P
peaps2
accidental death...
Liar .............
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
accidental death...
Sponsored Links
Take you time marty.
accidental death...
Nothing nonsense about a 'Lawful Killing' verdict, basically means you killed somebody legally, for example in self defence. It wasn't available in this case, though now imaFrigginIdiot knows about it I'm sure he will say it's what happened.
J
joinerjohn
But what else could they return? Lawful killing?
it was an accident....not at all intentional.... the shove was assertive... the kind of shove you'd see a copper make on a football crowd, or angry demonstrators... in this instance, Harwood didn't know Tomlinson was homeless, or that he'd tried to get to his hostel many times, Harwood knew none of that.... he took it on face value... and an assertive push would make the guy realise he should walk in the other direction.... instead of ignoring police commands...
Ahh now the push was "assertive" . Slightly different from the "Simple shove" or "Gentle push" proffered, earlier in the thread.
You say it was the sort of shove you'd see a copper make against a football crowd or angry demonstrators.
Did Ian Tomlinson, look like he'd just been to a football match? Did he look like an "Angry demonstrator?",,,,, No he most clearly did not.. Obviously Harwood knew none of that, but as a police officer, should have made an informed decision.
Personally , I believe Harwood, did make an informed decision that day. An informed decision to pick the easiest target (bullies often do pick the easiest targets)
He certainly didn't perceive Tomlinson as a threat. Threats don't generally walk away from you slowly, with their hands in their pockets.
He may well have mistaken Tomlinson for a football fan,,,, but then you have to surmise that Harwood equates football fans with violence and mayhem. You then have to ask yourself the question,, Are all football fans violent, or hell bent on causing mayhem?.
Simple answer ,,, NO they are not.
Nah ,, Harwood was out that day to see how many people he could hurt/hit. Why else did his superiors set him the task of looking after a police van? Was it because they knew of his past? I dare bet it was. (but that is never going to come out in open court) His superiors have closed ranks now, to cover their own backs. I dare bet there are a few a****s twitching in the Met over this case.
There are numerous questions in this case that are always going to go unanswered, but at the end of it (whatever the verdict) I bet Harwood will be summarily dismissed from serving in any police force in the country. He'll be lucky to even get a job as a security guard on a run down building site in the bloody Outer Hebrides...... And that will serve him bloody well right.
Sponsored Links
The coroners verdict was unlawful killing so no argument for a lawful killing exists really!
Good post, JJ, does the rest of the world see it your way?.
I
imamartian
what is it with you lot... the copper caused a death.... but didn't intend to kill Tomlinson with that push... why is that so difficult to work out in your heads
I
imamartian
funny that no one has the b@lls to challenge peaps on the notion "all cops are evil to the core" ...
I
imamartian
another thing you lot refuse to accept.... if there wasn't riots or crime in general, policing would be perfect...so why not start on the type of person that thinks it right to commit crime...
but no, a copper makes a mistake and you lot are stringing him up !!!
work the percentages out !!
but no, a copper makes a mistake and you lot are stringing him up !!!
work the percentages out !!
I
imamartian
its a fookin joke this site lol!!!!! i get lambasted for posting too much, yet i spend 2 hours a couple of nights a weekend, when no one's here.... and turn up the next night/weekend to a deluge of abuse and well researched bias....
i say well researched, but i mean "deeply ingrained".... and not a mod in sight !!
i say well researched, but i mean "deeply ingrained".... and not a mod in sight !!
what is it with you lot... the copper caused a death.... but didn't intend to kill Tomlinson with that push... why is that so difficult to work out in your heads
Understanding the law really isn't your strong point. I'm beginning to think you're a cop.
You said:
1) He caused a death (killed him)
2) He didn't intend to kill him
That is what we smart people called manslaughter.
That is what, eventually, he got charged with.
From your statements above you would obviously have to find him guilty.
I
imamartian
what is it with you lot... the copper caused a death.... but didn't intend to kill Tomlinson with that push... why is that so difficult to work out in your heads
Understanding the law really isn't your strong point. I'm beginning to think you're a cop.
You said:
1) He caused a death
2) He didn't intend to kill him
That is what we smart people called manslaughter.
That is what, eventually, he got charged with.
From your statements above you would obviously have to find him guilty.
I should walk away and let you look a fool... but before i go to bed.. i already said Harwood should be up for manslaughter.... he caused a guy to die ffs !!!. But, he pushed the guy to move him, not to kill him... a baton across the temple would've been more likely to cause a death if that were the aim.
Harwood is like the driver that falls asleep at the wheel and causes the death of another driver... not a murderer, but someone who killed someone else accidentally.
Jeez you lot can be thick !!!
J
joinerjohn
what is it with you lot... the copper caused a death.... but didn't intend to kill Tomlinson with that push... why is that so difficult to work out in your heads
Thing is,, We have worked it out, Marty Harwood is guilty of MANSLAUGHTER.
However, you don't seem to see it that way. Your portraying Harwood as the victim, not the perpetrator. He was only doing his job, you say. Well let's have a look at the verdicts in other cases where someone was only doing their job.
Dr Conrad Murray, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15624869
A research technician. http://www.redbrickpaper.co.uk/2011/11/manslaughter-verdict-for-ex-uni-researcher/
Even Corporate manslaughter
http://www.shponline.co.uk/news-con...-verdict-in-first-corporate-manslaughter-case
And another case. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17679788
Notice any similarities in the cases ?? Non of the cases ever thought that their victims would die. Non were pre- meditated, yet people were charged with manslaughter, and found guilty.
(sorry if I've used bad examples but it's late and I have been out tonight)
Do you Marty, truly believe that Harwood shouldn't be facing charges of manslaughter?
After all, he did cause the death of another human being and didn't intend him to die.
I feel that the charge of manslaughter is fair and equitable. Now it's up to his peers to return a verdict at the end of the trial.
What you have to remember though, is that certain authorities didn't want any charges brought against another who caused Tomlinson's death. And that I find worse than the actual deed done by Harwood.
You said you had no objection, not that he should be 'up for' it.
If he didn't get prosecuted it wouldn't bother you at all.
P
peaps2
funny that no one has the b@lls to challenge peaps on the notion "all cops are evil to the core" ...
You will have to go a long way to find a copper who will go against another, they get driven out if they do, this makes them all complicit.
Sponsored Links
