Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: cdbearsfan on May 04, 2021, 01:38:58 PM
-
BBC News - Dalian Atkinson: PC Benjamin Monk Tasered ex-footballer for 30 seconds
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-56979521
This sounds disgraceful. RIP Dalian.
-
Still shocked by his death. So sad.
The policeman and police woman are an utter disgrace. Vile.
-
I was just looking for the original Dalian thread and went back over 50 pages and couldn’t find it.
If what’s been alleged is proven to be true, I hope those 2 ****** get the book thrown at them and serve life.
-
Fucking scumbags, when is kicking someone in the head acceptable, let alone when they're on the floor because you've just fried them?
-
I couldn't find the other thread either, Andy.
-
I couldn't find the other thread either, Andy.
Its in football memories, I eventually found it the other day.
-
Of course we do need to wait for all evidence on both sides to be heard and the juries verdict but from what is currently being reported on the prosecution case, it does sound disgraceful. At least we know that there is no institutional racism involved thanks to the Government report on the matter.
I think the other one was removed due to the coming trial and some rumours both for and against the Police response being posted on it at the time. Someone has mentioned it is in another topic.
-
Left imprints of laces on him, they kicked him so hard. Jesus.
-
I think it's the case that the prosecution aren't disputing the fact that the decision to use the taser was justified, it's that they shocked him for way too long, and then kicked him twice. I'm not a legal expert but I'd be surprised if the murder charge stood up, but would also be surprised if the manslaughter charge didn't. If you kick someone in the head who is unconscious on the ground and they die, there's not really much of a defence to that is there, especially if you're a trained police officer.
-
As an aside, thank fuck we don't give them guns if this what they can do with tasers.
-
No comments until the end of the trial please.
-
I think it's the case that the prosecution aren't disputing the fact that the decision to use the taser was justified, it's that they shocked him for way too long, and then kicked him twice. I'm not a legal expert but I'd be surprised if the murder charge stood up, but would also be surprised if the manslaughter charge didn't. If you kick someone in the head who is unconscious on the ground and they die, there's not really much of a defence to that is there, especially if you're a trained police officer.
The Prosecution point out that they followed procedure for a bit (whether the procedure it correct for mentally disturbed people is another argument), then when they had subdued him they decided to "punish him" by using boot and truncheon. Yes, I doubt if they went out there with the plan to kill him but so far, unless there is some massive defence argument which isn't "he only died due to other underlying conditions" which I expect them to at least try, then I can't see them getting off manslaughter charges.
-
No comments until the end of the trial please.
not even on media reported items?
-
Repeating what's been said elsewhere is fine. Commenting further isn't. Thanks.
-
BBC News - Dalian Atkinson: PC Benjamin Monk Tasered ex-footballer for 30 seconds
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-56979521
This sounds disgraceful. RIP Dalian.
Filth.
-
I think it's the case that the prosecution aren't disputing the fact that the decision to use the taser was justified, it's that they shocked him for way too long, and then kicked him twice. I'm not a legal expert but I'd be surprised if the murder charge stood up, but would also be surprised if the manslaughter charge didn't. If you kick someone in the head who is unconscious on the ground and they die, there's not really much of a defence to that is there, especially if you're a trained police officer.
Pretty much this
-
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2021/05/04/ex-villa-star-dalian-atkinson-died-after-being-tasered-and-kicked-jury-told/
-
What has been described sounds horrific. Tazered for 33 seconds when the limit is set to 5. Then kicked and beaten with a truncheon when already unconscious.
It sounds like a lot of American policing, i.e. inept, poorly trained, and brutal.
-
I'd just like to add that I'm glad the story is currently the lead story on the BBC News site.
-
That’s absolutely sickening. What an almighty horrible man and the result in this just a complete tragedy. Sometimes this world makes me so sick with people.
-
I've asked for factual reporting only, otherwise this will have to be locked.
-
Speaking to a couple of friends of mine that are policemen, it is incredible the number of incidents that they are called to deal with that involve people that have mental health problems.
-
Getting some kicks in the head to finish him off. Lovely. How very police on black men of them.
-
More detailed report: BBC News - Dalian Atkinson murder trial: Ex-footballer Tasered and 'kicked'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-56979521
-
Found guilty of manslaughter, not guilty of murder.
-
Link to article (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/dalian-atkinson-murder-police-manslaughter-b1866310.html)
-
"Monk is the first officer convicted of manslaughter during the course of his duties in over three decades"
-
Shortest prison sentence on record incoming.
