Footage shows G20 death man push

[Fop 1]

Fwiw Fop of course I think the police have a case to answer. But you're assertion what has happened is akin to manslaughter is typically doolally.

 

It would be interesting to see if any "civilian" assaults which produced stress-related heart attacks led to more serious charges.

Good point. They look after their own without a doubt.

 

Maybe a lawyer on here can say if there's any precedent for this? I'm vaguely aware there have been similar cases but no successful convictions.

 

For me anyway, the important point is the amount of force used, not the consequences, which iirc is basically how the law works. It seemed unecessary in this case but not massively excessive.

 

 

It killed him, what do you want? Him to have exploded like a worm in Tremors?

 

[manc-mag 1]

If it's not provable in court it isn't 'manslaughter' given that's a term which applies specifically to criminal charges.

 

Absolutely true, but just because someone gets away with it doesn't make it "right".

 

Remember:

 

ANY SIMILARITY BETWEEN LAW AND JUSTICE IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL

You brought manslaughter up, not me.

 

Aye, because it is that level of culpability, even if it wouldn't be deemed so in court.

 

 

You can pedant about it all you want, but you know what Fop means.

Says the bloke who's just pulled me up on a typo

I don't know what you mean exactly tbh. I think the police are in the wrong but you're saying it's manslaughter yet at the same time suggesting that wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Forgive me but I can't see how that isn't a contradiction.

 

 

Cake-an-eat it time from Fop, in a nutshell.

 

It's that flawed logic that haunts his every post. In other arguments you'll find him insisting that a court must be the final arbiter on any legal dispute (you're deprived of your fundamental rights without it), in this scenario though it's reduced to an incovenient impediment to the more important issue of a point he's trying to score on an internet message board.

[Fop 1]

Not sure if you're deliberately ignoring the differentiation made in law over such matters but without blindly showing absolute faith to ability of the UK legal system to get everything I think it's a good thing that that differentiation exists. I don't think terms like 'clearly kills someone else in cold blood' are particularly helpful to the debate either.

 

So that's a

 

If you think it is not, then you do.

 

then.

[Park Life 70]

"The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says the person using force must honestly believe that it was justified, and not excessive.

Force is deemed acceptable in self-defence, defence of another person or property, prevention of crime or lawful arrest.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, you can only use "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances".

The Citizens Advice Bureau defines it as: "The police can use reasonable force when they stop and search, but must make every effort to persuade you to co-operate. They should only use force as a last resort."

One anonymous police officer said that, in training, police are told to use their voices to try and calm a situation before using force.

But an officer does not need to wait until he is being physically attacked before he acts. If the officer believes they are in serious danger, they are allowed to use whatever force they feel is necessary.

What is clear from the footage of Mr Tomlinson is that when he was shoved by a masked officer in a riot shield, he had his back facing the police and his hands in his pockets."

[Guest alex]

Not sure if you're deliberately ignoring the differentiation made in law over such matters but without blindly showing absolute faith to ability of the UK legal system to get everything I think it's a good thing that that differentiation exists. I don't think terms like 'clearly kills someone else in cold blood' are particularly helpful to the debate either.

 

So that's a

 

If you think it is not, then you do.

 

then.

Of course it isn't but I knew you'd say that. Honestly, you think you're so clever but you make yourself look daft every time. Absolutely no point in trying to debate with you when you're in this fettle.

[Guest alex]

"The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says the person using force must honestly believe that it was justified, and not excessive.

Force is deemed acceptable in self-defence, defence of another person or property, prevention of crime or lawful arrest.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, you can only use "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances".

The Citizens Advice Bureau defines it as: "The police can use reasonable force when they stop and search, but must make every effort to persuade you to co-operate. They should only use force as a last resort."

One anonymous police officer said that, in training, police are told to use their voices to try and calm a situation before using force.

But an officer does not need to wait until he is being physically attacked before he acts. If the officer believes they are in serious danger, they are allowed to use whatever force they feel is necessary.

What is clear from the footage of Mr Tomlinson is that when he was shoved by a masked officer in a riot shield, he had his back facing the police and his hands in his pockets."

