Czuch: but you don't know. So you cannot say he did. You are just assuming.

20 hours left...

Artful Dodger: No, he was on his way home. Again, you are not in full knowledge of the facts and jumping to a false conclusion. These were not regular police officers.

Maybe you should look up the SPG.

He was walking away and no breakage of the law by the man has been stated.

I'll give you 20 hours also.

Oh, btw.. there are two other cases of assualt by the 'SPG' being investigated.. one involving a back slap and a baton accross the little womans legs.. just for being mouthy over who they were being treated.

And that they denied protesters basic rights (water, food and the loo) is also being investigated.

The police are not above the law.. period. Thankfully those days are over... mostly.

(V): you are very knowledgable about something you knew nothing about LOL....



lordy your system is as bad as ours....2 independant persons and both forensic pathologists and two different results....one with the name Patel.....that puts you on guard immediately ROFL........

I read the story and he appears to have been a very sick man before this incident, not that that is an excuse for what happened of course.

you say they werent regular police officers and yet the story says they were Metropolitan Police Officers....and please clarify what is/are SPG....Ive googled and get all sorts of hotels, sarong party girls but nothing to do with what you are talking about....but google gives you your own countries bits....I cant get english information.

Bernice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Patrol_Group

Bernice: Sarong party girls... hahah i have been to Bali, and I know those types, I also remember many of them were actually boys.... strong hands and an Adams apple come to mind

(V): So even worse then... this guy was operating like this with Special police types on patrol???

My grandmother also used to say... mess with fire and you might get burned.... but like the good ol suicide bomber, maybe it was worth the effort?

Pedro Martínez: thanks Hun :)....Metro Police and SPG appear to be one and the same - a group made up for special occasions.

Czuch: hahaha....there are many a man been caught up in the wiles of the extremely pretty party girls of Bali.....and adams apple is the dead giveaway really heheheheh

(V) might have some more information on them for you as well

Bernice:

Bernice: The first was an initial post mortem, after the video evidence they did a second more detailed examination, and now they are doing an even more detailed examination of the body.

Bernice: No Bernice, never been caught out by a trans gender, you might know someone who has being closer to the area, but I don't.

Czuch: Czuch.... do your research on the SPG.

And to clarify some info, the metropolitan police are not the SPG, they were a unit off the metro.. well known for being violent beyond what is needed, and as the jokes were of the day.. bigoted thugs, and that you could not join unless you were a bigoted thug.

(V): I didnt say you were "caught out" as you put it, but there doesn't seem to be a subject that you cant enlighten us all on....

Bernice: ?? Ahhh right. sure??!!?? You just implied that I had experience of Bali 'ladyboys'... I just told you know I didn't... clearly.

Is that ok with you?

(V): they were a unit off the metro.. well known for being violent beyond what is needed

Proves even more what an idiot this guy was...

Its like provoking the known local crazy drunk guy in a bar, he may not have any right to beat the crap out of you, but that isnt going to make it feel any better when he does it

Czuch: I'm sure the family have a different view from you. And I've still yet to see you provide that he did anything to provoke them.

4 hours left to find something to prove you are right Czuch.

Where is your evidence?

Czuch: I don't quite understand what's so funny about it.

Pedro Martínez: Neither do I, a guy died under suspicious circumstances.... That's not funny.

(V): You play with fire your gonna get burned... I dont blame the flame, the flame cant hurt you if you dont get close enough to it...

I personally would keep my distance from crazy riot police in a volatile area and situation...

I personally know big crazy drunks, who will slug you with a bat if you simply look at them wrong, or they think you did... I avoid any contact with these types at any cost, including not staying in a bar when they are there....

This guy had a look like "these guys cant mess with me, I am not doing anything wrong, who do they think they are trying to tell me what to do, I will show them whos boss of who", and now he is dead..... dead right maybe, but still dead


Like the guy from Saudi Arabia who just cant figure out how he ended up in Guantanamo prison after he entered a war zone in Iraq

....hey, I live below sea level and now a hurricane has flooded me out.... howd that happen anyway

...Hey, I am a liberal environmentalist, and I dont believe we should clear out dry underbrush from our forests floors, but I am going to build my new house here anyway, now we have this huge wildfire, and all our homes are being burned down, howd that happen

(V): How many other people live and work in this area anyway??? How many other people got in a situation where they got shoved by riot police while innocently walking home from work??? Were all these other people just extremely lucky, or do you think that the average local person knew of the situation, and was able to avoid a situation like this?

bottom line... we have a personal responsibility for many of the situations we find ourselves in, weather it be building a house in a high fire danger area or living below sea level in a hurricane zone, or putting ourselves in close proximity to riot police in a volatile situation... play with fire and you might get burned.... right or wrong, this guy got himself burned

Czuch: Proof being??? I'm still waiting.

about 3 hours left for you to find something, otherwise you are just (being blunt) waffling on.