-
I hope his time spent in nick is as uncomfortable as possible.
-
Shortest prison sentence on record incoming.
I doubt that very much, wouldn’t be surprised to see double figures.
-
Rest in Peace Dalian
-
This is why understanding the true meaning of the BLM movement is critical. This is why they kneel. This isn’t an isolated incident. And it’s just that it was seen and proven in court. So many incidents have taken place across so many years where the victims and their families have never received any form of justice. A tragedy that it happened to someone we had an affinity towards. But how about all of those we never knew?
-
Speaking to a couple of friends of mine that are policemen, it is incredible the number of incidents that they are called to deal with that involve people that have mental health problems.
a benefit of care in the community in which care is starved of the necessary funding because as we all know there is no money tree (unless Serco etc is involved) and we have to pay it back (to whom)...
-
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/
-
Shortest prison sentence on record incoming.
I don't think so. I think manslaughter is correct verdict (just as I think it would have been in the Floyd case, at least under UK law parameters), but I think the sentence will be heavy to stop the whitewash arguments.
-
Defund the police.
-
Defund the police.
And do what exactly?
-
Defund the police.
Is this a joke?
-
Shortest prison sentence on record incoming.
I don't think so. I think manslaughter is correct verdict (just as I think it would have been in the Floyd case, at least under UK law parameters), but I think the sentence will be heavy to stop the whitewash arguments.
Here are the guidelines the judge has to follow (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf)
I'd say either High or Medium culpability so starting points of 12 or six years respectively, and up and down from there depending on the aggravating factors and mitigation.
-
This is why understanding the true meaning of the BLM movement is critical. This is why they kneel. This isn’t an isolated incident. And it’s just that it was seen and proven in court. So many incidents have taken place across so many years where the victims and their families have never received any form of justice. A tragedy that it happened to someone we had an affinity towards. But how about all of those we never knew?
This is the point. I understand why people say taking the knee isn’t political, to counter the right’s claim that it’s orchestrated exclusively by a bunch of Marxists, but it clearly is political. Its aim is to fight not just a bunch of trolls sending racist abuse on social media but the racism faced by black people in their everyday lives, including at the hands of state institutions like police, courts, health service etc. That’s political.
-
Shortest prison sentence on record incoming.
I don't think so. I think manslaughter is correct verdict (just as I think it would have been in the Floyd case, at least under UK law parameters), but I think the sentence will be heavy to stop the whitewash arguments.
Here are the guidelines the judge has to follow (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf)
I'd say either High or Medium culpability so starting points of 12 or six years respectively, and up and down from there depending on the aggravating factors and mitigation.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
-
Shortest prison sentence on record incoming.
I don't think so. I think manslaughter is correct verdict (just as I think it would have been in the Floyd case, at least under UK law parameters), but I think the sentence will be heavy to stop the whitewash arguments.
Here are the guidelines the judge has to follow (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf)
I'd say either High or Medium culpability so starting points of 12 or six years respectively, and up and down from there depending on the aggravating factors and mitigation.
Given he's a trained police officer, who used a weapon (a Taser is classed as such) and the aggravating circumstances of going against training and his responsible position, that potentially he was the senior party and his girlfriend was involved, I'd think he could find himself looking at quite a bit of time. No doubt his previously good record will go in his favour.
-
Shortest prison sentence on record incoming.
I don't think so. I think manslaughter is correct verdict (just as I think it would have been in the Floyd case, at least under UK law parameters), but I think the sentence will be heavy to stop the whitewash arguments.
Here are the guidelines the judge has to follow (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf)
I'd say either High or Medium culpability so starting points of 12 or six years respectively, and up and down from there depending on the aggravating factors and mitigation.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Steady on! FWIW I reckon it'll be a starting point of 10 (for the kicks to the head) and possibly down a bit for (I assume) exemplary character. But then there's a position of trust...So up and down and back to 10.
The only way it'll be a starting point of six is if the judge accepts he was genuinely in fear but used excessive force. Hard to see given the evidence but without sitting in court and hearing it all you don't really get the full picture.
-
Shortest prison sentence on record incoming.
I don't think so. I think manslaughter is correct verdict (just as I think it would have been in the Floyd case, at least under UK law parameters), but I think the sentence will be heavy to stop the whitewash arguments.