You can fuck off with your CTRL C + CTRL V stuff as well

[Fop 1]

Cake-an-eat it time from Fop, in a nutshell.

 

It's that flawed logic that haunts his every post. In other arguments you'll find him insisting that a court must be the final arbiter on any legal dispute (you're deprived of your fundamental rights without it), in this scenario though it's reduced to an incovenient impediment to the more important issue of a point he's trying to score on an internet message board.

 

 

Fop already said he'll get away with it, but it's because of a lack of medical evidence (and the ability to currently provide it), not that the the courts are useless and the only option is a good old lynching.

 

 

 

Nice try though, Sammy man. You failed (as usual) with your rhetoric, but one of these days you might not - keep trying.

[Park Life 70]

"The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says the person using force must honestly believe that it was justified, and not excessive.

Force is deemed acceptable in self-defence, defence of another person or property, prevention of crime or lawful arrest.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, you can only use "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances".

The Citizens Advice Bureau defines it as: "The police can use reasonable force when they stop and search, but must make every effort to persuade you to co-operate. They should only use force as a last resort."

One anonymous police officer said that, in training, police are told to use their voices to try and calm a situation before using force.

But an officer does not need to wait until he is being physically attacked before he acts. If the officer believes they are in serious danger, they are allowed to use whatever force they feel is necessary.

What is clear from the footage of Mr Tomlinson is that when he was shoved by a masked officer in a riot shield, he had his back facing the police and his hands in his pockets."

You can fuck off with your CTRL C + CTRL V stuff as well

 

*Shuffles off with his back to Alex and his hands in pocket.

[Fop 1]

Not sure if you're deliberately ignoring the differentiation made in law over such matters but without blindly showing absolute faith to ability of the UK legal system to get everything I think it's a good thing that that differentiation exists. I don't think terms like 'clearly kills someone else in cold blood' are particularly helpful to the debate either.

 

So that's a

 

If you think it is not, then you do.

 

then.

Of course it isn't but I knew you'd say that. Honestly, you think you're so clever but you make yourself look daft every time. Absolutely no point in trying to debate with you when you're in this fettle.

 

So which is it then?

 

I don't know what you mean exactly tbh. I think the police are in the wrong but you're saying it's manslaughter yet at the same time suggesting that wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Forgive me but I can't see how that isn't a contradiction.

 

 

If someone clearly kills someone else in cold blood, but gets away with it legally on a technicality is that ok?

 

 

 

If you think it is, then yes you don't have a clue what Fop is talking about.

 

If you think it is not, then you do.

 

You think it's that one then?

[Fop 1]

"The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says the person using force must honestly believe that it was justified, and not excessive.

Force is deemed acceptable in self-defence, defence of another person or property, prevention of crime or lawful arrest.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, you can only use "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances".

The Citizens Advice Bureau defines it as: "The police can use reasonable force when they stop and search, but must make every effort to persuade you to co-operate. They should only use force as a last resort."

One anonymous police officer said that, in training, police are told to use their voices to try and calm a situation before using force.

But an officer does not need to wait until he is being physically attacked before he acts. If the officer believes they are in serious danger, they are allowed to use whatever force they feel is necessary.

What is clear from the footage of Mr Tomlinson is that when he was shoved by a masked officer in a riot shield, he had his back facing the police and his hands in his pockets."

You can fuck off with your CTRL C + CTRL V stuff as well

 

*Shuffles off with his back to Alex and his hands in pocket.

 

[manc-mag 1]

Cake-an-eat it time from Fop, in a nutshell.

 

It's that flawed logic that haunts his every post. In other arguments you'll find him insisting that a court must be the final arbiter on any legal dispute (you're deprived of your fundamental rights without it), in this scenario though it's reduced to an incovenient impediment to the more important issue of a point he's trying to score on an internet message board.

 

 

Fop already said he'll get away with it, but it's because of a lack of medical evidence (and the ability to currently provide it), not that the the courts are useless and the only option is a good old lynching.

 

 

 

Nice try though, Sammy man. You failed (as usual) with your rhetoric, but one of these days you might not - keep trying.

