• 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

Murt

Letch
Murt what i meant is you join the Police to do a job, if that job involves policing public order so be it. If that is a job that is needed to be done by the police it should not be a voluntary thing, all Police officers should be trained and then called in when needed. Much the same with the forces you join the forces and you do everything that is wanted of you, you don't get a chance to pick and choose. And a private / able seaman aged 18 is on a lot less than a Police Officer but they do as they are told. Sorry if i confused you.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not such a level playing field.

All officers should be given basic public order training.
That's linking arms, 'trudge and wedge' (moving into a crowd safely) and holding a shield and having blocks of wood chucked at you (unless H&S have put a stop to that as well).

Anything beyond that is only trained to specialist officers.

It's a bit like the Army. Everyone is trained how to march and fire a rifle.
But only some are trained how to disarm an IED, jump out of a plane (with a chute), or build a bridge. They get special training, and then specialise in that job.

Same in plod. Some train to use search dogs, some to drive traffic cars on a pursuit, others to do high level public order.

Murt.
 
F

firebladetrev

Guest
Yes they are paid to do a job, but not particularly well until they've been in a few years, and the caliber of officers is declining. It is now seen as a job rather than a career by many, and private sector work pays more, and is safer. Probably not as much fun though. And you won't see many career shift officers - many will do their best to jump ship to a specialist department as soon as their probationary period is up.

Private sector work may be safer but i do not know about paying more, i do not know what you have been reading. Police jump a pay point for every year of service private sector don't get this also they get a % pay rise which admitedly private sector sometimes get. A constable on starting is on ?23,259 and with 1 years service ?27,471 and with 10 years service ?36,519. Many private sector jobs do not even come close. A private in the army after training is on ?17265 and if you reach the dizzy heights of sergeant which takes at least 5 years you would be on ?32756. This is about the same as a police constable with 7 years service. Puts it into prospective about wages i would say. Also being a Police Officer is a lot safer than being in the Forces. Now i can imagine someone saying what i quoted earlier about knowing what people are getting into when they start a job, yes they do, forces people go to war so have a chance of getting killed. When i joined the RN back in 1978 i pledged that i would protect this country and all our sovereingty lands but forces today are not just doing this. I will end this post here because i do not want to veer away from the topic on this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

derek kelly

The Deli lama
Club Sponsor
Yes i understand that they cannot be trained to do every job and i am not suggesting that for one minute. But come on crowd control is basic policing and as such every police officer should be trained to a high standard in this field.

I don't believe that crowd control is basic policing, as a Prison officer we all have to be trained in basic control & restraint techniques but to attend riots we need to be trained in advanced techniques, the majority of Officers are not trained to the advanced level.

There are many different aspects to dealing with riots & I would imagine policing crowds is a similar thing, some people are trained as negotiators etc.

We as general public are entitled to our opinions however to expect all police officers to be trained to deal with any situation is expecting a tad much, they are human beings not super human.
 
H

HondaJon

Guest
I was under the impresion that MATES as you put it could not act as witnesses. The reason i say this is i was out on the bike a couple of years ago with 5 mates when a BMW started driving less that 1 foot off of my number plate and trying to run me off the road by driving alongside and and then changing lanes thus forcing me to do the same. We all pulled over, phoned the Police gave them the reg and they ask if there was any witnesses i said yes the 5 people riding with me and they told me they cannot use any statement by them as they are not independant.

Doesn't count for discipline hearings. All sorts of 'evidence' is admissible in the kangaroo court of a discipline tribunal that would never have a snowball's chance in hell of being heard before the Magistrate/Jury of a criminal court.
 
H

HondaJon

Guest
The flip side is, the 'victim' is an old soak who has basically drunk away his life. the cops wanted him to get a move on, he starts sauntering along with his hands in his pockets, some would see that (and I'm sure the cop in question did) as him taking the mick and delaying them in their job on a day where there was a lot of pressure on.

