Dalian Atkinson

NorfolkAddick said:

The woman witness, BTW, was middle-aged. If you wanted to pigeon-hole her, you'd say typical Tory voter. Not someone you'd automatically assume was anti-police. It's difficult to imagine why she'd make this stuff up. Still, if true, it would be fairly straightforward for the forensics to support her testimony. I'm guessing there are some very worried BiB.

Just seen her interview - "an African gentleman" classic. I'm gonna stick my neck on the line and say I think he's more likely to be of Caribbean descent than African, but why couldn't she just say 'black'. She's come across as very pigeon holed based on that interview....

Yes, indeed. But does that not, of itself, make her testimony more compelling, not less? The police are not being well served by the current processes for investigating any alleged wrongdoings. If that woman had said she'd seen you and me attack an individual lying prone on the floor several times with a lethal weapon and to then have kicked the prone body (not to mention waiting 20 minutes to call an ambulance allegedly - even the IPPC seem to acknowledge there was a delay) then we would have been arrested on the spot. The same should happen with police officers. They should not be perceived to be above the law. Due process would be best served if they had been arrested straight away, separated (so they could not concoct their story) and interviewed and their clothing bagged as soon as they were back at the nick. But that doesn't happen. It's one of a number of reasons why members of the public have little faith or trust in the police in this country. This from the IPPC (my emphasis): Since this morning IPCC investigators have been conducting house to house enquiries in the immediate area and gathering available information. Police logs and radio transmissions are being obtained. The police officers involved and independent witnesses will be interviewed by IPCC investigators. Initial data from the Taser has (sic) been downloaded and it is (sic) being sent for further testing. A post mortem is due to be carried out later this week. None of the relevant officers were wearing body worn video cameras. See? They haven't even formally interviewed the officers yet! No mention of whether they've taken their clothing, boots, etc for forensics. Or whether a crime scene was secured. Or whether the officers are even suspended. What does "further" testing mean? I'm not saying the plod are guilty of anything at all. But the authorities do not seem to be giving themselves the best start in getting the true picture. CSI Telford it isn't.

So much speculation and bias in one post it's quite hard to know where to begin. Firstly, you mention about two men carrying a lethal weapon, if it was Joe Public carrying a taser, then firstly it would be illegal, and secondly it is not considered a lethal weapon - it is considered to do less harm than use of a baton. Yes of course in this instance, it has been used and a death has occurred, but The woman who stated that Atkinson was kicked was one person, what have others said in their witness testimony? You say police should not be above the law - they clearly are not. If anything they are under more scrutiny than ordinary members of the public. You say due process would be best served if arrested straight away. Why's that then? What exactly do you mean by due process? The officers will be investigated and interviewed in a timely manner. Your comment about concocting a story clearly shows a pre conceived bias against police. You then throw about wild speculation about securing the scene and seizing of clothing. If you even happened to watch the news on this it clearly showed the scene taped off, preserved for evidence, with members of the IPcc in attendance. Also what are you looking for from the officers clothing being seized? There's more to argue in your post, but in all honesty you seem to have set your stall out and there seems little point. Also to the poster re the Taser. It does not have to be reloaded, once the barbs have attached you can keep 'firing' in short bursts. And yes they are quite loud actually. Gotta love how everyone becomes an expert in these matters. Gees.

Henry Irving said:

Wasn't it two kicks to the head when Atkinson was already on the ground?

Yes, it's a incredibly difficult job but he killed someone.

Manslaughter is very hard to prove in court as the prosecution has to prove that the defendant wasn't acting "reasonably" to the situation as they saw it at the time.

That's why, despite what some tabloids tell us, you can physically attack and injure someone who breaks into you house quite legally.

What you, or a police officer, can't do, is repeatedly kick an already prone person in the head.

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

AddickUpNorth said:

Henry Irving said:

Wasn't it two kicks to the head when Atkinson was already on the ground?

Yes, it's a incredibly difficult job but he killed someone.

Manslaughter is very hard to prove in court as the prosecution has to prove that the defendant wasn't acting "reasonably" to the situation as they saw it at the time.

That's why, despite what some tabloids tell us, you can physically attack and injure someone who breaks into you house quite legally.

What you, or a police officer, can't do, is repeatedly kick an already prone person in the head.

In my job it’s an absolute no-no and I’d be sacked immediately and could potentially face charges. The head is classed as a red zone and striking it is to be avoided at all cost. Obviously if an irate prisoner came at me I’m allowed to defend myself so punching someone in the nose is acceptable if I have a ‘genuine fear’ that my life is in danger but if that prisoner were to go down and I continued to punch him in the head it’s goodbye job, goodbye pension. If I drew my baton and struck them in the head then I might as well pack my bags and prepare to see life in prison from the other side. Yes, things do happen in the heat of the moment and I can assure anyone it can get scary but as a trained professional you have to remember the can do/can’t do at all times. That’s what we and the police are trained to do. That police officer went way over the line and deserves what’s coming to him.

