Unlawful Death, Ian Tomlinson Police video Part II

[Scott_F]

Of course it is but history cannot be allowed to prejudice a trial because the case will be thrown out and justice will never be served. Only facts are permitted to be examined in a trial. Our feelings are not supposed to be included, else the trial is biased before the start.

The situation has to be dealt with as it was on the ground that day... not as we believed it ought to have been.

It is a concern that his history of violence may ironically provide a loophole for him.

Although I hope that he does go to trial he may yet again wriggle off the hook by claiming that he will never get a fair hearing as details of his earlier conduct are now in the public domain.

Even if he avoids criminal action there should be more than enough evidence against him to ensure that his police career is over and that the public no longer have to tolerate the likes of him.

 

[312 Sprinter]

Is there evidence to that effect?

Harwood — the only officer on the film of the attack with a balaclava and no badge number

Tomlinson Decision: How Far Can We Trust The Metropolitan Police? | Londonist

 

[219]

I think that the previous history of the police officer is irrelevant when looking at the facts and determining what actually happened to Mr Tomlinson. In the event of a criminal trial and a guilty verdict leading to a conviction for manslaughter, the previous history would possibly serve to illuminate the character of the police officer but that is about all... although it may have an effect on any sentence which could be handed down. It would not be just to prejudice any future potential legal proceedings on the basis of a person's past history... we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty by trial.

I am not a lawyer.

That is quite correct : in any trial ( in the UK , at least ) previous convictions may not be disclosed until after a verdict has been reached . This is to avoid prejudice to the outcome of the trial but , if a guilty verdict is reached , then previous convictions may be taken into consideration for sentencing .

 

[219]

Hadn't the officer in question removed the ID numbers from his uniform? Justice is impossible if the Police aren't trustworthy.

This also raises the possibility that , technically , he was 'out of uniform' and therefore could be treated as a common criminal rather than a Police Officer .

It might be a 'get-out' for the police force if they want to disown him .

 

[jepho]

Although I hope that he does go to trial he may yet again wriggle off the hook by claiming that he will never get a fair hearing as details of his earlier conduct are now in the public domain.

Q.E.D.

 

[312 Sprinter]

This also raises the possibility that , technically , he was 'out of uniform' and therefore could be treated as a common criminal rather than a Police Officer .

It might be a 'get-out' for the police force if they want to disown him .

I hadn't considered that aspect of it. It just seems bizarre that an officer was allowed to be on duty like that. It must also raise questions of why he removed them in the fist place.

 

[Scott_F]

Q.E.D.

Not necessarily.

The information that has been disclosed relates to his conduct not to any actual criminal convictions.

 

[jepho]

Harwood — the only officer on the film of the attack with a balaclava and no badge number

Tomlinson Decision: How Far Can We Trust The Metropolitan Police? | Londonist

Thank you. My reluctance to accept a newspaper report is based upon a desire to have corroborating evidence, given the well known propensity of newspaper journalists to make mischief (over-egg) for the sake of reputations and sales. I am not saying that I disbelieve the report, merely that I remain to be convinced of its accuracy.

That report will possibly assume more relevance if there is to be a criminal prosecution of the officer. I also don't see this as a case for indicting the whole of the Met. If a person does not live up to the standards we expect of the police, there is a machinery in place to deal with that. If a person deliberately flouts any aspect of the criminal penal code, they can expect to be prosecuted. Although it may please some individuals to see this event as evidence for the proposition that all coppers are b**tards, I would disagree. Blanket ascriptions are just as dishonest as the blanket treatment which appears to have been meted out to all protesters... at what was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration.

 

[jepho]

That is quite correct : in any trial ( in the UK , at least ) previous convictions may not be disclosed until after a verdict has been reached . This is to avoid prejudice to the outcome of the trial but , if a guilty verdict is reached , then previous convictions may be taken into consideration for sentencing .

Thank you for explaining what I had already believed to be the case.

Given the publicity following the recent decision regarding Mr Tomlinson's death, is there any possibility that he will be able to claim that any future trial, which seeks to examine whether or not he played a significant role in the death of Mr Tomlinson, cannot proceed fairly because of the media circus which now surrounds the details of the case?

 

[jepho]

Not necessarily.

The information that has been disclosed relates to his conduct not to any actual criminal convictions.

Thus predisposing the reader to make assumptions about the type of person he is.

 

[Scott_F]

Thus predisposing the reader to make assumptions about the type of person he is.

Or what type of person he might be. Although previous convictions should not be disclosed in court or made known to any jury members, details of the person's character and general conduct could be viewed as a different matter. Otherwise all rich, high-profile people with no actual criminal record could try to claim that information already in the public domain precludes them from any fair attempt at prosecution.

 

[KillerHERTZ]

As with all other previous threads on this subject, it does the forum more harm than good & only ends in tears...

Closing.