(V): we only have this small clip of film
we dont know if anything was said from this guy or police
we will have to wait for this to come out
im not condoning the police in any way so surely its best to wait until all the facts are out than to judge the guy or the police

bottom line you dont know anymore than 99.99% of the rest of the UK you WERNT THERE
your only going on what the TV and newpapers are telling you and we all know those are well hyped up to sell or gain viewers

Snoopy: Not in this case, no hype. I'm going by what I've seen, the video was quite clear. And that there are other cases being brought forward and the IPCC are now looking into what happened and the G20 protests due to the amount of video footage taken by people and from CCTV images. The IPCC head man is also concerned that a number of policeman had removed their ID number to avoid being recognised easily and that frontline supervisors did not stop this!!

I'm not judging all the police. But from what I've seen there needs to be change so that officers act with the respect they are supposed to, and that the police force as a whole does not lose respect due to a few bad apples.

(V): maybe the video was clear but has i said the video had NO SOUND youve no idea what was said in the seconds before he was hit

many ppl have lost it by other ppl calling them names and this may well be the case WE JUST DONT KNOW

of course has a policeman he should of shown more restraint if that was the case and all that will come out in due course

Snoopy: As I said... If he had said something that broke the law before hand, then he'd been arrested .. period.

(V): and has I SAID youve no idea what was SAID seconds before he was pushed so obviously he couldnt of been arrested and has everyone knows theres always 2 sides to every story so isnt it better to have the policemans version to before passing JUDGEMENT

Snoopy: We had the police version... They tried blaming it on the protesters before this video evidence came up. IMHO innocent police don't go blaming others, it's only those with something to hide that try and hide their mistakes.

(V): wrong we had the police.s version
what i said let hear what the officer who pushed him has to say before passing JUDGEMENT

Snoopy: I'm sorry, but even if the bloke said anything, the reaction of the policeman (and this the law) is still liable to be charged and convicted of manslaughter. Even if the bloke had called him some very nasty names it does not matter, the charge under UK LAW is still manslaughter if and this is the only if in the matter... the forensics comes back and shows it was that shove that caused the man to die or not.

Even if it wasn't the cause, the police officer broke the law. PERIOD.

You can argue about this all you want, but I am going by the law as laid down by the courts and our government.

Argue with them if you want... but they will tell you the same.

(V): and of course you know everything about law
you sound has if you hang the guy before the judge finishes the hung

and im not the one who is arguing im saying for the LAST TIME lets here all sides before making JUDGEMENT

there is much more to this story than even you know
there is much cctv footage that is being looked at that we have never seen

Snoopy: No, I don't.. But after a recent talk with a POLICE INSPECTOR who is friendly with us about the matter, I know that even if it was an accident it is still manslaughter if the forensic shows the shove killed him.

I was talking with him on the phone today about it!!

(V): and the KEYWORD in your last statement is IF
so has i keep saying lets wait and see what emerges
this is going to go on for along time
so why not wait and see what the next post mortem says

i agree with you on one point thou the BOSSES of the police on the ground really needs to be investigated

because i would not like to be herded into a small space and be denied basic rights food water etc
that part of the operation was a real disgrace

Snoopy: The only difference in the end is what the policeman is charged with. Even if it is not manslaughter it is still assault. So he'll end up in jail and/or dismissed from the force no matter what the forensics say.

(V): if you say so

Snoopy: I know so, that ... or the police inspector friend I was talking to earlier was wrong... and I doubt that very much with his experience.

(V): has i said if you say so
thou i rather wait until everything is out in the open before making a judgement myself
i found over the years its to easy to JUDGE someone without knowing all the FACTS

Snoopy: What facts are there that you think justify shoving a person over from behind who has both his hands in his pockets?

If it were you or me we'd be charged with GBH or similar.

As to the law...

Page 1
Manslaughter by
Reason of Provocation
Manslaughter by
Reason of Provocation
Sentencing Guidelines Council
FOREWORD
In accordance with section 170(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Sentencing Guidelines Council issues this guideline as a definitive guideline. By virtue of section 172 of the Act, every court must have regard to a relevant guideline. This guideline applies to offenders convicted of manslaughter by reason of provocation who are sentenced after 28 November 2005.
This guideline stems from a reference from the Home Secretary for consideration of the issue of sentencing where provocation is argued in cases of homicide, and, in particular, domestic violence homicides. For the purpose of describing “domestic violence”, the Home Secretary adopted the Crown Prosecution Service definition.
1
The guideline applies to sentencing of an adult offender for this offence in whatever circumstances it occurs. It identifies the widely varying features of both the provocation and the act of retaliation and sets out the approach to be adopted in deciding both the sentencing range and the starting point within that range.
This guideline is for use where the conviction for manslaughter is clearly
founded on provocation alone. There will be additional, different and more
complicated matters to be taken into account where the other main partial
defence, diminished responsibility, is a factor.
The Council’s Guideline New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003 recognised the potentially more demanding nature of custodial sentences of 12 months or longer imposed under the new framework introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Consequently the sentencing ranges and starting points in this guideline take that principle into account.
Guidelines are created following extensive consultation. The Sentencing Advisory Panel first consults widely on the basis of a thoroughly researched consultation paper, then provides the Council with advice. Having considered the advice, the Council prepares a draft guideline on which there is further consultation with Parliament, with the Home Secretary and with Ministers of other relevant Government Departments. This guideline is the culmination of that process.
The Council has appreciated greatly the work of the Sentencing Advisory Panel in preparing the advice on which this guideline has been based and for those who have responded so thoughtfully to the consultation of both the Panel and the Council.

