Loki Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 That just goes against all sensible and all legal logic though. Â I suggest you avoid a career in law then! Â There is clear malice in each case. Â To quote R v Mowatt (1968) "It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result." Â Both pushing someone to the ground and throwing a fire extinguisher of a roof run the risk of injuring someone. Â As far as the actual offences, violent disorder is a much lesser offence than manslaughter. So I consider the death of Ian Tomlinson to be the greater crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Bit of a silly argument about which crime is worse. Both are violent actions with the potential to kill. What's disturbing is that some members of the board think the Ian Tomlinson killing with the massive met/coroner cover up was all perfectly fine and dandy. No-one on the other side of the debate is defending the actions of the fire-extinguisher kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Ford Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 It is unlikely that any harm, aside from a few scrapes and bruises, would have come to Ian Tomlinson if he did not have cirrhosis of the liver. It is very likely that considerable harm would have come to anyone hit by a fire extinguisher thrown from a height of seven stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 No doubt. I'm just injecting some actual intelligence into the debate by countering Van Dammer's contention "I think most people can see which crimes [sic] worse" (i.e throwing the extinguisher is worse than killing someone). Â From both a moral, and a legal point of view, the death of Ian Tomlinson was much worse, and the disparity in the way the two cases have been handled speaks volumes about the privileged position the police hold currently in relation to judicial process. Â But feel free to carry on with speculation as to what might have happened if things were different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Do you not think the police have to have a privileged position in the judicial process in order to be able to do their job? Do you expect them to obey the speed limits when they are pursuing criminals, not use force when arresting suspects, not be able to deal with riots using reasonable violence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 They have legal rights in those areas, but when they breach them they should be prosecutable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 From both a moral, and a legal point of view, the death of Ian Tomlinson was much worse, and the disparity in the way the two cases have been handled speaks volumes about the privileged position the police hold currently in relation to judicial process. This is what I meant, well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 From both a moral, and a legal point of view, the death of Ian Tomlinson was much worse, and the disparity in the way the two cases have been handled speaks volumes about the privileged position the police hold currently in relation to judicial process. Sorry but I don't think the police shoving someone to the ground during a riot is anywhere near as bad as a rioter throwing a large metal object from a high place into a crowd of people. You seem to want the police to have no powers whatsoever, whereas rioting students should be able to do what they want because in your opinion they are in the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 From both a moral, and a legal point of view, the death of Ian Tomlinson was much worse, and the disparity in the way the two cases have been handled speaks volumes about the privileged position the police hold currently in relation to judicial process. Sorry but I don't think the police shoving someone to the ground during a riot is anywhere near as bad as a rioter throwing a large metal object from a high place into a crowd of people. You seem to want the police to have no powers whatsoever, whereas rioting students should be able to do what they want because in your opinion they are in the right. Rioting students shouldn't be able to do what they want and if they break the law they should be arrested and charged. Police should be, and are, allowed to shove people around and hit them with batons during a riot. BUT police aren't allowed to push people over who aren't a threat to them or provoking them, and if they do this and the person then dies, then the policeman should be arrested and charged. Which didn't happen for reasons already discussed. Which is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 From both a moral, and a legal point of view, the death of Ian Tomlinson was much worse, and the disparity in the way the two cases have been handled speaks volumes about the privileged position the police hold currently in relation to judicial process. Sorry but I don't think the police shoving someone to the ground during a riot is anywhere near as bad as a rioter throwing a large metal object from a high place into a crowd of people. You seem to want the police to have no powers whatsoever, whereas rioting students should be able to do what they want because in your opinion they are in the right. Â There we have the moral double standard. The police did wrong and weren't punished, so it becomes okay to try and kill them by throwing items with intent to cripple from the seventh floor of buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Who is saying it's OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Exactly. When has anyone said it's ok? You and Hazzard are talking shite, Yoghurt mate. Shite that doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Do you expect them to obey the speed limits when they are pursuing criminals  Frankly put, it would probably be a lot better if they did. Police end up causing all sorts of road accidents, a friend of my family lost part of her foot a few months back to a speeding police van. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 As a friend of a traffic cop in the Met, I can guarantee they're not chasing criminals, they just don't want to wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 You seem to want the police to have no powers whatsoever, whereas rioting students should be able to do what they want because in your opinion they are in the right. That's what you think after reading what he's had to say on the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts