked by any half observant officer at the scene.
a statement from Jenny Jones, a Green party member of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
"Ian Tomlinson's family must be relieved to finally have public recognition of the fact that he was unlawfully killed. But the question remains as to when PC Harwood will face the consequences of what he has done. There simply has to be a prosecution to bring him to justice.
We have so often seen the police appearing to get away with serious assault or even manslaughter. From Blair Peach to Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson's death must not join that list."
making statements in which the culpability of Police is demanded
I told one that in 1987, we had a bloody good laugh about it afterwards though, but not after he had given me the kicking of a lifetime! Lesson learned. I never said that to them after that, just did it.
but its pretty unhelpful to lay the entire blame at his feet and not look at the root cause of this death i.e. indiscipline and brutality when policing protests/riots
More focus on that please
because a collective unit is collectively responsible and admission of guilt or a prosecution of an individual is ultimately the liability of a chain of command (though not in exceptional circumstances of course)
I think therefore that a prosecution of the individual in this case would actually benefit closer scrutiny of the whole procedure of particularly TSG policing but also policing in general where 'public order' is concerned
which is why the above statement of Jenny Jones is such a positive developement
did that actually happen
consider innocents who are killed by forces that are greater then they, then you get a sort of natural righteous anger.....which is why we have a justice system that is meant to do the punishing for us (in a reasoned cold blooded sober frame of mind) because otherwise we would have blood feuds all over the place.
So yes some prosecution is necessary.
However what happened was ABH followed by death which might make it manslaughter....but the thing is that the coroners have totally buggered up the reliability of that in effect.
So what do we need from this? well if Harwood is not to be the only scapegoat then it would need Harwood to be prosecuted for something...if some people want to go easy on him then it should only be with the mitigating reason that his burly approach is regularly used by some police....in which case policing methods should be scrutinised and censured?....perhaps re-education of police over various levels of policing.....it would also need that the method of engaging coroners and their relationship to the police should be re-examined....and the original coroner should be tested for competance or bias.
The wierd thing is.....for me the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, was exactly that....murder.....except the individual policeman might not have been responsible....its an awkward situation to be sure, but Im baffled as to why there was no trial for his murder (the defendant should have been the methods and strategies and protocols used by the police in this circumstance)
What was the verdict on Jean Charles de Menezes's death? how can it be anything other than murder......i.e. he was inoocent, he was deliberately killed with no reason other than him being mistaken for someone else.....is this a valid reason or excuse?
Just checked...apparently his inquest was an 'open verdict' ...i have no idea how this can be an open verdict....the facts are plain....he was innocent, he was not given a chance to escape his brutal vicious death handed to him by extremely burly operatives who shot him 7 times in the head turning it into unrecognisable mush.....the public witnessed all of this and cctv confirmed that initial authority reports were factually significantly different to what had occured.
Apparently his family eventually got a little over 100k in compensation (plus costs)
I am moved very much by his innocence and his extremely brutal end, and the shoddy way that the british authorities have behaved towards his family, and yet I would only 'try' the systems and methods that were employed.....I would expect large scale reorganisation to make elements of the justice system more independant....for instance even the coroner reported that the man had vaulted over the ticket barrier (he was told by police).....this must make one question whether the coroner in the tomlinson case could have been led to believe that tomlinson was a 'wrong un' and that it would be a shame for the policeman to suffer cos of a 'freak coincidence'.....i think that the inadequecies of the system in these two cases shows that the coroners MUST be entirely independant from the police.....although it is normally useful as they might be trying to piece together evidence for a case against a third party...it is wholly inappropriate when investigating deaths from the police
they do not have salivary glands and cannot produce spit
I'll stop posting after this
so I understand how you feel moved to the hyperbole you are using in this thread.....the others should realise that it is to sate and soothe the indignation others feel when hearing of such unlawful killings, I understand that your feelings are based on natural human empathy, and as such the justice system should do the necessary to try to ensure that there is a deterent (or change in methods) to make repetitions less likely
(different statute of limitations, I presume).