1 “Any criminal offence arising out of physical, sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse by one
person against a current or former partner in a close relationship, or against a current or former family
member.” A new definition of domestic violence was agreed in 2004 (and appears in the CPS Policy on
Prosecuting cases of Domestic Violence, 2005) “any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse
[psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional] between adults who are or have been intimate
partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.”
Page 4
The advice and this guideline are available on www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk
or from the Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat at 85 Buckingham Gate, London
SW1E 6PD. A summary of the responses to the Council’s consultation also appears
on the website.
Chairman of the Council
November 2005

Statutory Provision

Establishing the Basis for Sentencing
Factors Influencing Sentence
The degree of provocation as shown by its nature and duration
The extent and timing of the retaliation
Post-offence behaviour
Use of a weapon
Sentence Ranges and Starting Points
Identifying sentence ranges
Factors to take into consideration

Sentencing Guidelines Council

MANSLAUGHTER BY REASON OF PROVOCATION
A. Statutory Provision
1.1
Murder and manslaughter are common law offences and there is no complete
statutory definition of either. ‘Provocation’ is one of the partial defences by which an offence
that would otherwise be murder may be reduced to manslaughter.
1.2
Before the issue of provocation can be considered, the Crown must have proved
beyond reasonable doubt that all the elements of murder were present, including the
necessary intent (i.e. the offender must have intended either to kill the victim or to cause
grievous bodily harm). The court must then consider section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957,
which provides:
Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the
person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both
together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to
make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in
determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said
according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.
B. Establishing the Basis for Sentencing
2.1
The Court of Appeal in Attorney General’s Reference (Nos. 74, 95 and 118 of 2002)
(Suratan and others),
2
set out a number of assumptions that a judge must make in favour of
an offender found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by reason of provocation. The assumptions are required in order to be faithful to the verdict and should be applied equally in all cases whether conviction follows a trial or whether the Crown has accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter by reason of provocation:
❏ first, that the offender had, at the time of the killing, lost self-control; mere loss of temper or jealous rage is not sufficient
❏ second, that the offender was caused to lose self-control by things said or done, normally by the person killed
❏ third, that the offender’s loss of control was reasonable in all the circumstances, even bearing in mind that people are expected to exercise reasonable control over their emotions and that, as society advances, it ought to call for a higher measure of self-control.

**********************

This is the law.

Snoopy: Im surprised that a Police Inspector would talk about it to a nobody....friend or not, surely it is classified information and he is releasing it into the public arena.

and also if he isn't on the case personally he is also only guessing the consequences, and if he IS on the case then he should be reported for disclosing this information. Even a blind man can see this.

Bernice: Excuse me!! Telling me what the law is illegal!!

And stop trying to flame me, it's getting old.

(V): so what your saying after watching a thirty second video you know every single thing that happened you know everything that was said
from this thirty sec clip you say that this officer must be put on trial because the video tells you so

what i keep saying why are you so quick to JUDGE you dont all the facts from a 30 sec clip
just wait and see what ELSE COMES OUT before jumping to conclusions

did you google that last one to find out the laws of the land

(V): What I want to know is this: Did that guy die simply from being pushed down or was there more that happened that we didn't see?

Snoopy: No, I'm saying that no matter what the policeman committed a criminal offence. There is no justification to shove a man from behind by a policeman, especially as the man was not showing any physical signs of attempting to physically harm the police.

This is the law. British law.

All that is to be decided now re the forensics is what charge the policeman is to be charged with.

And apparently there are 10 serious assaults by the police being passed over to MP's to look in the G20 protests.

Artful Dodger: exactly

Bernice: yes thats my point to everyone seems to jumping to conclusions that this officer because of a 30 sec video clip must be guilty

i dont even understand why he is having this conversation because EXACT cause of death STILL ISNT KNOWN

Artful Dodger: That is still being investigated, hence the two charges being possible... assault or manslaughter.

(V): Im not flaming you...stop whingeing....

Bernice: of course not.

Snoopy: Because this is a free country and I'm allowed to. We all have feelings and opinions on this, and as a free person I am allowed to have an opinion.