Reply #4: The intent of the Police "Investigation" was delay [View All]

[panzerfaust]

It {CPS} said it could not bring a charge for criminal assault because too much time had elapsed: a charge must be brought within six months.

The CPS also ruled out bringing charges of actual bodily harm, and misconduct in public office. {WTF?}

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and his back to the officer when he was hit. The video footage suggests that no other police officer went to his aid and it was left to a bystander to lift him to his feet...

...CPS officials had assured the family they would decide on whether to prosecute the officer – and on what charge – by Christmas 2009. {which would have been within the time-frame for assault charges}

To the many British commenters on the article (and to me), it seems that the police commission (as it historically has in the UK) dragged out the "investigation" long enough to time-out on lesser criminal charges - whilst never having any intent of filing more serious ones.

The family is, reportedly, too poor to pursue a civil action against the police officer, and so, unless Parliament steps in (which it will not) this is the end of the matter.

Look at the video. Can you imagine what defense to any charge of misconduct a jury would believe? But no jury will ever have a chance to decide - that being the intent of the police "investigation" from the start.

I fail to see how bringing this police thug to trial would have been a "...perversion of the criminal-justice system;" rather, I see the original unprovoked assault, initial attempt at coverup (too many videos though, for that to work as it turned out), and subsequent delay in investigation for a long enough time to preclude criminal prosecution as the true perversion of justice.

But thank you for standing up for the jackbooted thug who beat an unsuspecting citizen to death in the street - and for the police force and government who closed ranks to see that he was not prosecuted.