Tomlinson cop found not guilty

[hibsbollah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484

not exactly surprising.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484

not exactly surprising.

And probably the right decision.

[VickMackie]

And probably the right decision.

Why do you think it was the correct decision?

It seemed unreasonable force, against a middle aged, drunk man who was clearly posing no threat.

I understand the pressure they were under but I find that he should have been punished of some sort of attack. Even an assault to injury.

[Hibbyradge]

Why do you think it was the correct decision?

It seemed unreasonable force, against a middle aged, drunk man who was clearly posing no threat.

I understand the pressure they were under but I find that he should have been punished of some sort of attack. Even an assault to injury.

It looked like the policeman shoved the guy to get him out of the area. It didn't look like a particularly violent shove, but the guy fell because he was drunk.

Also, the post mortem reports were conflicting, but there was nothing to suggest it was the fall which caused his death.

As I said, in my view it was probably the right decision.

[Pretty Boy]

And probably the right decision.

Whilst I agree, based on the evidence presented to the court, it does seem.to somewhat contradict the earlier unlawful killing ruling.

[Beefster]

I think it probably was the right decision seeing as even the pathologists couldn't agree on what caused the death but, considering the policeman's record of violence and abuse complaints, he shouldn't have still been a member of the force on the day he hit Tomlinson.

[VickMackie]

It looked like the policeman shoved the guy to get him out of the area. It didn't look like a particularly violent shove, but the guy fell because he was drunk.

Also, the post mortem reports were conflicting, but there was nothing to suggest it was the fall which caused his death.

As I said, in my view it was probably the right decision.

It wa clear for all to see he was drunk and used excessive force IMO.

I didn't mind the protester who got punched in the face for screaming in the policemans face and acting aggressively. This was the polar opposite for me.

[Big Ed]

PC Simon Harwood's acquittal had been described as "a joke" by Ian Tomlinson's family, in their statement read out after the verdict.
It is obvious that the term joke was used sarcastically, because what the jury weren't told was that Harwood had more lives than a cat when it came to his Police Career: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pc-simon-harwood--10-complaints-in-12-years-for-the-red-mist-officer-7959576.html
and that the original postmortem examination was carried out by a doctor whose previous conduct resulted in him being suspended by the General Medical Council: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12775544
In time, Ian Tomlinson's family may see, that despite Harwood's thuggish behaviour, he could never have thought that it would have had such tragic consequences. What I suspect they'll never get over is that he was there in the first place and that the postmortem was carried out by a doctor of poor repute, whose evidence helped to obfuscate the crucial medical evidence placed before the jury.

[--------]

It looked like the policeman shoved the guy to get him out of the area. It didn't look like a particularly violent shove, but the guy fell because he was drunk.

Also, the post mortem reports were conflicting, but there was nothing to suggest it was the fall which caused his death.

As I said, in my view it was probably the right decision.


I would say he fell because he was 'pushed'. Until the cop 'pushed' him he wasn't falling over. He was drunk, but upright.

And how exactly do you 'push' someone with a police baton?

The cop was trouble waiting to happen - though the jury in the manslaughter case didn't get to hear about it.

From the BBC website:

"During the inquest into Ian Tomlinson's death, lawyers for his family argued that PC Harwood's employment record should form part of the hearing. The coroner disagreed, saying that it would prejudice the hearing. The record was also kept from the jury at the manslaughter trial.

In 2000, five years after he joined the Met, PC Harwood was involved in what was described at the inquest as a "road rage" incident. He was off-duty at the time and the other driver complained of unlawful arrest and abuse of authority.

PC Harwood denied the accusation but the Met wanted him to face a disciplinary hearing. However, the following year he retired on medical grounds before it took place. As a result, there was never a finding. An earlier and separate allegation of assault against the officer also went unsubstantiated.

Three days after his medical retirement, he became a civilian member of police staff in Croydon. Then, in 2003, he successfully reapplied to become a constable with Surrey.

While he was at Surrey, there was a further unsubstantiated complaint that he had used excessive force in a raid, allegedly punching a man twice in the face.

In late 2004, PC Harwood rejoined the Metropolitan Police. Scotland Yard's vetting unit had considered the road rage incident but the coroner was told it had not reviewed the full file.

The coroner heard that PC Harwood had been the subject of seven more complaints following rejoining the Met, three of which were against him alone. Two were allegations of improper force.

The third complaint was of improper use of the Police National Computer to check up on a driver involved in an accident with his wife. Ian Tomlinson's coroner was told that the officer had received a written warning. In all, PC Harwood was the subject of 10 complaints over 12 years, but only the PNC incident was found against him.

A spokesman for Surrey Police told the BBC that when PC Harwood asked to join the force, the Met told it that there had been a "previous misconduct investigation" but no further action had been taken.

The Met Police said in a statement following PC Harwood's trial that it was clear that "insufficient recording and checks meant that detailed information regarding the officer's misconduct history was not shared at key points".

"We got that wrong," it said in a statement, adding there had since been "huge changes" to its vetting system."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18851486 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18851486)

Nothing to let the jury know about, but 'huge changes' to the Met's vetting system? The two sentences at the end in red give the game away.


I would agree with this: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/07/police-thug-and-unlawful-killing

This was NOT a case of a normally decent and patient policeman finally losing patience after prolonged provocation. That I could understand and sympathise with, though the fact that a man died as a result would IMO have to be taken very seriously.

This was a case of a thug and a bully getting away with an assault because he's a Met force cop.

Harwood had a file FIVE folders thick regarding public complaints against him. That's the BIG lever-arch jobs. That's an awful lot of paper. :bitchy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-disciplinary-proceedings

The first PM was botched - the pathologist involved, a Dr patel - was suspended and is still suspended from duty pending investigation. That is the PM that the defence used to cast doubts on the two other, later, PMs that were clear about the causes of Ian T's death.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9412476/Ian-Tomlinson-pathologist-botched-first-post-mortem.html

This is far from the first time questions have been raised baout the conduct of the Metropolitan Police in the aftermath of a civilian death.

Remember Stephen Waldorf? Jean-Charles de Menezes? Mark Duggan? Harry Stanley?

Every one of these - and a good few more - judged to be 'good killings' by the courts and police.