Ian Tomlinson death: police officer will not face criminal charges

[panzerfaust]

Source: Guardian (UK)

The police officer caught on video during last year's G20 protests striking a man who later died will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution Service announced today.

Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said there was "no realistic prospect" of a conviction, because of a conflict between the postmortems carried out after Tomlinson's death last year.

The newspaper seller died following the demonstrations on 1 April 2009 in central London. The official account that he died from a heart attack was undermined when the Guardian obtained video footage showing a riot officer striking the 47-year-old with a baton and shoving him to the ground shortly before he collapsed and died.

In a written statement the CPS admitted that there was sufficient evidence to show the officer had assaulted Tomlinson, but claimed a host of technical reasons meant he could not be charged...

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-police-not-charged?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

---

I invite all the usual police apologists to comment.

The UK is further down the road to a Police State than are we - by this decision the UK government makes it clear to its citizens that the police are free from any restraint of law.

Will be looking for the original video link to the assault.

{On Edit}

This link shows the violence of the unprovoked baton attack from the back on this unfortunate British man... http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8x617_new-g20-footage-shows-ian-tomlinson_news

The cop makes a windup and takes a full force swing with his baton at the unprotected back of the unaware victim.

Oh, that's right, he is not a victim as no crime was committed - according to the British government.

[WinkyDink]

1. Brits are the world's most surveilled.

[ColesCountyDem]

2. It is not being an 'apologist' to point out inescapable legal difficulties.

The Crown's problem is and, at trial, would be showing "beyond a shadow of a doubt and to a moral certainty" that there is a legally-demonstrable nexus between the officer's actions and the Mr. Tomlinson's fatal coronary. This would not be an issue of fact for the jury to decide, but a legal one that would almost certainly result in the presiding judge ( s ) granting a defense motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

While a trial might be emotionally satisfying, it would also be a perversion of the criminal-justice system.

edit: typo

[dipsydoodle]

3. More here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10725027

[panzerfaust]

4. The intent of the Police "Investigation" was delay

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.

[ColesCountyDem]

8. I didn't 'stand up for a jackbooted thug', and you damned well know that.

It's understandable that you're frustrated or angry, but to accuse me of standing up for a jackbooted thug is inexcusable, and you owe me an apology. I tried to explain the legal issue, and your reply is of an 'attack the messenger' nature.

I have no problem arguing in a civil manner, but I will neither tolerate nor engage in ad hominem attacks.

edit: spelling

[ColesCountyDem]

11. *crickets* n/t

[B Whale]

14. I see your point, but the 'legal issue' is obfuscation. In any other circumstances the

man would be in court. The CPS found that A police officer 'unlawfully assaulted' an innocent man. Two pathologists found this to be the cause of death. One (discredited) pathologist did not.

All the CPS does is recommend prosecution. The fact that they have refused to allow this matter to be settles in a court of law is a national outrage, a cover up, and the British establishment at its corrupt best!

[ColesCountyDem]

16. My post was not meant to obfuscate, but explain, of course.

I think the police officer SHOULD have been charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Regardless, nothing in my post warranted such a nasty, vicious, slanderous reply.

:hi:

[B Whale]

18. You misunderstand me. 'legal issues' is THEIR

attempt to 'obfuscate'...they also knew that beyond 6 months not even an assault charge can be brought anymore....this took 16 months.

Its a blatant cover up of the death of a man seen my millions on youtube!

[ColesCountyDem]

19. I did misunderstand.

Sorry about that.

:)

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Amazingh how seldom

these "inescapable legal difficulties" surface when the situation is reversed and a member of the public is accused of harming a police officer. Also amazing, no investigation into the coroner who gave the initial bogus autopsy exonerating the police. No prosecution of any member of the police for filing false reports, obstruction of justice, of a host of other charges that can be brought. When a civilian gives a policeman so much as a hang nail, the DA/prosecutor falls all over themselves with charges from attempted murder to mopery.

A common police saying is that there are two kinds of people in the world: Cop and perps. My response is that there are two kinds of criminals in the world: Those with badges and those without. My observation is as fair as the cop's.

[ColesCountyDem]

9. For the record, I don't disagree with anything you posted.

I think the police officer behaved like a savage, the coroner was, at best, either incompetent or too 'police-friendly', and the CPS grossly negligent in the performance of its duties. My post was simply a legally-factual one, and not a defense of what transpired.

[Kelvin Mace]

7. Another quick point

do you no how irritating it is to hear cops whine about criminals getting off on "technicalities" or because they have "slick lawyers"? You can be damned sure they don't characterize situations like this that way.

[B Whale]

13. No. The CPS can push for a prosecution if there is

a 50% chance of a conviction. Two pathologists found cause of death to be internal bleeding caused by external blunt force ie a truncheon and one (Mr Patel who is currently under investigation for botched autopsys) found the cause to be heart attack

The facts are that he was struck in the back with a truncheon several times and was then violently shoved to the ground on his way home from work. he then died moments later. Two pathologists found THIS to be the cause of death one did not.

Juries have to deal with disputed medical evidence all the time.

this a classic, and disgusting, establishment cover up!

[ColesCountyDem]

17. 'Can' is the operative word, unfortunately. n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

5. Even when the evidence is overwhelmig...

it is hard to get 12 folks to be objective bc ny think cops do NOTHING wrong ever. I think it has to do with that authority thingy? Who knows!

[LaurenG]

10. Ugh -

I have nothing to say that wouldn't offend someone, especially police officers and their families.

[B Whale]

12. G20: No Charges over Ian Tomlinson Demo death

Source: BBC

Ian Tomlinson, 47, died after being caught up in the clashes on 1 April 2009 in the City of London.
Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was no prospect of conviction because experts could not agree on how Mr Tomlinson died.
Mr Tomlinson's son Paul King described the decision as "outrageous".


Mr Starmer said there was a "sharp disagreement between the medical experts" about the cause of death, which led to three post-mortem examinations being conducted on Mr Tomlinson.
The first examination by Dr Freddy Patel - currently under investigation for alleged misconduct over four unrelated post-mortem examinations - found he died of natural causes linked to coronary artery disease.
The second pathologist, Dr Nat Cary, found he died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, in combination with cirrhosis of the liver.


Ian Tomlinson's family and solicitor give their reaction to the decision
The third examination agreed with the findings of the second test. It was conducted on behalf of the officer.
Mr Starmer said there were irreconcilable differences between the evidence from Dr Patel and the two subsequent post-mortem examinations.
Dr Patel already faces disciplinary proceedings, and could be struck off, by the General Medical Council over alleged failings in his handling of four separate post-mortem examinations between 2002 and 2005.

Mr Tomlinson, a newspaper seller who was not involved in the protests, was walking home when he was caught up in the demonstration.
The video footage showed him being apparently struck by a baton and then pushed to the ground.
He was seen moving away after the incident but was found collapsed 100 metres away in Cornhill.
Mr Starmer also said that Mr Tomlinson was bitten by a police dog shortly before the clash.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274

---

COMPLETE AND UTTER CORRUPT ESTABLISHMENT DISGRACE!

Juries always go to trial on disputed evidence. Cover up!

[B Whale]

15. 2 patholigists found internal bleeding to be the cause of death as a result of a 'blunt external

force" one (a certain discredited Mr Patel, the police's pathologist) did not. Complete fucking corrupt disgrace

[entanglement]

20. Cop gets away with murder. What a surprise. n/t