UK policeman not charged for assaulting man who later died.

[Kamakazie Sith]

[snip] Intent to seriously injure someone would be difficult to show from the action of pushing. Now if he would have ran up behind the guy and smacked him over the head with a baton then you'd have that intent, but pushing someone down? [snip]

Video footage showed him being apparently struck by a baton and then pushed to the ground.

We've seen how, without warning or provocation, PC Simon Harwood attacked him from behind, hitting him with a baton then shoving him to the ground.

Bolding mine.

Emphasised mine. Striking someone in the leg with a baton is not going to cause them to die from blunt force trauma. My point remains unchallenged.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Did you even read what I wrote? It was in reply to the feasibility of MANSLAUGHTER charges which don't require intent. And no they have surveillance tapes of the officer bludgeoning the poor guy in the back of the head with a baton.

I did read what you wrote. I didn't read the post of what you were responding to so I made a mistake in regards to context. Sorry about that.

Anyway. Can you provide a link to the video and cite the time where they bludgeon this man over the head with a baton.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I did some research and the charge that fits the crime in this case is called Unlawful Act Manslaughter under English law.

Under English law, according to R v Creamer (1966), a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when he or she intends an unlawful act that is likely to do harm to the person, and death results which was neither foreseen nor intended.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I did read what you wrote. I didn't read the post of what you were responding to so I made a mistake in regards to context. Sorry about that.

I apologize as well, it wasn't necessary for me to become confrontational like that.

Anyway. Can you provide a link to the video and cite the time where they bludgeon this man over the head with a baton.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ian+Tomlinson+Video

[Kamakazie Sith]

I did read what you wrote. I didn't read the post of what you were responding to so I made a mistake in regards to context. Sorry about that.

I apologize as well, it wasn't necessary for me to become confrontational like that.

Anyway. Can you provide a link to the video and cite the time where they bludgeon this man over the head with a baton.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ian+Tomlinson+Video

That was awesome.

However, I need to point out that I have seen the video and he isn't struck in the head. He's struck in the leg by the baton. Being hit in the leg isn't considered deadly force. In the context of my discussion with Stofsk a baton strike to a critical body part would be necessary to substantiate a murder charge or whatever charge would be appropriate for intentionally taking action that is likely to produce serious bodily injury or death.

[B5B7]

The CPS said this discrepancy jeopardised the chance of obtaining a conviction for manslaughter and an assault charge could not be brought as this had to happen within six months of any incident.

I find this amazing. This means that if a serious assault occurs, and a person whom they don't want brought to justice is the assailant, they could say they are investigating and delay the process until 6 months have passed, and then close the investigation. That means the assaulted person would have to take civil action or engage in retaliatory action - which the criminal conviction process is meant to prevent.
It also means a criminal could commit a large number of assaults and if they can't find evidence within a mere 6 months that they can't charge him - weird.

[Iosef Cross]

The basic facts are that, during the G20 summit, Ian Tomlinson was walking home from his job (not a protestor) and was attacked without any provocation by a policeman. This was captured on film and the officer responsible identified, despite the fact that he had illegally removed his badge and covered his face. The man later died.

No charges are to be brought against the officer concerned. In addition the investigation has taken so long that he cannot now be prosecuted for assault as it is "out of time".

Well, that's explains everything: If while working as a cop, you don't need to obey the law, then there will emerge the tendency for excessive and unjustified use of force by the cops. That's because some people like to beat others and some will do it if there won't be consequences.

[Hillary]

You could have said something... and you have an interesting definition of "flaming someone." Are you really that thin-skinned, or are you just having a bad day? Does someone need a hug?

No, just interested in why you decided to pick on this particular thread to mutter into your beard when there are plenty of other ones with the same "crime". But no biggie.

As far as my opinion, from a legal perspective it would be tough to prove intent, and it seems with 4 separate examinations there's no agreement on why exactly the guy died. (From a US perspective) it would be difficult to prove intent and/or culpability, although as it appears that the inquest/internal investigation still hasn't concluded, so perhaps something might change.

