You mean abdominal bleeding, at least until the next post mortem is done.And that probably would be manslaughter.
(
Kamikaze Stoat £4.09,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:10,
archived)
depends, really, on the cause of death.if the bleeding is causally related to his heart attack, then manslaughter is a possibility, though a difficult one to make stick.
The causal link between a man falling over and having a heart attack is a bit tenuous, and precedents like "thin-skull".
I think it's quite clear that the policeman did not exert deadly force, so should not be culpable for his death. Thing like this happen regularly and they're not blown out of all reasonable proportion because the newspaper don't jump on it and make a big drama out of it.
(The causal link between a man falling over and having a heart attack is a bit tenuous, and precedents like "thin-skull".
I think it's quite clear that the policeman did not exert deadly force, so should not be culpable for his death. Thing like this happen regularly and they're not blown out of all reasonable proportion because the newspaper don't jump on it and make a big drama out of it.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:18,
archived)
Surely the question is why any force was used at all?There may well be a reason why he was shoved to the ground without warning and not arrested, I don't know.
( Kamikaze Stoat £4.09,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:51,
archived)
I know.I agree with that, it was wrong, but it was an error made by a human in a stressful situation. It wasn't a premeditated act of murder.
I'm not defending the policeman, I just think the reaction to it all is rather over the top.
(I'm not defending the policeman, I just think the reaction to it all is rather over the top.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 17:16,
archived)