Dalian Atkinson

Dalian Atkinson

johndub said:
With respect, I think what you are now saying is different from your earlier post. Murder requires intention. That intention has to be formed prior to the act which caused the death, i.e. premeditation. In saying that, there doesn’t need to have been a prior ‘plan’ and the intention doesn’t need to have been in the mind of the offender for any particular length of time beforehand. You previously referred to the intention being simultaneous. I cannot think of any act of violence where the intention to cause harm, serious or otherwise, can be said to be simultaneous to the act itself. If A and B have a row and A punches B with such force that he kills him, the argument before the jury would be whether or not A intended to cause serious harm. He would have intended to cause some harm at least and that intention would have been formed prior to the throwing of the punch, albeit only seconds before doing so. Your earlier correction of my post was a distinction without a difference. ?*?
Click to expand...

You asked me to elaborate not provide a difference.

You used the phrase 'prior intention' in the original comment you made, it is the word prior that is the red herring here and I attempted to illustrate. As I know you are aware the key focus in UK law is intent or inferred intent. My illustration was to highlight the focus on intent that is used in UK law.
 

Dalian Atkinson

LostBee said:
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if that was the case, proving it is a different thing though.

Have you not seen some of the shaven headed, steroid ridden neanderthals they are giving warrant cards to these days?
Click to expand...

Seldom see any coppers to be honest!
 

Dalian Atkinson

Humblebee said:
I don't think it has to be premeditated to be murder, but there must be an intention to kill. If the intention was just to harm the person, rather than to kill them, it is manslaughter (or so I believe).
Click to expand...

No - if there's intention to cause really serious harm which results unintentionally in death, that is murder. It is only if the intention is to cause a low level of harm or if the accused is reckless as to the harm being caused that it would be manslaughter. I think the officer here has an alternative charge of manslaughter, so there may be an argument over whether in the circumstances the use of the taser would be in the knowledge that it would cause really serious harm to Atkinson or that the officer was "merely" reckless. For the former, there'll be evidence about the state Atkinson was in at the time - the reports are that the Police weren't called until after he had assaulted his dad. My mum's been on dialysis for a long time (started when she was a similar age to Atkinson) and if several hours after dialysis she pulled out her neckline she'd be obviously very weak (though immediately after dialysis, as when Atkinson attacked his dad, she would be very "up" if she'd been given an EPO shot (same stuff dopers give professional cyclists) to get through dialysis). That might add up to an experienced officer, trained in use of a taser, being taken to know about the risk of using it. But there may be evidence that Atkinson was still very hyper at 1.30am and/or that the officers had not been told the background, in which case using the taser might have been reckless.

It is complex and I can see why it will have taken a while for the Police and CPS to gather the relevant evidence and assess it.
 

Dalian Atkinson

whyteleafebee76 said:
You asked me to elaborate not provide a difference.

You used the phrase 'prior intention' in the original comment you made, it is the word prior that is the red herring here and I attempted to illustrate. As I know you are aware the key focus in UK law is intent or inferred intent. My illustration was to highlight the focus on intent that is used in UK law.
Click to expand...

Makes a change from debating the usefulness of VAR!
 

Dalian Atkinson

AB said:
No - if there's intention to cause really serious harm which results unintentionally in death, that is murder. It is only if the intention is to cause a low level of harm or if the accused is reckless as to the harm being caused that it would be manslaughter. I think the officer here has an alternative charge of manslaughter, so there may be an argument over whether in the circumstances the use of the taser would be in the knowledge that it would cause really serious harm to Atkinson or that the officer was "merely" reckless. For the former, there'll be evidence about the state Atkinson was in at the time - the reports are that the Police weren't called until after he had assaulted his dad. My mum's been on dialysis for a long time (started when she was a similar age to Atkinson) and if several hours after dialysis she pulled out her neckline she'd be obviously very weak (though immediately after dialysis, as when Atkinson attacked his dad, she would be very "up" if she'd been given an EPO shot (same stuff dopers give professional cyclists) to get through dialysis). That might add up to an experienced officer, trained in use of a taser, being taken to know about the risk of using it. But there may be evidence that Atkinson was still very hyper at 1.30am and/or that the officers had not been told the background, in which case using the taser might have been reckless.

