to think that this not guilty verdict is a travesty

[DreamingofSummer]

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-not-guilty-ian-tomlinson

Caught on camera but still not guilty

I've just spoken to my son's partner (she's a bobby) and they're all appalled as well. She does say though that there's no way he'll work on the front line though more likely not at all for the Police. Not just all the other stuff, but the simple fact that no one would want to work with him, and there are 'ways of making that consensus apparent'.
It's a fucking travesty.

Edgar, you would never be convicted of a simple assault where a death has occurred. The charge would be either murder (there was intent to kill or commit serious bodily harm) or manslaughter (there was no intent but an unlawful act - usually a lesser assault - took place from which death resulted).

Essentially, Harwood has been found not guilty of committing the unlawful act.

I was just wondering that lisaro, if anyone would want to work with him again.

I wasnt suprised that he got away with it , saddened, but surely he could have been conviceted of assult?

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter There are three requirements for constructive manslaughter:
The defendant must do an unlawful act. This must be a criminal, not civil, offence[14] and must involve mens rea of intention or recklessness. Crimes involving negligence or omission will not suffice.[15]
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.[16] The defendant need not be aware the act is dangerous[17] and the act need not be directed at the victim.[18]
The act must cause the death of the victim.]]

x posts there Fire, just feels as though he`s above any law really.

The defendant must do an unlawful act. This must be a criminal, not civil, offence[14] and must involve mens rea of intention or recklessness. Crimes involving negligence or omission will not suffice.[15]
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.[16] The defendant need not be aware the act is dangerous[17] and the act need not be directed at the victim.[18]
The act must cause the death of the victim.

from wiki

Murder also encompasses reckless endangerment, intent to kill isn't always necessary for a murder charge to be applicable.

sorry muddled posts.

fire thanks for clarification...i did wonder why lesser verdict wasn't possible.

True Squoosh, guilty as charged of simplifying the fundamental difference between the two offences!

i suppose it may have hinged on whether the level of force was unlawful

Oh my that man should have been sent down. Can't believe all that crap about his road rage, false arrest of someone involved in an accident with his car, misuse of the national police computer. 'retired' while facing an enquiry and then rejoined?

Horrible, aggressive, murderous bastard caught red handed and still got away.

The met has a lot to answer for for keeping him on their payroll.

I'm usually a bit of a hard hearted person, but I honestly feel so sad for the family of that chap who died. I'm totally shocked that this policeman wasn't convicted.

I bet the jury are kicking themselves now they know the vile past history of this bent copper

his history wasn't necessarily relevant to the verdict - the jury could easily see he had shoved the guy from the footage, so that wasn't in question.

Even if it wasn't relevant to the trial I do wonder what on earth has gone wrong with our police force if people like this are able to continue working there!

"On April 7, 2000 he was accused of a road rage assault after a minor collision with a motorist while off duty. Harwood was said to have run at the other driver, slamming him back over the car door in front of horrified witnesses. He then announced that he was a police officer and arrested the driver for common assault.Another officer noticed Harwood had doctored his notes to justify the arrest, saying the motorist had refused to give his details. Chief Inspector Les Jones concluded that his behaviour had ?fallen well below that expected by a police officer? and Harwood was charged with misconduct for unlawful arrest, abuse of authority and discreditable behaviour.Scotland Yard paid out compensation to the victim, who complained of unnecessary force.

But on August 22, 2001 ? three weeks after he was charged ? a note was placed in Harwood?s file saying he was to be medically retired owing to a shoulder injury sustained in an off-duty motorbike accident in 1998.He left with a full pension on September 14, 2001, and the case was closed days before disciplinary proceedings would have begun.Three days later he was apparently well enough to rejoin the same force as a civilian computer worker in Croydon."

It beggars belief doesn't it?

No wonder so many people have absolutely no faith in the police.

It's all horrible. I think it's particularly vile of people to assume that Ian Tomlinson's family are pursuing a civil case for money.

A civil case is all that they can do now to try and get an apology from the Met and an admission that Harwood acted in a way that endangered this man's life.

I also think to comment that there's no point in going further because Ian Tomlinson was homeless and had no earnings to be compensated for is extremely nasty. You should be ashamed of yourself. Not everyone is purely motivated by financial reward.

I heard that the police had removed their numbers from their epaulettes to make their identification so much harder. It would suggest that the police expected to be using heavy handed tactics which could lead to disciplinary proceedings after the event and took measures to make their identification more difficult.

In saying that though, and I'm by no means excusing what he did here, by the standards of some footage the blow Harwood struck didn't appear to be all that hard - not that I'd find it at all acceptable to be hit in that way. But when coupled with the fact that Mr Tomlinson was an alcoholic (it's not too far-fetched to assume he already had some liver damage), the way a barrister can present these facts to a jury would have probably persuaded them that Harwood was an angel and Tomlinson a scumbag. We now know that this is wrong, but without sitting in court for the duration of the trial, I don?t think we'll ever know why the jury returned the verdict it did.

I agree with you frillyflower

Yanbu

I think this just brings to light (again) how dodgy the police force as a whole are. Not only in reference to Harwood, but who were the people above him that authorised his 'retirement' on full pension a day before a disciplinary meeting? And then re-employed 3 days later in a different department? I've heard of this happening far too often.

The police force are just an old boys network who like to look out for themselves.

Its worth remembering that the civil standard of proof is lower than the criminal one. The jury had to be sure (beyond reasonable doubt) for a criminal conviction but for a civil claim to succeed the test is the balance of probabilities (i.e. more probable than not). So there might be enough of a grey area to cause doubt in a criminal case but sufficient certainty for a civil claim.

It says in the Guardian that just after Ian Tomlinson was killed his family were encouraged by the police not to make a fuss about it and the Independent Police Complaints Commission declined to investigate saying there wouldn't be any point.

When the IPCC were shown the film footage of Mr Tomlinson being assaulted they said to his family that the assailant was probably a rioter dressed up as a policeman. WTF!

Let's be honest - the IPCC and the Met had no intention of doing anything about this until forced by the video evidence.

All corrupt and crooked as can be - and an innocent person is beaten up without any redress.

That could have been any one of us on that pavement that day, our husbands, our children.

Harwood is a thick, violent thug. Nice to know he's getting a salary (and a pension) from the state.

Hard to think that the Met's reputation could fall much further since the resignations of two of their most high ranking officers last summer.

But it has.

I would guess that an extremely high proportion of the police in this country find this pops up in a negative way and makes their working life harder in at least the next couple of days. That scum Harwood isn't a colleague anybody would choose is he? Hopefully he'll never work anywhere again.

Not even a little surprised by this. Of course the verdict is a travesty.

Unfortunately this will happen again. Harwood is not the only thug in the MET. And this case proves they will always get away with it.