• Welcome to the new B.I.R.D. Forum. Please be sure to read the "New Member / New Registered ? Please Read" thread in the Coffee Shop. This contains some important information. To become a full member ( £5.90 a year ) simply click on your user name near the top on the right I hope you enjoy the new site ................ Jaws ( John )

Police Officer Pushes Man Over Who Then Dies

  • Thread starter firebladetrev
  • Start date
derek kelly

derek kelly

The Deli lama
Club Sponsor
Murt said:
if found guilty of an offence (Manslaughter?) he will lose all of his pension rights and his payments into the fund.

Murt
Click to expand...

I thought that this was no longer the case, several years ago we had a Welsh police sergeant who killed his wife, he placed her body in her mini & pushed it into a lake, the case made big news at the time.
Whilst he was in Wakefield Prison he fought & won the right to keep his pension rights. didn't stop him getting booted out of the Masons though.
 
S

SteveP-J

Guest
derek kelly said:
I thought that this was no longer the case, several years ago we had a Welsh police sergeant who killed his wife, he placed her body in her mini & pushed it into a lake, the case made big news at the time.
Whilst he was in Wakefield Prison he fought & won the right to keep his pension rights. didn't stop him getting booted out of the Masons though.
Click to expand...

Pretty much it these days. It is very, very rare that the Police Authority will remove pension entitlements!
 
Murt

Murt

Letch
Yes, I agree, it is up to the Police Authority, but in this case. . ???

I know of a Sgt (Midlands I think) who was done for misconduct in public office (Drugs going missing and re sold) and he is now out, and has no pension at all (Think he went down for three years).
Funnily enough, he sells motorbikes now.

Murt.
 
Centaur

Centaur

Site Pedant
Club Sponsor
Murt said:
Yes, I agree, it is up to the Police Authority, but in this case. . ???

I know of a Sgt (Midlands I think) who was done for misconduct in public office (Drugs going missing and re sold) and he is now out, and has no pension at all (Think he went down for three years).
Funnily enough, he sells drugs now.

Murt.
Click to expand...

Drugs, bikes.....same thing!:-0)
 
R

rovinghawk

Registered User
My concern is that Patel's autopsy will taint the evidence despite his proven inability to carry them out properly & the fact that he should never have been involved.

I look forward to a fair trial and for justice to be done.

RH
 
J

jontheone

Guest
is there a jury going to be found that hasnt heard, seen or read any of the coverage of this case that hasnt made up their minds before they hear the "evidence"
everyone is entitled to a "fair" trial. or has he already been found guilty. he did strike the blow. does that make him guilty of manslaughter or just assault. if he is tried for manslaughter i predict he wont get convicted of this, only for assault. no-one could expect a strike like that to kill someone, and i mean no-one. it is certainly a strike to a non dangerous area. i kick people harder and with a heavier weapon each week at kickboxing and no-one has died yet.
one thing is for certain.
he will lose his job
 
H

HondaJon

Guest
jontheone said:
is there a jury going to be found that hasnt heard, seen or read any of the coverage of this case that hasnt made up their minds before they hear the "evidence"
everyone is entitled to a "fair" trial. or has he already been found guilty. he did strike the blow. does that make him guilty of manslaughter or just assault. if he is tried for manslaughter i predict he wont get convicted of this, only for assault. no-one could expect a strike like that to kill someone, and i mean no-one. it is certainly a strike to a non dangerous area. i kick people harder and with a heavier weapon each week at kickboxing and no-one has died yet.
one thing is for certain.
he will lose his job
Click to expand...

Whether he meant to kill Tomlinson doesn't matter and we can be fairly sure that he did not intend to kill him.

There are two parts to this, 1. the strike with the baton, 2. the shove in the back that caused him to fall over and hit his head - it's this that I assess to be the issue. If the shove was the cause of Tomlinson's death, and the shove was unlawful, then it's manslaughter. See the link posted by bishbosh and my earlier two-penneth.

Whilst just pushing someone might seem minor compared with getting larruped with a truncheon, it's the consequences that are important for manslaughter.
 
Duck n Dive

Duck n Dive

Rebel without a clue ...
Club Sponsor
jontheone said:
..... he did strike the blow. does that make him guilty of manslaughter or just assault. if he is tried for manslaughter i predict he wont get convicted of this, only for assault. no-one could expect a strike like that to kill someone, and i mean no-one. it is certainly a strike to a non dangerous area.
Click to expand...

