Apparently a police officer filmed assaulting a man during the G20 protests - a man who subsequently died - last year has "nothing to answer for".
The CPS used evidence from a doctor who is facing other allegations of misconduct in order to drop any charges against the assaulting police office.
A paid for doctor?
Contrast this with Gaza protesters who were also assaulted by police, but were then charged and convicted for serious crimes and got like 18 month sentences for throwing a plastic bottle.
In that case too, where there were allegations of police brulatity, the police not only could not find the evidence, but would not allow any found evidence to be shared between different cases, all the while they had the time to spend months and thousand of man hours to make their cases - some of them flawed in cases.
Misconduct or an error on the part of a police officer is more forgiveable in situations where the police are being baited or where there is a high risk or active instances of violence and criminal damage. In that situation it is important for police to be aware of the dangers but it is also very difficult to police effectively at a protest which objects to your presence; and it is very difficult to uphold protesters' rights as inviolable if you are compelled to take any kind of physical action. The conclusion is if you mess around with armed officers, if they get the impression of being compelled to take action, don't bring up rights, because it is such an unusual scenario. I would not want to see officers castigated for this sort of thing unless it was clear that they instigated or severely overreacted. If a court rules any which way I am not outraged or concerned.
Its not going to get to court though, is it?
The CPS have decided to make the decision instead of allowing the courts to do so and have done so in a way that stops the family from taking other proceedings etc over assault.
I am not sure if you remember this case, but it wasn't one where the police were being attacked in this incident, but it was a person minding his own business walking home from work when a police officer decided to strike him from behind.
I don't think it is a good idea to mention how sometimes police are forced to respond in kind or the like as in this case that was clearly not the case.
Even in other cases, tactics such as kettling can provoke reactions since they are use to physically manipulate situations and gather people in specific locations etc that may be unnatural containments for crowds.
But once again, that was not the case here.
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ]
While the aim may not have been to seriously hurt, the (second two) portmortems did suggest that he died of serious internal bleeding. (the first said natural causes, but that doctor is under review by the GMC currently for other botch jobs... or backhanders?)
The IPCC had advised the CPS to charge the officer with manslaughter. but the CPS officer - the same one who thought there was no case to answer for the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes - decided that there was no case to answer for.
Seriously dodgy IMO.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I think the officer in question may face a gross misconduct hearing with the Police Federation, but that'll only result in a dismissal at the most. The charge was unlawful act manslaughter, which requires a causal link between the unlawful act and the death. Because the pathologist basically effed up the investigation the other two could not give a decisive answer as to what the cause was. Unfortuantely mate; that means that we cannot be sure beyond reasonable doubt, even though we pretty much know that he didn't die of flu.
Yaqub or one of the other lawyers here can correct me if I'm wrong but I think there is a chance of him being tried for gross negligence manslaughter (where a duty of care was owed to the man by the police which was breached, which in turn led to the death).
Yaqub and the lawyers what do you think?
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
How about leaving this for the jury to decide?
and considering what else the first has gotten up to, I am sure they would reject his report...
The idea is that there should be justice being done and procedures followed - if someone had died after an assault by a non police officer I am sure it would have got to court.
On Question Time it was mentioned that since WW2 there have been approximately 1000 deaths involving police. There have been exactly zero instances where an officer has been charged.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
There is good reason to resist opening that Pandora's Box, because the police operate in difficult conditions and are generally restrained, and wouldn't want to be sued in instances where they judge restraint an impediment to a positive outcome. I don't know how what I saw on that video led to his death; either he had a condition or was on a drug, which I suspect from the manner of his walking and intransigence around police.
All the same having watched it again - and thank you, I was vague on what this was - I don't understand why an officer attacked him and it should be investigated. I don't think murder is the correct word, but it might be manslaughter and either way it seems to be grave misconduct, possibly resulting in a death.
There is a third possibility that seems unlikely, which is that the officer targeted him for reasons we may never know.