How will he be protected in prison?

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

AddickUpNorth said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

AddickUpNorth said:

Henry Irving said:

Wasn't it two kicks to the head when Atkinson was already on the ground?

Yes, it's a incredibly difficult job but he killed someone.

Manslaughter is very hard to prove in court as the prosecution has to prove that the defendant wasn't acting "reasonably" to the situation as they saw it at the time.

That's why, despite what some tabloids tell us, you can physically attack and injure someone who breaks into you house quite legally.

What you, or a police officer, can't do, is repeatedly kick an already prone person in the head.

In my job it’s an absolute no-no and I’d be sacked immediately and could potentially face charges. The head is classed as a red zone and striking it is to be avoided at all cost. Obviously if an irate prisoner came at me I’m allowed to defend myself so punching someone in the nose is acceptable if I have a ‘genuine fear’ that my life is in danger but if that prisoner were to go down and I continued to punch him in the head it’s goodbye job, goodbye pension. If I drew my baton and struck them in the head then I might as well pack my bags and prepare to see life in prison from the other side. Yes, things do happen in the heat of the moment and I can assure anyone it can get scary but as a trained professional you have to remember the can do/can’t do at all times. That’s what we and the police are trained to do. That police officer went way over the line and deserves what’s coming to him.

How will he be protected in prison?

It depends. He could do his time segregated but if it’s years then that would be some hard time. I don’t think there’s any units in the system for jailed police officers so it may be the case that he’ll just have to front it out. He’ll probably have a cell to himself because jail bosses won’t want the hassle of having to deal with the shit if he gets done by a pad mate overnight. He could always pay a hard bastard con for protection but even that’s not going to guarantee his safety 100%. I once had an ex-police officer who got sentenced for rape on one of the wings I worked on and nothing happened to him but obviously this case is a lot more high profile so it’s a different scenario. I don’t want to bring race into it because there’s nothing about the case that suggests that he did what he did because Atkinson was a black man but that won’t matter to some prisoners. A white police officer killing a black man will not go down well at all with some prisoners. He’s definitely going to be a marked man however it plays out.

Scary times for him.

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

People do things in the heat of the moment when angry. But when they are wearing a police uniform they have to be better than that. I think it is impossible to argue the force used was appropriate and it was so inappropriate it killed somebody. I can't imagine a clearer case of murder. Not premeditated, but murder all the same.  

You'd have to sit through the case and hear all the evidence to make a judgement re the conviction. 

Chizz said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

People do things in the heat of the moment when angry. But when they are wearing a police uniform they have to be better than that. I think it is impossible to argue the force used was appropriate and it was so inappropriate it killed somebody. I can't imagine a clearer case of murder. Not premeditated, but murder all the same.  

You'd have to sit through the case and hear all the evidence to make a judgement re the conviction. 

I think it has been clearly reported that Atkinson was kicked in the head after being incapacitated. Hence why the jury found him guilty and why we CAN make a judgement. Are you seriously saying nobody can comment on what they know and have read unless they have sat through the case in court? 

If you decide the outcome of a case without listening to the evidence of the case, it's a flawed judgement and worthless.  

Of course you can have an opinion.  But that opinion is of considerably less value than that of someone who has listened to the evidence.  And, unfortunately, the only people who have listened to all the evidence have given their verdict on that evidence and are not allowed to comment further.  

If you decide that you 'can't imagine a clearer case of murder', without having the benefit of all the evidence and not - seemingly - taking into account any mitigation presented by the defendant, then your opinion may be fairly interesting, but your conclusion is worthless.  

DaveMehmet said:

AddickUpNorth said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

AddickUpNorth said:

Henry Irving said:

Wasn't it two kicks to the head when Atkinson was already on the ground?

Yes, it's a incredibly difficult job but he killed someone.

Manslaughter is very hard to prove in court as the prosecution has to prove that the defendant wasn't acting "reasonably" to the situation as they saw it at the time.

That's why, despite what some tabloids tell us, you can physically attack and injure someone who breaks into you house quite legally.

What you, or a police officer, can't do, is repeatedly kick an already prone person in the head.