It is complex and I can see why it will have taken a while for the Police and CPS to gather the relevant evidence and assess it.
Click to expand...

Ok, but my main point was that it does not have to be premeditated to be murder. As you say, it is complex.
 

Dalian Atkinson

Hope the jury isn't selected from people on here. Could take a while to agree on a verdict.
 

Dalian Atkinson

pompeybee said:
Hope the jury isn't selected from people on here. Could take a while to agree on a verdict.
Click to expand...

They might have a chance to come to the verdict after hearing all the evidence, though.
 

Dalian Atkinson

Excessive use of a taser is known to cause serious harm and there are guidelines about how long a taser should be kept active. I know absolutely nothing of this incident but I do wonder if that has been a factor.
 

Dalian Atkinson

Les Beeavinu said:
Excessive use of a taser is known to cause serious harm and there are guidelines about how long a taser should be kept active. I know absolutely nothing of this incident but I do wonder if that has been a factor.
Click to expand...

There is no way the CPS would have taken this to court unless there is a serious reason and we definitely haven't heard the full story on this one.
 

Dalian Atkinson

Plenty of cases get thrown out and the cps get a caning from the judge
 

Dalian Atkinson

Officer found guilty of manslaughter...very surprised tbh
 

Dalian Atkinson

hanworthbee said:
Officer found guilty of manslaughter...very surprised tbh
Click to expand...
Bastard jury. Sit all the way through a case, hear the evidence, hear closing submissions from the defence and CPS and then take an appropriate direction from the judge. They do all of that and than dare to reach a unanimous decision.

Broken Britain strikes again.
 

Dalian Atkinson

Untouchable said:
Bastard jury. Sit all the way through a case, hear the evidence, hear closing submissions from the defence and CPS and then take an appropriate direction from the judge. They do all of that and than dare to reach a unanimous decision.

Broken Britain strikes again.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean - are you saying the jury were right or wrong in the case?
 

Dalian Atkinson

Silly Hat said:
Not sure what you mean - are you saying the jury were right or wrong in the case?
Click to expand...
I think he was being sarcastic and saying they were in a better position to decide having heard the full evidence in the case and decided unanimously that beyond reasonable doubt the officer was guilty of manslaughter.
 

Dalian Atkinson

rebus said:
Pathetic sentencing.
Click to expand...
To be fair that’s a lot of years during which he’ll have to be continuously on the lookout against a beating and know the screws will probably turn a blind eye or at least give the assailants a decent head start.
 

Dalian Atkinson

Sick joke!
Kick him in the head so hard it snapped his head back then standing long enough to leave an imprint. Tasered for God how long and the bastard will be out in 4 years probably.
 

Dalian Atkinson

BURFORD BEE said:
Sick joke!
Kick him in the head so hard it snapped his head back then standing long enough to leave an imprint. Tasered for God how long and the bastard will be out in 4 years probably.
Click to expand...
That really isn't long enough for what he did
 

Dalian Atkinson

AB said:
To be fair that’s a lot of years during which he’ll have to be continuously on the lookout against a beating and know the screws will probably turn a blind eye or at least give the assailants a decent head start.
Click to expand...
Dalian’s dead. That’s an infinite amount of years.

We are all told that sentencing tariffs increase if members of the police force are killed. Shouldn’t it work the other way around?
 

Dalian Atkinson

rebus said:
Dalian’s dead. That’s an infinite amount of years.

We are all told that sentencing tariffs increase if members of the police force are killed. Shouldn’t it work the other way around?
Click to expand...
I agree, manslaughter by someone who is in a position of care and authority is to my mind an aggravating feature. But I haven’t looked at the sentencing guidelines. As the first such conviction in 35 years there’s not much precedent. Though it is notable that Derek Chauvin got 22 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom