(V): I am not an anarchist , I believe the government has its place in our lives.... protecting us is one of those places, and the police do a very hard job for very little pay, and they deserve our respect, not disdain...

You have a volatile area, the public needs to do what they can to stay out of the way of police trying to do their job...

This guy was trying to do his part to be more in the way than out of the way, he was making himself a distraction, and making it more likely that someone doing something wrong would no be dealt with properly because the police are too busy waiting for this guy to walk home from work.

It might seem like nothing to you, but lets say that 1000 people decided to act like this guy did, and basically be in the way, and a distraction to the police doing their real jobs???

Bottom line again.... this guy was an idiot who paid the ultimate price for his stupidity, he is dead, and this police officer will be suspended, and not charged with murder of any kind

(V): But one thing you don't consider, is the need for the police to be respected by Joe Public.


Well, I have too, that is exactly one of my points.... this guy had no respect for the police. Had he respected them and what they were up against in that area with all the violence and protests etc, he would have done everything in his abilities to not be in the way of them doing their duties against real problems that might exist.

Czuch: I find your support for police brutality very strange.

Czuch: The thing though that has come to light is that if the police had been more professional about the protests (as the whole police activity during the G20 protests is being looked into) .. there would have been less arrests. I'm not saying there would have been no arrests, but some of the troubles seem to be (according to the reports and the gist of what the IPCC are saying) would have been avoided, hence less arrests.

And Czuch... guns are a rarity in this country, this is not the USA.

And that you approve of police brutality rather goes against your call for less government.. looks like you are a closet more government person. And by the looks of it, you like the idea of dictatorships aka BIG BROTHER.

But one thing you don't consider, is the need for the police to be respected by Joe Public.. without Joe Public's support a lot of crimes in the UK would never be solved. And the death of Mr Tomlinson as well as all the other reported crimes by the police during the protests have eroded the trust that is essential for the police to work efficiently.

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


Really? Are you kidding me???

He has a gun in his pocket maybe???

You really cant think of any reasons??? Really??? I can give you two hand fulls if you need them

Artful Dodger: we seem to agree...


This cop will never be charged with anything close to murder, he will likely get a suspension, and then back to beating poor innocent people again

Bernice: as Jules said there was ONLY 122 arrests LOL....rather minor really


thanks for that reminder....

Czuch: I would say yes but depending on the circumstances. I've seen videos where officers took a man down by the neck in a choke hold. The man was just sitting on his motorcycle and had just lost control of the bike and was stopped, sitting on his bike that he was holding up, trying to keep from falling. The officer lunged at the man, grabbing him around the neck, and slammed him to the ground.

Of course the biker dude had just led the officer on a high speed chase and only stopped because he had lost control of the bike.

In this case, the officer acted properly. But if someone had just seen the video, and didn't know the full circumstances, they might say the officer over reacted. The guy was warned first to get off his bike but he sat there like a dork.

In the case Jules is talking about, it's hard to tell. The man is moving away, but he appears to be taunting the police (asking for trouble) in a very stressful situation. And he's moving sideways, and clearly very slowly (defiantly).

Maybe the officer over reacted but as I've said, the man should have promptly complied with the cop's demands. He looked to be playing them and seemed to be asking for a confrontation with the police. He got more than he barganed for.....

(V): there is an obvious case of the policeman attacking the guy from behind



are you kidding me?? really???

You use the word "attack' but that word implies something that has yet to be proven... the police could push a guy from behind for many reasons that would not be considered an attack

(V): you are saying it's ok for a policeman to shove a man from behind to the ground and that is a perfectly ok thing for a policeman to do?

A yes or no answer is all I need.

Yes

Bernice: and there is a report somewhere which i look out tomorrow that an ITV camera crew tried to give him first aid but where moved on by police
anyway got to get some sleep lots to do tomorrow

Snoopy: it appears he was hit on the leg with a baton and then was pushed by the same officer....Ian Tomlinson tried to talk to police and then got up and walked away only to collapse further down the street where he subsequently died.

Bernice: 122 arrests out of an estimated (by the police) 35,000 people considering the tensions is damn good.

No way near a Brixton riot.

Artful Dodger: i actually think the whole police operation from the very top down was really badly organised
there is more and more protesters comming forward each day with claims of over reaction from the police
and if i remember correctly that guy went to go his normal way home and found it blocked by police so had to go a different way which led to his death

Artful Dodger: Exactly why the man has been interviewed under caution of suspicion of manslaughter.

The words of that of a family member.. you would expect him to be peeved.

Artful Dodger: one of the news reports say he was hit with a baton before he was shoved....if that was the case what did the damage?
I agree he shouldnt have been shoved.

as Jules said there was ONLY 122 arrests LOL....rather minor really

(V): ""Now we know that he was violently assaulted by a police officer and died from internal bleeding. As time goes on we hope that the full truth about how Ian died will be made known.""


The choice of the words "violently assaulted" seems a bit much to me. The man was shoved to the ground. And assault perhaps but no a violent one. Seems to me that if the shove caused the man's death, it was a freak accident more than anything else. Which is likely why they are talking about manslaughter and not murder.

Bernice: I'm not hyping, there is an obvious case of the policeman attacking the guy from behind. THAT IS BEYOND DISPUTE. The only matter now is what he gets charged with.

