Ian Tomlinson

[Drivel]

Died of an "abdominal haemorrhage"

[Sachs]

Large Easter egg from Thorntons 50% off :0))))

[Sachs]

OOPS! dont worry ..... I'm going!

[paraffin]

Steve:

I was not trying to take the mick about Liverpool, but I thought that you were a proud "Scouser", going by other posts of yours I've seen, and the Liverpool reference was tongue in cheek, no more than that.

[stokemaveric]

you have to ask the question.......would ian tomlinson have died THAT DAY if that policeman had pushed him over? irrespective of where he was at the time video coverage shows him walking away from the officer with his hands in his pocket......did he deserve to be hit with a baton and violently pushed to the ground???? i personally dont think that he did.................

[jake-the-peg]

Stoke

If a bunch of coppers were coming up behind you - would you ignore them and walk slowly on without making eyecontact?

He was being obstructive.

He was given a shove and fell because his hands were in his pockets.

The woman was facing the Policeman, not obstructing him,
why did he need to beat her legs with a baton?

[Drivel]

Despite the coppers intensive training he lost it,
the copper regrets it, he is now stressed and depressed.
he could be facing manslaughter charges.




anyhow ...........how was the "abdominal haemorrhage" missed first time round???? I find that extraordinary

[paraffin]

Drivel:

The reason the "death by abdominal haemorrage" was missed during the first post mortem examination can only be answered in the fullness of time.

The reason I say that is because different pathologists carried out the two examinations and, for whatever reasons, still to be explained, have reached different conclusions as to the cause of death.

Steve: No offence. Isn't that where "Lily Savage" comes from?

Both verdicts, it's crucial to note, are what is known as "provisional", which, to use a horse racing analogy is like declaring the winner before the jockeys have weighed in. There is still a long way to go before a final conclusion is reached.

Don't forget, at the moment all we have are media reports, and that's all they are - reports. It won't be until the IPCC have gathered all available evidence and information that the $64,000 question(s) will be answered:
1) What was the reason for Mr Tomlinson's death?
2) What or who caused it?

For what it's worth, the mobile phone footage of the incident certainly shows that the Police Officer involved appears to use excessive force trying to move Mr Tomlinson on. Still doesn't prove that his action caused the unfortunate man's death.

[stokemaveric]

jake im sorry i dont get the point that you are trying to make,im not advocating the police behaviour at all,in fact the police officer should be facing a murder charge.........

[whifffey]

Irrespective of the cause of death, there is a potentially devastating outcome here. Our police, who regularly have to face up to all the raging jeering misfits, will feel less and less inclined to do so, for fear of prosecution for saying as much as Boo to some imported leftie rioter.

Let's stop policing demonstrations and let the crowds get on with it, they will in great righteousness rip apart the RBS building, and pull down the Houses of Parliament.

Let's go the way of Pakistan, they have got the right idea.

Bye bye Britain. Bye bye commonsense.

[sqad617]

"Dr Cary's opinion is that the cause of death was abdominal haemorrhage. The cause of the haemorrhage remains to be ascertained

It is difficult to associate the above statement with the facts of the assault.
A normal aorta could not be ruptured by the alleged assault.
An aneurysm predating the assault could have been ruptured by the assault, but extremely unlikely.

If he died of abdominal bleeding, then I can't understand how it could be due to the police assault.

[paraffin]

stokemaverick:

"...in fact the police officer should be facing a murder charge." So your kangaroo court has him convicted without a trial already? How interesting.

Let me enlighten your apparent ignorance of English Law:

Definition of Murder (which has two elements or parts)
1. The act of killing a person.
2. The state of mind of intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated and/or wanton.

Exclusion(s): Unlawful killing without malice or intent are considered Manslaughter.

Therefore, stokem, could you please tell me on which element or part of "Murder" your "Court" has convicted this Officer? I'm very interested because I didn't know the Law had been changed.

[123everton]

Steve is not a Scouser, he's from the Wirral and is thus known as a Wacker.
He landed on his stomach which I feel is enough to cause a rupture.
I'm unsure as to what the charge should be, based on the evidence so far if I were on a jury I'd view the officer as culpable, I don't feel he should go to jail for this (if found guilty) and I'm unsure if he should be dismissed (at the moment) I doubt this will go to court.

[paraffin]

123:

I disagree with a part of your post and I'll tell you why:

Unlike the farce which was the Joan Charles Mendez inquiry, when someone should undoubtedly have been found guilty, there is film evidence available in this tragic death of Ian Tomlinson.

I've already stated that we need to await the outcome of the IPCC enquiry, and I stand by that.

However, from the mobile phone film it seems very damning for the Police Officer involved, in the sense that, even although any reasonable person would find it hard to think the Officer tried to kill Mr Tomlinson, it appears as though the elements for Manslaughter could be there.

I, therefore, expect charges to be brought IF the death IS ultimately deemed to be connected with the Officer's act of pushing the guy to the ground.

[sqad617]

123 " He landed on his stomach which I feel is enough to cause a rupture."

Yes I suppose he could have had a hernia due to the fall, but he would hardly die from a "hernia"