If we're talking about Harwood, the original investigation to him wasn't to the standard it should have been. Again, I think most people would say similar to this.
There were issues with the Mets procedures, and perhaps justifiably people may question why it took until post the inquiry for him to be charged by the CPS.
He was charged by the CPS and faced a jury for manslaughter as people would help. Nevertheless, that said jury acquitted him of the crime.
So unless the CPS wilfully did not do their best in prosecuting him or somehow the jury was tampered, he is legally innocent and innocent of the crime.
Was the acquittal on a technicality? Some may say so, yet the more logical take is that we have a legal system that requires guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
That could not be proven - see the liver conditions and different pathologists reports. Morally, is he guilty? That's a different matter, as the details are unpleasant.
The suspended part? It may come across as uncomfortable, but if not suspended, then what? Act before guilt has been proven or whatnot?
In terms of use of force, yes it is regrettable and again the discussion of it can be uncomfortable, however whether we like it or not it's sometimes a necessity.
The law of physics is clear that unless someone obliges, force is required to detain someone - more than they exert. To not use force would mean what?
There are and sadly there'll continue to be examples of misuse of force, but my point was that often the use of force by police can be a necessity.
The law says as much. So if we go back to the case of the tasering, it may uncomfortable watching, but it was judged appropriate based on the circumstances.
I would therefore suggest that it would be sensible to judge each use by its own circumstances rather than bang the drum of use of force is, by default, bad.