Snoopy: Oh I know that. But even if the officer was found innocent of the man's death, don't you think that the shove was a bit excessive?

Artful Dodger: His route home took him past the Bank of England, I guess the guy thought not being a protester that he was in no danger from the police.

(V)in your own words...take your own advice. As Snoopy is also saying and wait to see results

(V): yes i read that couple of days ago

Artful Dodger: ive never disagreed that the officer was at fault what he did was so wrong

i just think people should wait until ALL the facts come out before passing judgement

i mean who are we to be judge jury and executioner

Snoopy: I'll take that as a no, it is not acceptable to shove a man like that from behind.

And at the mo, it's upto the IPCC and the CPS.

And we are all entitled to an opinion.. just like the Family is...

.....Paul King, Mr Tomlinson's step-son, said "First we were told that there had been no contact with the police, then we were told that he died of a heart attack.

"Now we know that he was violently assaulted by a police officer and died from internal bleeding. As time goes on we hope that the full truth about how Ian died will be made known."

Jules Carey of Tuckers, the family's solicitor, said the family had known about the results of the second post-mortem for the past week - but had reluctantly agreed to remain silent while the IPCC continued its investigations.

"The findings of Dr Nat Cary significantly increase the likelihood that the officer will now face the more serious charge of manslaughter," said Mr Carey.

"The IPCC opposed the disclosure of Dr Cary's findings until they satisfied themselves that it would not prejudice their investigation of the officer.

"It is of some comfort to the family that the record is now being put straight, but they hope that the IPCC investigation will be expedited and thorough, and that there will be a prompt referral to the CPS for charge," he added.

Snoopy: Well, shoving the guy was unnecessary no matter the outcome. So that's one point. Police here are trained to show more restraint. Certainly the officer didn't mean to bring upon the man's death. But shoving the man served no useful purpose. With that I agree.

I also see Czuch's point. I know that whenever I've been pulled over, the man in the uniform represents the authority of the state. He is called, "sir' by me. Or "officer." I show respect and talk decent to the man/woman. I know they have a hard job to do. If I am near the G20 summit, I choose a route that doesn't complicate the job of the police. They have been dealing with rioters etc. So being smart, I know to keep away from the front lines. This man apparently didn't get that message. He bears some responsibility here. It doesn't excuse away the officer's over-reaction (IMO it was an over reaction), but it does put some blame upon the man that died.

(V): im like you i dont do simple yes or no answers

(V): your jumping to a lot of assumptions ove this
and repeating myself for the 5th time i will wait until all the evidence comes to light before passing judgement

and ive never said the policeman was in the right your twisting my words on here
has ive been SAYING all afternoon from a 30 sec video clip you have said this police officer must be guilty because of the video isnt that for a jury to decide upon not YOU

(V): I feel the same way as an educator. I work for the people.

Artful Dodger: I knew you would.

(V): Well I can agree with that.

Snoopy: So.. even if it was not manslaughter, you are saying it's ok for a policeman to shove a man from behind to the ground and that is a perfectly ok thing for a policeman to do?

A yes or no answer is all I need.

(V): i never said he wouldnt be arrested and charged
what ive been saying all afternoon YOU are jumping the gun saying the officer is guilty even before it has gone to trial

if it was so straight forward has your making out they have had the video for over a week they are questioning the officer they havnt charged him YET

so IM saying there must be more to it still and isnt it better to wait and hear all the facts before JUDGING anyone

Artful Dodger: The IPCC chief said that the police are our SERVANTS, not our masters.

It would be at least manslaughter under British law, depending on the circumstances.. maybe murder. I mean.. Bikers are supposed to be able to take insults.. if not.. why are they Bikers? Priesthood might be a better calling for them.

Snoopy: Yes.. and? The film shows that no matter what he committed a crime, the only question is the magnitude of the crime.

(V): Admittedly I don't know much about the case nor am I familiar with the law. Your descriptions rather remind me of the SS and some of their early antics of abuse. Given too much power, people can abuse others. So if this is the case, the officer should be prosecuted.

Czuch does make a good point on the personal responsibility front. If I were to walk into a biker bar, and call all the bikers a bunch of nanny fags, and they beat me to a pulp and then beat me some more, who would be at fault for my injuries? The bikers broke the law, but would I have no guilt in my own injuries? After all, had I simply stayed home or just gone to walmart, I'd be ok. Or say I walk into a biker bar and hand each biker a 100 dollar bill and tell them to have a good day, they might buy me a beer. Or they might beat me to a pulp and see if I had anymore money. Either way, whether I call them fags and get beat, or give them 100 dollars and get beat, I'm still beat up. Maybe dead. And to think I'd be just fine had I simply gone to the zoo instead.

(V): this is taken from todays Times

The Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is investigating his death, said: “Following the initial result of the second post-mortem a Metropolitan Police officer has been interviewed under caution for the offence of manslaughter.” The officer, a constable in the Territorial Support Group who has been suspended from duty, attended the interview voluntarily and has not been arrested.

Snoopy: I give up!! I've explained the law. Read it, look up sites on it.

I'm having my dinner

(V): and where did you see where that this policeman is going to be charged i havnt heard that yet
they still questioning him according to the report ive just read on the BBC

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.

Bernice: of course not.

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

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

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: exactly

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.

(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?

(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

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

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

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.

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.