In my job it’s an absolute no-no and I’d be sacked immediately and could potentially face charges. The head is classed as a red zone and striking it is to be avoided at all cost. Obviously if an irate prisoner came at me I’m allowed to defend myself so punching someone in the nose is acceptable if I have a ‘genuine fear’ that my life is in danger but if that prisoner were to go down and I continued to punch him in the head it’s goodbye job, goodbye pension. If I drew my baton and struck them in the head then I might as well pack my bags and prepare to see life in prison from the other side. Yes, things do happen in the heat of the moment and I can assure anyone it can get scary but as a trained professional you have to remember the can do/can’t do at all times. That’s what we and the police are trained to do. That police officer went way over the line and deserves what’s coming to him.

How will he be protected in prison?

It depends. He could do his time segregated but if it’s years then that would be some hard time. I don’t think there’s any units in the system for jailed police officers so it may be the case that he’ll just have to front it out. He’ll probably have a cell to himself because jail bosses won’t want the hassle of having to deal with the shit if he gets done by a pad mate overnight. He could always pay a hard bastard con for protection but even that’s not going to guarantee his safety 100%. I once had an ex-police officer who got sentenced for rape on one of the wings I worked on and nothing happened to him but obviously this case is a lot more high profile so it’s a different scenario. I don’t want to bring race into it because there’s nothing about the case that suggests that he did what he did because Atkinson was a black man but that won’t matter to some prisoners. A white police officer killing a black man will not go down well at all with some prisoners. He’s definitely going to be a marked man however it plays out.

Something I've wondered for a while is what happens if you're a snorer when sharing a cell? I don't mean the odd snort but a full on noisy bastard. My wife oftens digs me during the night but would imagine a fellow con would do more damage than the odd elbow in the side.

Can you be separated if you keep people awake all night?

Chizz said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

People do things in the heat of the moment when angry. But when they are wearing a police uniform they have to be better than that. I think it is impossible to argue the force used was appropriate and it was so inappropriate it killed somebody. I can't imagine a clearer case of murder. Not premeditated, but murder all the same.  

You'd have to sit through the case and hear all the evidence to make a judgement re the conviction. 

I think it has been clearly reported that Atkinson was kicked in the head after being incapacitated. Hence why the jury found him guilty and why we CAN make a judgement. Are you seriously saying nobody can comment on what they know and have read unless they have sat through the case in court? 

If you decide the outcome of a case without listening to the evidence of the case, it's a flawed judgement and worthless.  

Of course you can have an opinion.  But that opinion is of considerably less value than that of someone who has listened to the evidence.  And, unfortunately, the only people who have listened to all the evidence have given their verdict on that evidence and are not allowed to comment further.  

If you decide that you 'can't imagine a clearer case of murder', without having the benefit of all the evidence and not - seemingly - taking into account any mitigation presented by the defendant, then your opinion may be fairly interesting, but your conclusion is worthless.  

What is a hung jury?

If there is no majority and a verdict has not been reached, the jury is known as a ‘hung jury’.

The judge will discharge the jury and the trial will conclude, albeit without a verdict. After a hung jury, the accused will not be acquitted or convicted.

After a hung jury, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must then determine whether they will have a retrial. This is dependent on the views of the victim(s) or interested parties.

SporadicAddick said:

thickandthin63 said:

Very easy to judge,yes a kick in the head does seem out of order,and is why the guy was convicted.But who of us has ever faced these situations,the officer could easily have feared for his safety considering the tasar failed to put Atkinson out of action.Similar to soldiers appearing to go over the top in war zones,and then getting done for war crimes,how would any of us react in similar circumstances.Not defending anyone ,the jury have done their job,being a public servant facing danger every day of their lives would certainly not be for me.

I have some sympathy with this sentiment but it does seem that this conviction is right. @AddickUpNorth , I'd be interested in your thoughts on this (please feel free to ignore if inappropriate to comment) - you must find yourself, or have experienced, difficult situations where the level of force required is a judgement call - how does anyone in that situation define the appropriate level of force and is there a clear (and obvious) delineation between appropriate and unlawful?

Covered End said:

SporadicAddick said:

thickandthin63 said:

Very easy to judge,yes a kick in the head does seem out of order,and is why the guy was convicted.But who of us has ever faced these situations,the officer could easily have feared for his safety considering the tasar failed to put Atkinson out of action.Similar to soldiers appearing to go over the top in war zones,and then getting done for war crimes,how would any of us react in similar circumstances.Not defending anyone ,the jury have done their job,being a public servant facing danger every day of their lives would certainly not be for me.

I have some sympathy with this sentiment but it does seem that this conviction is right. @AddickUpNorth , I'd be interested in your thoughts on this (please feel free to ignore if inappropriate to comment) - you must find yourself, or have experienced, difficult situations where the level of force required is a judgement call - how does anyone in that situation define the appropriate level of force and is there a clear (and obvious) delineation between appropriate and unlawful?

He answered this already (9.24am today).