The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Should one be charged with manslaughter, just for pushing another person in the back?
62 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/3fqj2lw
It would appear that this policeman is to be sent for trial, charged with manslaughter.
Do you think this is a little over the top, and this officer as been made a scapegoat in some way?
Yes it was obvious that the man was pushed but was that the cause of his death?
Did he fall and fracture his head? No.
Did the push cause internal bleeding? No.
He was in fact in the middle of a very violent riot almost, maybe he wasn't taking part, but he had been warned a number times.
The police as well as our military have a very difficult and at times a very dangerous job to do, and too many times in the heat of a disturbance or a battle, snap decisions have to be made, and as a result a death is caused.
If an innocent bystander happens to walk across a battle field, it is not the military who is to blame if he is killed, the same applies in a police incident, the message is simple if you don't want to get hurt, keep out of the way.
I know that all the cop bashers on here will be queuing up to cry me down over this, but like them or loath them, there may come a time when one might need them.
It would appear that this policeman is to be sent for trial, charged with manslaughter.
Do you think this is a little over the top, and this officer as been made a scapegoat in some way?
Yes it was obvious that the man was pushed but was that the cause of his death?
Did he fall and fracture his head? No.
Did the push cause internal bleeding? No.
He was in fact in the middle of a very violent riot almost, maybe he wasn't taking part, but he had been warned a number times.
The police as well as our military have a very difficult and at times a very dangerous job to do, and too many times in the heat of a disturbance or a battle, snap decisions have to be made, and as a result a death is caused.
If an innocent bystander happens to walk across a battle field, it is not the military who is to blame if he is killed, the same applies in a police incident, the message is simple if you don't want to get hurt, keep out of the way.
I know that all the cop bashers on here will be queuing up to cry me down over this, but like them or loath them, there may come a time when one might need them.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG
You appear to have this notion that members of the constabulary and the forces can do no wrong .
This ‘officer ’ by his actions on the day and from his previous conduct is clearly a thug , pure and simple and should have been given his cards a long time ago.
One could have forgiven him if it were the case that he was in a volatile situation and felt threatened by Mr Tomlinson . This clearly was an unprovoked attack .
You would be the first to dip your pen in vitriol , were it the case that it was someone pushing an officer violently to the ground – and god forbid if it was someone from a particular ethnicity .
As for the idea that ‘ Ian Tomlinson was a chronic alcoholic, and was several times over the limit for driving on the evening he died, could his liver been so badly damaged by his alcoholism that it ruptured ’
That is irrelevant - There is an obligation to ‘take your victim as you find them.’ This principle is known as the ‘eggshell skull’ rule and means that if the victim has a pre-existing condition that is exacerbated by the act of negligence, as long as the damage is one which the law recognises, there is no defence to claim that another person would not have been so badly injured.
The liability for negligence has been developed through three tests – establishing a duty to take reasonable care; a breach of that duty; and consequential damage.
This ‘ officer ’ is clearly negligent – in my opinion
You appear to have this notion that members of the constabulary and the forces can do no wrong .
This ‘officer ’ by his actions on the day and from his previous conduct is clearly a thug , pure and simple and should have been given his cards a long time ago.
One could have forgiven him if it were the case that he was in a volatile situation and felt threatened by Mr Tomlinson . This clearly was an unprovoked attack .
You would be the first to dip your pen in vitriol , were it the case that it was someone pushing an officer violently to the ground – and god forbid if it was someone from a particular ethnicity .
As for the idea that ‘ Ian Tomlinson was a chronic alcoholic, and was several times over the limit for driving on the evening he died, could his liver been so badly damaged by his alcoholism that it ruptured ’
That is irrelevant - There is an obligation to ‘take your victim as you find them.’ This principle is known as the ‘eggshell skull’ rule and means that if the victim has a pre-existing condition that is exacerbated by the act of negligence, as long as the damage is one which the law recognises, there is no defence to claim that another person would not have been so badly injured.
The liability for negligence has been developed through three tests – establishing a duty to take reasonable care; a breach of that duty; and consequential damage.
This ‘ officer ’ is clearly negligent – in my opinion
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.