Folks have been convicted before when they've punched someone on the nose etc (or any non-dangerous area!) and the person fell over, struck their head and were injured fatally as a result.

:dunno:
 
derek kelly

derek kelly

The Deli lama
Club Sponsor
Duck n Dive said:
Folks have been convicted before when they've punched someone on the nose etc (or any non-dangerous area!) and the person fell over, struck their head and were injured fatally as a result.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

My eldest brothers mate, John Saltmarsh, in the 70's had exactly this happen, John had started work at Leeds uni same time as my brother, he was walking his girlfriend home when a coach full of rugby supporters passed them, a group of so called Leeds RL (pre Rhino days) emerged & began throwing stones at the bus smashing windows & injuring several people inside, John grabbed hold of one of the scrotes who then took a swing at John, John hit back & the guy fell into the road & cracked his head on the kerb, John ended up inside, he later won his appeal (after about 3 years) but his career at the uni had gone, unfortunately my brother lost touch with him so don't know how he ended up.
 
J

jontheone

Guest
i only comment on experience.
about 10 yrs ago, a couple of years apart, 2 of my friends punched people once to the head. both men died. both were tried in court for manslaughter at different times, both offences treated as unprovoked "unlawful" assaults, different judges.
both were convicted of assault. not manslaughter.
both tried at crown court.
 
B

bishbosh

Guest
The main difference at the G20 is that whether the push by the officer was lawful in the context of the situation. Thinking of the video, after he pushed Mr Tomlinson over the police line he was in stopped so there was not much need to clear him out of the way faster than he was walking, but the attack by the dog does give reason he was too close to the line.

I predict the officer will be given the benefit of the doubt over the lawfulness of the push, what that implies in terms of charges I don't know.
 
R

rovinghawk

Registered User
bishbosh said:
The main difference at the G20 is that whether the push by the officer was lawful in the context of the situation.
Click to expand...
He shoved a man (whom he agreed was no threat) from behind with sufficient force to knock him to the ground. It could be argued that the man was already unsteady on his feet due the baton strike, again from behind on a man who was no threat. What context makes this lawful, especially as the coroner ruled that it was an unlawful killing?

RH
 
Duck n Dive

Duck n Dive

Rebel without a clue ...
Club Sponsor
Whatever we might think ... the correct way for it to be handled is for a court to decide.

That is the proper way for our justice system to work.


To my mind that's one of the current problems with our justice system.


We have ample and sufficient laws for most situations .. but we've "annexed" the administration of justice by creating a CPS that actually "decides" guilt or not long before court.


Our justice system was designed that the court/jury make that evaluation - i.e. judge throws out case early on if obviously no substantial evidence otherwise the court process prevails and jury etc decides.


We now have a system where for economic purposes a group of administrators decide only to prosecute those whom they think are cost-effective to prosecute.

i.e. if they not almost certain of a prosecution don't bother and save the money.

That's why we end up with cases never being tried which many ordinary folks (remember .. they're the people who make up the jury-ordinary folks!) think should be tried.


OK .. courts possibly being very busy/costing more can't be ignored ... but our neat solution is to make the decision based on costs.


I feel that's why many folks can't undertand some CPS decisions and why the police seem to be fed up with it as well.



Rant Over ..... :-0) s04pb0x6
 
B

bishbosh

Guest
rovinghawk said:
He shoved a man (whom he agreed was no threat) from behind with sufficient force to knock him to the ground. It could be argued that the man was already unsteady on his feet due the baton strike, again from behind on a man who was no threat. What context makes this lawful, especially as the coroner ruled that it was an unlawful killing?

RH
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't follow the coroner case.

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner it says "The coroner's verdict sometimes is persuasive for the police and Crown Prosecution Service"

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_killing is says "It is important that the inquest does not name any individual person as responsible."

Still the officer is not quite banged to rights, let's hope he does the honorable thing at the hearing.
 
H

HondaJon

Guest
jontheone said:
i only comment on experience.
about 10 yrs ago, a couple of years apart, 2 of my friends punched people once to the head. both men died. both were tried in court for manslaughter at different times, both offences treated as unprovoked "unlawful" assaults, different judges.
both were convicted of assault. not manslaughter.
both tried at crown court.
Click to expand...

It would fall to whether it could be proved that the punches caused the deaths.

The prosecution might've accepted guilty pleas to the lesser offence to save dragging through a trial. It happens.
 
R

rovinghawk

Registered User
It's now at the Old Bailey.

I look forward to both the verdict and the ratio decidendi (judge's comments/reasons).

RH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top