Here are the guidelines the judge has to follow (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf)
I'd say either High or Medium culpability so starting points of 12 or six years respectively, and up and down from there depending on the aggravating factors and mitigation.
Given he's a trained police officer, who used a weapon (a Taser is classed as such) and the aggravating circumstances of going against training and his responsible position, that potentially he was the senior party and his girlfriend was involved, I'd think he could find himself looking at quite a bit of time. No doubt his previously good record will go in his favour.
Yes I think so. If I was representing him I'd be more concerned about the kicks but it's hard to say without hearing his account about using the taser. I think at that point he may have been believed, but it's behaviour after that condemned him I'd have thought.
-
However long he gets, I don't imagine his time inside is going to be particularly easy, as an ex-police officer who killed somebody.
-
Shortest prison sentence on record incoming.
I don't think so. I think manslaughter is correct verdict (just as I think it would have been in the Floyd case, at least under UK law parameters), but I think the sentence will be heavy to stop the whitewash arguments.
Here are the guidelines the judge has to follow (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf)
I'd say either High or Medium culpability so starting points of 12 or six years respectively, and up and down from there depending on the aggravating factors and mitigation.
Given he's a trained police officer, who used a weapon (a Taser is classed as such) and the aggravating circumstances of going against training and his responsible position, that potentially he was the senior party and his girlfriend was involved, I'd think he could find himself looking at quite a bit of time. No doubt his previously good record will go in his favour.
Starting point of 6 years I reckon, with good points (police officer with good record, possibly some threat to his safety) being slightly outweighed by bad points (kicks to head, obviously excessive use of taser, inconsistencies with evidence, and not pleading guilty)
-
Could be. If the judge accepts he was in fear but used more force than reasonable in the circumstances.
Problem is, beyond the verdict itself you don't hear from the jury. So defendant genuinely in fear but uses excessive force = manslaughter. Defendant not in fear and reckless about causing serious injury (but not intending it) = also manslaughter. It may well have been clearer for those in court, most importantly the judge.
Edit - the lack of a guilty plea isn't a factor - the guidelines are predicated on someone convicted after trial. There's a reduction depending on the point at which someone pleads guilty.
The jury are still out for the co-defendant so everyone (including me) should bear that in mind.
-
Could be. If the judge accepts he was in fear but used more force than reasonable in the circumstances.
Problem is, beyond the verdict itself you don't hear from the jury. So defendant genuinely in fear but uses excessive force = manslaughter. Defendant not in fear and reckless about causing serious injury (but not intending it) = also manslaughter. It may well have been clearer for those in court, most importantly the judge.
Edit - the lack of a guilty plea isn't a factor - the guidelines are predicated on someone convicted after trial. There's a reduction depending on the point at which someone pleads guilty.
The jury are still out for the co-defendant so everyone (including me) should bear that in mind.
-
Defund the police.
Is this a joke?
Erm... no? Why would I be joking?
-
Defund the police.
Is this a joke?
Erm... no? Why would I be joking?
What would defunding the police achieve apart from lessening the probability that the police could protect yours and other families?
-
Other articles explain it better than I can so would just advise to Google the phrase "Defund the Police" if you want further information.
-
So you can't succinctly explain your opinion, we should just google it. OK.
Wiki: "Police abolitionists call for replacing existing police forces with other systems of public safety, like housing, employment, community health, education, and other programs."
Whilst there are specific examples of terrible policing practice, the fundamental diversion away of resources from the police to other programmes seems a bit of an ill thought out ideology to me. Is there any evidence of this working successfully elsewhere?
-
So you can't succinctly explain your opinion, we should just google it. OK.
Here, I did it for you.
"Although the phrase has been used in UK protests, “defund the police” is mainly a US call to action used by demonstrators to address systemic problems in the country's law enforcement, and calls for money to be spent on what communities across the US need, such as housing and education." i-news
from The Guardian
"What does it mean to ‘defund the police’?
US police have a history of violence against black people. Will it ever stop?
For years, community groups have advocated for defunding law enforcement – taking money away from police and prisons – and reinvesting those funds in services. The basic principle is that government budgets and “public safety” spending should prioritize housing, employment, community health, education and other vital programs, instead of police officers. Advocates argue that defunding is the best way forward since attempts to reform police practices over the last five years have failed, as evidenced by the brutal killing of George Floyd."
-
I wasn't in the mood for a row, I'm "busy" at work. You can't get much more succinct than a three word phrase, though.. It has been heavily featured in the news for over a year, so really isn't hard to look into.