Should he have been hit? no way. Should they have picked him up and slung him in a van until he'd sobered up? Probably but I don't think this cop can be told he is 100% responsible for the chap's death.

If he'd pushed anyone else over, they'd have had a bruised knee. Because this bloke's body was failign him anyway (his own fault) he died. Its tragic and all but there has to be some portion of blame given to the sozzled bloke in the first place.

Kick him out of the force for not doing his job right but to sting him for manslaughter might be a bit far. What if the next protester smashing up the streets turns out to have an undiagnosed heart condition? The cops can't be asked to get a full medical of anyone that is acting like a tit in their presence can they?

That he had underlying medical issues is no mitigation in law - you take your victim as you find them. If you commit a minor assault on someone, and they bang their head and die because they had a clot, or weakened blood vessel, or thin skull, you are still liable for manslaughter.

(NB If you intended to cause them GBH or to kill them, you are liable for murder. May I point out here that no matter how much the police-hating rabble and associated hangers-on bang on about Harwood being a murderer, he is not and can never be. There would be no way of proving he had the required intent and the rabble do the Tomlinsons a disservice by bleating on so).

So, a trial will have two foci.

1. was the push (and perhaps the baton strike) unlawful?
2. were the consequences of the push (and/or the baton strike) the cause of his death, or was there an intervening act or factor that caused him to die (in very very simple terms, would have have died anyway)?

What the DPP has to weigh up is whether Tomlinson was killed as a result of an unlawful act by Harwood and whether there is, a) a realistic prospect of a CONVICTION and b) whether it is in the PUBLIC INTEREST for the trial to proceed.

As far as a realistic prospect of conviction is concerned:

The inquest jury decided that yes, Tomilinson was unlawfully killed. This does not directly translate to a verdict of guilty in a criminal court (the Crown Court, in this case) because some of the evidence admissible in in the Coroners Court may be excluded from the Crown Court trial. The defence team will be looking for cracks in the evidence and to discredit both the way it was obtained and the person giving it. Once it is has had a few lumps taken out of it, the defence can argue to have it excluded for a whole host of reasons. Exclude one thing and often a whole host of other evidence derived from it is excluded also. Cases can then start to look very thin indeed.

Another thing to be aware of is that you now have to find 12 jurors who know little or nothing of the inquest (tricky) in order for Harwood to receive a fair trial and his defence Barrister would be able to use this to try and have the trial discontinued.

The public interest test is met, but this in and of itself is not sufficient for a prosecution to take place.

These are the rules by which all trials are held, so it might seem as if he has a good chance of 'getting away with it' in the eyes of some, but will be rightly 'not guilty' in the eyes of others.

It's actually quite hard to get a conviction in a Crown Court (juries are notoriously unpredictable). Who knows? Time will tell.

images
 
Last edited by a moderator:

noobie

Clueless in most things
The trouble with policing the pubic is that sometimes the public do not want to be policed

And no matter how much training you have, it will never be enough for some
 
H

HondaJon

Guest
It is. Here is some proof.
http://www.majoreventsinternational.com/pub/news.php?mpID=&mscID=425

Quod erat demonstrandum.

RH

'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

Only in very limited circumstances is it an offence - and I'm unaware of anyone actually having been convicted of it yet. Yet another Lablair control-freak bit of legislation clogging up the statute books.

You seem so indignant about laws such as these, as if the police actually wrote them. Surely even you realise it was the majority of the voting public between 1997 and 2010 that allowed new Labour carte blanche to turn the police into an organisation that was supposed to socially engineer this country and provide a scapegoat for President Blair when none of it worked.

Blair's (and Straw, Clarke, Blunkett, Johnson & Smith's) solution to social problems was to make a new law, throw money at the benefits system and expect the plod to make it all right, whilst absolving anyone of their personal responsibility in the form of the Human Rights Act. The result? A police service more of an arm of the state than under Thatcher, a public who expected moon on a stick if they asked for it and a Government cooking the books to bribe the public.

No wonder it's in such a mess.
 