 

What difference does that make like-in English law, a legal verdict has got little if anything to do with you being a top tipster.

 

Love the way you're equating a 'lack of medical evidence' to a 'technicality' btw.

 

At the end of the day elements of what you come out with are just utter hypocrisy and there's no come back from that.

 

You've managed to turn the relatively safe point you were making about use of force into a complete joke.

[Fop 1]

Cake-an-eat it time from Fop, in a nutshell.

 

It's that flawed logic that haunts his every post. In other arguments you'll find him insisting that a court must be the final arbiter on any legal dispute (you're deprived of your fundamental rights without it), in this scenario though it's reduced to an incovenient impediment to the more important issue of a point he's trying to score on an internet message board.

 

 

Fop already said he'll get away with it, but it's because of a lack of medical evidence (and the ability to currently provide it), not that the the courts are useless and the only option is a good old lynching.

 

 

 

Nice try though, Sammy man. You failed (as usual) with your rhetoric, but one of these days you might not - keep trying.

 

What difference does that make like-in English law, a legal verdict has got little if anything to do with you being a top tipster.

 

Love the way you're equating a 'lack of medical evidence' to a 'technicality' btw.

 

At the end of the day elements of what you come out with are just utter hypocrisy and there's no come back from that.

 

You've managed to turn the relatively safe point you were making about use of force into a complete joke.

 

What are people convicted on DNA evidence gathered before the technology to process it convicted on?

 

More importantly why weren't the convicted when the technology wasn't there and how would you describe it that they weren't? Justice?

 

 

Sammy man man, you're getting desperate now (and your inbox will be filling up again )

[manc-mag 1]

Sorry-how is DNA evidence linked to this incident again?

[Guest alex]

[Fop 1]

Sorry-how is DNA evidence linked to this incident again?

 

Frantic, Sammy man.

 

And really, really desperate now if that's the best you can come up with.

[Renton 17828]

Sorry-how is DNA evidence linked to this incident again?

 

Frantic, Sammy man.

 

And really, really desperate now if that's the best you can come up with.

 

Seriously, what the fuck?

[Fop 1]

Sorry-how is DNA evidence linked to this incident again?

 

Frantic, Sammy man.

 

And really, really desperate now if that's the best you can come up with.

 

Seriously, what the fuck?

 

That's what Fop thought too.

 

Fop guesses he had no answer to Fop's point (that didn't shoot himself in the foot anyway) and that was the best he could come up with.

[manc-mag 1]

Sorry-how is DNA evidence linked to this incident again?

 

Frantic, Sammy man.

 

And really, really desperate now if that's the best you can come up with.

 

 

Surely you must have faced questions on 'relevance' like that before, when you appear in Court's across the land as Clairvoyant Medical expert witness, attesting to future medical knowledge via your internet time portal.

[Fop 1]

Sorry-how is DNA evidence linked to this incident again?

 

Frantic, Sammy man.

 

And really, really desperate now if that's the best you can come up with.

 

 

Surely you must have faced questions on 'relevance' like that before, when you appear in Court's across the land as Clairvoyant Medical expert witness, attesting to future medical knowledge via your internet time portal.

 

Nope, Fop's never been cross-examined by a seriously desperate property conveyubermancer, trying his best not to answer a point that makes him look even more silly than usual, before.

 

 

 

Feel free to keep up your usual tripe until your inbox fills up enough with people telling you you're making a pratt out of yourself (again) that you stop.

 

Or Sammy man just answer the question.

[Guest alex]

Somebody post something irrelevant and funny ffs.

[Fop 1]

Somebody post something irrelevant and funny ffs.

or relevant (in manc-foplite's case).

[Guest alex]

Somebody post something irrelevant and funny ffs.

or relevant (in manc-foplite's case).

Or funny, in yours.

[Fop 1]

Somebody post something irrelevant and funny ffs.

or relevant (in manc-foplite's case).

Or funny, in yours.

 

[Meenzer 14061]

I'm genuinely starting to fear for the non-perpetuity of this place.

[Monkeys Fist 38822]

Somebody post something irrelevant and funny ffs.

Ross Noble