Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Murdered Police Officers


lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
20 Sep 2012 8:52AM

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.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

PaulSR e2
9 511 England
20 Sep 2012 9:01AM

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 e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
20 Sep 2012 9:50AM
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
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
20 Sep 2012 9:58AM

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

It is some of the evidence, not all of it.
PaulSR e2
9 511 England
20 Sep 2012 9:59AM

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 e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
20 Sep 2012 10:16AM
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 e2
9 511 England
20 Sep 2012 11:47AM

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 e2
9 511 England
20 Sep 2012 11:52AM

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 e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
20 Sep 2012 12:33PM
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 e2
11 39.7k 269 England
20 Sep 2012 12:58PM
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 e2
7 2.0k United Kingdom
20 Sep 2012 1:06PM
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 e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
20 Sep 2012 1:18PM

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 e2
11 39.7k 269 England
20 Sep 2012 1:20PM

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


Who presents the evidence? Wink
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
20 Sep 2012 1:39PM
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 e2
11 39.7k 269 England
20 Sep 2012 1:42PM

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

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.