It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by mr-lizard
It's certainly an issue of injustice, but you make it sound like the Officer got away with attempted murder, which we both know is not the case. Would you be as infuriated if one of your friends tripped somebody as a joke, only to have that person suffer a heart attack and die?
The contempt you feel for law enforcement officials is impacting your ability to reason and makes your views on the matter come across as bias.
[edit on 22/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Keep the posts on topic. There will be no more posting to the poster.
Further deviations from this will result in post removal.
Originally posted by Acidtastic
Dammit I hope so. If there aren't mass protests on the streets, akin to the poll tax riots, then I won't be a happy bunny. These murderers MUST be stopped!
Originally posted by detachedindividual
He attacked an unarmed man not even involved in the G20 protests.
[edit on 22-7-2010 by detachedindividual]
Originally posted by Twizzy
Firstly he may not have been involved in the actual protests themselves (no one can say for sure) he was however being a nuisance to the police before the incident which was caught on video. He was blocking a riot van which was on its way to a job so lets not make him out to be this whiter than white innocent man caught up in all the trouble.
Secondly its not illegal to film the police as long as you don't interfere with them performing their duties.
Originally posted by teapot
Originally posted by Acidtastic
Dammit I hope so. If there aren't mass protests on the streets, akin to the poll tax riots, then I won't be a happy bunny. These murderers MUST be stopped!
Not akin to the poll tax riots! They were instigated by the police! I do not want to see more heads cracked with batons, more prosecution of victims, innocent bystanders and the like!
Originally posted by Jon Quinn
Even if he was blocking the riot van it would take a couple of officers no effort to go over to him either have a quiet word or simply just pick him up by the arms and move him. Having a masked police riot trooper in full body armour rugby tackle any person is just gross abuse of power and quite simply stupid. That is why this officer should be punished; he was overzealous and didn’t think. He has tarnished the police force’s reputation and destroyed a family's life.
Originally posted by stealthyaroura
yeah they look after there own!
police scum!
next time there is a protest i hope the scum
responsible get a brick to the skull.
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.
Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.
For example, if a person throws a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below they could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[11]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act.
There are three requirements for constructive manslaughter:
* The defendant must do an unlawful act. This must be a criminal, not civil, offence[12] and must involve mens rea of intention or recklessness. Crimes involving negligence or omission will not suffice.[13].
* The act must be dangerous. Whether the act is dangerous is objectively judged from the point of view of a sober and reasonable person present at the scene who witnessed the act.[14] The defendant need not be aware the act is dangerous[15] and the act need not be directed at the victim.[16]
* The act must cause the death of the victim.
Family member:
THE CPS CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT THE POLICE OFFICER ASSAULTED OUR DAD
[]
THE CPS Have accepted that the conduct of the OFFICER WAS UNLAWFUL.
[]
Having accepted that the officer committed an unlawful assault on their dad and that he died of either a heart attack or internal bleeding immediately afterwards.
It is clearly a disgrace.
The Crown Prosecution Service’s report said that at 7.15pm on April 1, a police dog handler put out his hand to move Mr Tomlinson away and a police dog bit him on his leg. Mr Tomlinson did not react to the bite, and it was then that Pc Harwood moved in and shoved him to the ground.
Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by foxhoundone
There were three autopsies performed; one immediately after death, the findings of which can now only be described as highly suspect.
The second was performed at the request of the deceased's familly and found that death was the result of internal bleeding due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen.
The third post mortem, performed at the request of the officer due to the conflicting evidence of the first two, agreed with the findings of the second.
From a layman's point of view, granted with relatively limited knowledge, I would suggest that the bleeding was from either one or a combination of the blows Tomlinson received from the police officer.
There is substantial video evidence to support this.
I have known quite a few private individuals be tried and convicted on far less clear video and circumstantial evidence.
[edit on 22/7/10 by Freeborn]