Intent is not required for manslaughter charges - nobody is suggesting it is murder are they? The fact that two out of three pathologists appear to have come to the conclusion that his death was caused by injuries consistent with the officer's assault suggests there is a case to answer.

Does the UK have civil trials like we do in the US? It seems like this would be appropriate for a civil settlement; although the family may not like that, that may be their only legal recourse if the inquest upholds the officer's actions or finds him non-culpable for the man's death.

You can pursue a private prosecution to bring criminal charges if the CPS won't do it, but it costs a lot of money and the defence will play the CPS position to the full. You can also bring a civil case for damages against both the police force and the officer concerned where the balance of evidence needed is less than for a criminal prosecution.

Emphasised mine. Striking someone in the leg with a baton is not going to cause them to die from blunt force trauma. My point remains unchallenged.

No but striking with enough force to knock them to the ground could easily cause them to die from blunt force trauma when their head hits the concrete. Only yesterday two kids were convicted of manslaughter when their victim hit his head on the floor after their attack. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10737347

Consider your point challenged.

I think this is a bit besides the point. As is said in the Grauniad article I posted, had a member of the public assaulted a police officer who died soon afterwards , do you believe that the CPS would have said "nope, we'll never make it stick - no charges"?

Yeah, why wouldn't they. You see the evidence was fucked up so their case for manslaughter was completely destroyed. As for a lesser charge like assault...the statute of limitations had passed. Unless the defense is incompetent and the judge an idiot there's no way they could get by that.

That's assuming events played out exactly the way they did. You could certainly argue that the prosecution engaged in intentional incompetence...

I don't see how the evidence is fucked up when 2 further pathologists were happy to declare his injuries were caused by blunt force trauma and the original one who says it wasn't has more than a smidgin of doubt cast over his professional capabilities

[Kamakazie Sith]

No but striking with enough force to knock them to the ground could easily cause them to die from blunt force trauma when their head hits the concrete. Only yesterday two kids were convicted of manslaughter when their victim hit his head on the floor after their attack. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10737347

Consider your point challenged.

Sorry, my point is still not challenged.

You have to consider the entire context of the post. I was addressing Stofsk question regarding the possibility that the police officer murdered this man. I agree, it is manslaughter...specifically Unlawful Act Manslaughter.

I don't see how the evidence is fucked up when 2 further pathologists were happy to declare his injuries were caused by blunt force trauma and the original one who says it wasn't has more than a smidgin of doubt cast over his professional capabilities

Wrong choice of words. A doubt is placed on the evidence.

[Hillary]

No but striking with enough force to knock them to the ground could easily cause them to die from blunt force trauma when their head hits the concrete. Only yesterday two kids were convicted of manslaughter when their victim hit his head on the floor after their attack. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10737347

Consider your point challenged.

Sorry, my point is still not challenged.

You have to consider the entire context of the post. I was addressing Stofsk question regarding the possibility that the police officer murdered this man. I agree, it is manslaughter...specifically Unlawful Act Manslaughter.

Mea Culpa - we are clearly in agreement then.

I don't see how the evidence is fucked up when 2 further pathologists were happy to declare his injuries were caused by blunt force trauma and the original one who says it wasn't has more than a smidgin of doubt cast over his professional capabilities

Wrong choice of words. A doubt is placed on the evidence.

I agree with that - I would just say that there's not enough of a doubt for the CPS to declare there is not a case to answer.

[Raw Shark]

You have to consider the entire context of the post. I was addressing Stofsk question regarding the possibility that the police officer murdered this man. I agree, it is manslaughter...specifically Unlawful Act Manslaughter.

I don't think whacking an old man in the upper leg with a blunt weapon is a terribly safe thing to do, but I agree that Unlawful Act Manslaughter seems to fit the bill more than murder for what we see here. Thanks for the research.