Murt

Letch
It is. Here is some proof.
http://www.majoreventsinternational.com/pub/news.php?mpID=&mscID=425

Quod erat demonstrandum.

RH

I feel that this act has been reported by the publication you quote in completely the wrong context.
As THEY state... "'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'."

Not exactly a blanket offence for taking the pictures of Police!

And what QED meaning are you using? A lot of 'thinkers' can't even agree on that!

Murt.
 

Murt

Letch
I can see where you are coming from.

It says 'Avon' on my tyres but they don't smell of perfume.

And I'm sure that someone of your intellect does not believe everything that most publications print.

Unless of course it's Police Review. ;-0))

Murt.
 

rovinghawk

Registered User
I can see where you are coming from.
I appreciate that.

It says 'Avon' on my tyres but they don't smell of perfume.
It says independent investigation here but smells of cover-up to many.

And I'm sure that someone of your intellect does not believe everything that most publications print.
Surprisingly, I even found myself agreeing with a Grauniad article today. A healthy scepticism of most reporting is a healthy thing, though.

How long before the investigation into our killer, then? Is he suspended on full pay until it's complete? Will he have to pay any back if found culpable? (I intend the word in it's most precise meaning)

Maybe he'll get lucky & get promoted a la Cressida Dick, who knows?

RH
 

Murt

Letch
No, I don't think he will get promotion out of it. ( Also, he was not 'of the rank')

He will obviously be suspended on full pay as per the Police pay and negotiation agreements and rules of conduct (As not yet found guilty). They are Government set rules, not police!

But he will not get any allowances or enhancements ( I didn't for the five months I was suspended due to a totally false allegation of assault, even tho the whole 'incident' was on very clear CCTV.)
And no. He will not need to pay it back. but if found guilty of an offence (Manslaughter?) he will lose all of his pension rights and his payments into the fund.

Don't forget, the IPCC don't use the fact of full evidence.
They use the balance of probability, so to be honest CPS are probably filling forms out at this very moment.

From what I saw from Court reports, his own words of defence were poor, he was clutching at straws, and is likely to slaughtered if it goes to trial.

As I said very early on, lets wait until the evidence is heard, now I have 'heard' it, I think he's goosed.

Murt
 

rovinghawk

Registered User
he was not 'of the rank'
I don't understand the expression- what do you mean?

he will not get any allowances or enhancements ............. if found guilty of an offence (Manslaughter?) he will lose all of his pension rights and his payments into the fund.
This restores some of my faith in the system.

From what I saw from Court reports, his own words of defence were poor, he was clutching at straws, and is likely to slaughtered if it goes to trial.

As I said very early on, lets wait until the evidence is heard, now I have 'heard' it, I think he's goosed.
I'll go along with all of that. The if bothers me.

RH
 
H

HondaJon

Guest
RH, the 'if' is to do with what I said about the CPS and whether they consider there to be a realistic prospect of conviction before they'll run with it.
 
H

HondaJon

Guest
I'd put money on there being a trial, though.
 

Murt

Letch
I don't understand the expression- what do you mean?

This restores some of my faith in the system.


I'll go along with all of that. The if bothers me.

RH
With the 'incident' involving Cressida Dick, she was of high rank.
My feeling is that it always takes a lot more crap to pile up before they get dealt with in the same way as lower ranks. Bit like the Met commander Ali Dizaei. He was in trouble for years before they had the guts to follow up the numerous complaints (Domestic violence when in Lancashire, Threats to staff when in Merseyside). . . Or was it his colour?
Had it been a PC or Sergeant, they would have been out, or at least investigated a LOT earlier.
This bloke now is at the very low end of the ladder.

The if, Well WE don't make the decision do we.

I'd put money on there being a trial, though.

I agree. I think CPS will go for it, even though for a 'normal member of the public case', it would not tick all the boxes due to the dodgy PM report / Pathologist. (Allegedly ;-0))).
As it's a Police officer they will pull out extra stops and be seen to be robust, not a word I normally use in the same sentence as CPS!



Murt.
 
Top