Liar .............

[joinerjohn]

I'm sure he'd have lived longer , but for the "simple shove", (as some put it) in his back, whilst walking away from the police.
Norcon, when you reach the age of 60, you could well have a heart attack, (whilst being restrained , or attacked by a police officer) . Don't forget a few years ago, some youths were charged and found guilty of manslaughter, just because some middle aged bloke gave chase to them (after some altercation on the street) and had a heart attack and died. If these youths could be charged and found guilty of manslaughter, then there's no reason why Harwood should have been found innocent. He was (supposedly) a highly trained police officer (who doesn't even know when someone is walking away from him FFS)

 

[LastMagicBean]

As I suggested from the start, the jury beg to differ with you John.

Reasonable force. Correct decision all day long.

 

[joinerjohn]

As I suggested from the start, the jury beg to differ with you John.

Reasonable force. Correct decision all day long.

Reasonable force,,,,, Used on a person walking away (and therefore no threat ) from the police lines ?? WTF ,,, There's no such thing mate.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Reasonable force,,,,, Used on a person walking away (and therefore no threat ) from the police lines ?? WTF ,,, There's no such thing mate.

The bottom line is......If he hadn't died you wouldn't take the same view on 'reasonable force in a riot situation' as you do now with this particular case.

Infact you wouldn't give it a second thought.
Many people were pushed that day. No outcry simply because they didn't happen to die. Fact.

If everybody decided to p*ss about meandering at their own pace, Police would never get an area cleared.

 

[joinerjohn]

Your so wrong LMB. Thing is , you know your wrong, but dare not admit it now.

An innocent bystander, died needlessly that day. At the hands of a known thug (known to the police) and you can't admit that given the full facts, this person should not have been singled out by this thug for the punishment delivered. Nor that this person has walked free from all charges.
Let's just wait and see what the Met's internal investigation's verdict is.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Your so wrong LMB. Thing is , you know your wrong, but dare not admit it now.

You know i'm right, I have been from page 1.
Only now an independent jury agrees with me aswell.

You'll be telling me next the jury was rigged.

 

[mdf290]

You only have to see the video to come to the right decision of whether Harwood was a prick or not.
A man died because of his actions.

All that has been decided by the Jury is that they could not come to the conclusion that Harwoods actions would knowingly have caused a death or that in normal circumstances a push even as severe as that would not normally be fatal.

He has been given the benefit of the doubt.
He was guilty of manslaughter it's just the flawed justice system would not allow it it be followed through.

The jury did not know just what a loose cannon he was as they did not know his previous history.

I bet the Jury now are regretting their decisions.

Here is the judges summing up and direction to the jury..

He said that, to return a verdict of unlawful killing – which is subject to a higher standard of proof (ie beyond reasonable doubt) – they would have to conclude that Simon Harwood must have deliberately used force, and that force must have been unlawful and dangerous.

Thornton drew attention to the fact that Harwood told the inquest Tomlinson did not pose a threat, but that was different from his perception at the time when he believed the newspaper seller was moving towards him.

Given that CCTV footage showed this to be incorrect – Tomlinson was walking away from the police line – Thornton said the jury had to decide whether it was "an honest mistaken perception of events, or an untruthful account of events put forward as a deliberate lie to try to excuse his actions".


In my opinion the Jury completely crumbled on this issue and gave the wrong verdict.

 

[Norcon]

A man died because of his actions.

There's no proof of that and never will be!

 

[alumni]

The jury did not know just what a loose cannon he was as they did not know his previous history.

I bet the Jury now are regretting their decisions.

Loose cannon or not.
Previous history is (normally) witheld.
You are in the dock for the offences you are charged with, not your history.

 

[joinerjohn]

Loose cannon or not.
Previous history is (normally) witheld.
You are in the dock for the offences you are charged with, not your history.

How come some judges, when sentencing people, take into consideration, past behaviour/ convictions?

 

[alumni]

Loose cannon or not.
Previous history is (normally) witheld.
You are in the dock for the offences you are charged with, not your history.

How come some judges, when sentencing people, take into consideration, past behaviour/ convictions?

The judge has to.

The Jury on the other hand must only be concerned with the evidence of the offences/charges presented to them.

 

[securespark]

Harwood is so squeaky clean that the IPCC are not going to carry out an investigation in public.

 

[peaps2]

civil action is also on its way

 

[alumni]

civil action is also on its way

And the Met are suddenly on the charm offensive. I wonder why?

 

[joinerjohn]

I accept that the jury found Harwood not guilty of manslaughter, but I do think they reached the wrong verdict. There have been occasions in the past where juries have reached the wrong verdict. One such case involved a paedophile,(charged with child rape) who was found not guilty by a jury. After the defendant had left the court, the judge then read out the defendants past history of offences to the jury. Leaving them in no doubt as to the guilt of the person they had just freed. Some jurors cried when his history was read out.
It is a crying shame that our laws don't allow previous convictions/ charges/past history, to be taken into account. Had Harwoods previous behaviour been known to the jury, they no doubt would have found him guilty.
I do wonder however, had it been a civilian who'd "pushed" Ian Tomlinson, whether they would have been found not guilty?