Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Murdered Police Officers

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014137 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 8:52 AM


Quote: I have never believed a jury is the right way to determine someones fate. you mention 12 good men and true, but they arent. a jury is made up of 12 random people, most people are biased, racist, homophobic, lazy, vindictive, sexist, dishonest, stupid, indifferent, cruel, etc etc, and these same people will decide your fate based on an OPINION. ITS A JOKE.

Two questions:
1. Have you ever done Jury Service ?
2. What do you suggest as an alternative ?

Quote:

the video showed the attack, the medical report said he died as a result from the attack, so what was it that made the jury find him not guilty. something stinks.

Perhaps the jury were party to all the evidence, not just the stuff on the telly.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
20 Sep 2012 - 8:52 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

PaulSR
PaulSR  9511 forum posts England
20 Sep 2012 - 9:01 AM


Quote: I have never believed a jury is the right way to determine someones fate. you mention 12 good men and true, but they arent. a jury is made up of 12 random people, most people are biased, racist, homophobic, lazy, vindictive, sexist, dishonest, stupid, indifferent, cruel, etc etc, and these same people will decide your fate based on an OPINION. ITS A JOKE.
Two questions:
1. Have you ever done Jury Service ?
2. What do you suggest as an alternative ?


the video showed the attack, the medical report said he died as a result from the attack, so what was it that made the jury find him not guilty. something stinks.
Perhaps the jury were party to all the evidence, not just the stuff on the telly.

1.No
2 dont know
3 the video and the medical report IS THE EVIDENCE.

THIS THREAD HAS TURNED INTO A JOKE. I WAS ANGRY THAT A COPPER ASSAULTED SOMEONE, WHO LATER DIED OF HIS INJURIES, AND THEN THE COPPER GOT OFF SCOTT FREE. AN INNOCENT MAN DIED FFS. AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO IS BOTHERED ABOUT THIS, FROM ALL THE SLAGGING OFF I HAVE HAD, IT SEEMS SO.

mikehit
mikehit  56454 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 9:50 AM

No, you are not the only one who is troubled by this. But you are convinced of his guilt from what seems to be an anti-police bias based on non-related cases. Others are pointing out that the acquittal was based on the evidence presented to the jury, most of which you would not have heard. I don't think anyone has slagged you off, but merely argued against the points you made.

Our system is flawed and the idea of a jury has its positives and negatives. But if you can think of a better way of doing it, please go ahead.

EDITED TO ADD:


Quote: the video and the medical report IS THE EVIDENCE.

As far as I am aware, the medical opinion was that the push could have contributed to the death, not 'it did cause the death'. The jury would have taken that into account

Last Modified By mikehit at 20 Sep 2012 - 9:52 AM
lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014137 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 9:58 AM


Quote: 3 the video and the medical report IS THE EVIDENCE.

It is some of the evidence, not all of it.

PaulSR
PaulSR  9511 forum posts England
20 Sep 2012 - 9:59 AM


Quote: As far as I am aware, the medical opinion was that the push could have contributed to the death, not 'it did cause the death'. The jury would have taken that into account

what about video proof of the assault. he should have received some form of punishment for that at least. being sacked is not a punishment

mikehit
mikehit  56454 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 10:16 AM

The charge was manslaughter. You cannot acquit of manslaughter then in the same breath say 'oh by the way it is clear you asaulted him so you will be jailed for three years'.
In practice, it is very difficult to get an acquittal on one charge then try them again again on a lesser charge related to the same incident. That legal understanding is there for very good reasons in that it prevents the police victimising people (and I am sure you would be in the forefront of claims of police abuse of power if they repeatedly hauled someone in court for the same incident). Which shows again that in this case the officer has been treated the same as anyone else.

This is where the CPS have a difficult job: try someone on the more serious charge with less evidence and risk them being acquitted, or try them on a lesser charge for which they have more evidence. Personally, I think they 'play safe' too often merely to get a conviction but that is a different matter.

PaulSR
PaulSR  9511 forum posts England
20 Sep 2012 - 11:47 AM


Quote: (and I am sure you would be in the forefront of claims of police abuse of power

dont know where you get that idea from

PaulSR
PaulSR  9511 forum posts England
20 Sep 2012 - 11:52 AM


Quote: Which shows again that in this case the officer has been treated the same as anyone else.

dont you mean appeared to have been treated as anyone else. Too many people sitting on the fence in this thread and afraid to commit themselves unlike me. Do you think he is guilty and should be in jail. honest opinion

mikehit
mikehit  56454 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 12:33 PM

Honest opinion?
The medical evidence of a cause (push to the ground) and effect (the death of Mr Tomlinson) is not conclusive. In my opinion the officer's action was understandable but I would not (cannot) say it was justified because I do not know the full facts of the situation of the time it happened.
Were the jury confused by the conflicting post mortem reports? Possibly, even probably.

The only way I will 'commit myself' is to place my trust in the decision of the jury based on the evidence they were given - much of which would have been presented in a far better context than presented by newspapers or pressure groups. It is not fence-sitting, it is refusing to make a firm judgement when I accept I don't know enough about why the jury acquitted him.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139443 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 12:58 PM

Unfortunately, in most cases of deaths in police custody/contact with the police, a jury does not have the opportunity of making a judgment.

The cases are simply never brought to court.

lemmy
lemmy  71869 forum posts United Kingdom
20 Sep 2012 - 1:06 PM

PaulSR's posts remind me of an old Bill Tidy cartoon. Two crusaders are crossing the desert with their shields of St George and swords, their horses decked out crusader style. One turns to the other and remarks -

"Isn't life easy when you KNOW you're right" Wink

mikehit
mikehit  56454 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 1:18 PM


Quote:
The cases are simply never brought to court.

The facts are presented to an inquest which places first decision on whether the person was unlawfully killed.
If there is reason to proceed it is presented to the CPS who decide whether there is enough evidence to prosecute.
Again, same process as for everyone else.

What proportion of non-custody deaths result in prosecution?

Unfortunately in conspiracy theories (which is what is being proposed) mere circumstances seem to be enough to prove guilt.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139443 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 1:20 PM


Quote: it is presented to the CPS who decide whether there is enough evidence to prosecute.

Who presents the evidence? Wink

mikehit
mikehit  56454 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 1:39 PM

anyone who can provide relevant information: police, pathologist, family doctor, witnesses, independent medical experts etc. The coroner can all up whoever he wants.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquest

A heavily edited extract:

Quote: In the United Kingdom... a [coroner's] jury made up of up to twenty-three men, and required the votes of twelve to render a decision. Similar to a grand jury, a coroner's jury merely accused, it did not convict.

Under the Coroners Act, 1988,[7] a jury is only required to be convened in cases where the death occurred in prison, police custody, or in circumstances which may affect public health or safety.

Additionally, a coroner's jury only determines cause of death, its ruling does not commit a person to trial.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139443 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 1:42 PM


Quote: anyone who can provide relevant information

And the only people who can present evidence about the events which led to the death are erm, let me think.............. hmm........

actually it's.................................... the police! Wink

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.