Even the first few sentences on Wikipedia will do though, if you like.
""Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources."
Edit: thanks Drummond.
-
The police in Taiwan gave Axi Rose a coconut. Where did the money for that come from?
-
However long he gets, I don't imagine his time inside is going to be particularly easy, as an ex-police officer who killed somebody.
He'll be on the VP wing wiv da nonces. Innit. ( for those who watched Time )
-
The police in Taiwan gave Axi Rose a coconut. Where did the money for that come from?
Who said they paid for it. They may have beaten up a Chinse street vendor and robbed him of his coconuts.
-
However long he gets, I don't imagine his time inside is going to be particularly easy, as an ex-police officer who killed somebody.
He'll be on the VP wing wiv da nonces. Innit. ( for those who watched Time )
Not On Normal Courtyard Excercise.
-
However long he gets, I don't imagine his time inside is going to be particularly easy, as an ex-police officer who killed somebody.
He'll be on the VP wing wiv da nonces. Innit. ( for those who watched Time )
Not On Normal Courtyard Excercise.
Rule 43
-
One more example of why it remains a big deal in America
https://twitter.com/markmobility/status/1407685363754274823?s=21
-
What about the bitch who was with him, has she been convicted ?
-
They should have been charged with murder.
-
What about the bitch who was with him, has she been convicted ?
I was thinking that, too.
Despicable people.
Rest in peace our Dalian.
-
The jury is still out on her so probs best not to say too much at this stage.
-
They should have been charged with murder.
They were. He was convicted of manslaughter.
-
What about the bitch who was with him, has she been convicted ?
I was thinking that, too.
Despicable people.
Rest in peace our Dalian.
She has been charged with assault but they've yet to reach a verdict on her.
-
They should have been charged with murder.
Darren I am totally perplexed at how this was NOT a murder.
-
What about the bitch who was with him, has she been convicted ?
I was thinking that, too.
Despicable people.
Rest in peace our Dalian.
She has been charged with assault but they've yet to reach a verdict on her.
Would I be right in thinking that "The bitch that was with him" refers to a female police officer?
-
What about the bitch who was with him, has she been convicted ?
Who at present is still not guilty of any offence.....
I was thinking that, too.
Despicable people.
Rest in peace our Dalian.
She has been charged with assault but they've yet to reach a verdict on her.
Would I be right in thinking that "The bitch that was with him" refers to a female police officer?
-
Please bear in mind that the trial is still ongoing until both verdicts have been reached.
-
They should have been charged with murder.
Darren I am totally perplexed at how this was NOT a murder.
I imagine it was due to an inability to prove intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt.
-
How come he's not being held in prison until sentencing?
-
They should have been charged with murder.
Darren I am totally perplexed at how this was NOT a murder.
I imagine it was due to an inability to prove intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt.
For it to be murder there has to be an intent to kill OR ‘intent to cause grievous bodily harm’ which resulted in the death of the victim.
I find it really difficult to accept that tazering someone for 6 times the recommended length of time, and kicking them in the head twice does not constitute an attempt to cause GBH.
It’s feels right on the cusp of the dividing line between murder and manslaughter, and I think if a member of the public kicked someone in the head twice and killed them, they might well end up with a murder conviction.
-
They should have been charged with murder.
Darren I am totally perplexed at how this was NOT a murder.
I imagine it was due to an inability to prove intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt.
For it to be murder there has to be an intent to kill OR ‘intent to cause grievous bodily harm’ which resulted in the death of the victim.
I find it really difficult to accept that tazering someone for 6 times the recommended length of time, and kicking them in the head twice does not constitute an attempt to cause GBH.
It’s feels right on the cusp of the dividing line between murder and manslaughter, and I think if a member of the public kicked someone in the head twice and killed them, they might well end up with a murder conviction.
If you dig enough then you will find plenty of manslaughter convictions for members of the public where looking from the outside you would think that the actions warrant murder.
As you (and others) have already put in earlier posts it’s the intent that is important. For example if it can proven the risk of death was foreseen then that can potentially prove intent, amongst other things, to secure a murder conviction.
-
They should have been charged with murder.
Darren I am totally perplexed at how this was NOT a murder.
I imagine it was due to an inability to prove intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt.
For it to be murder there has to be an intent to kill OR ‘intent to cause grievous bodily harm’ which resulted in the death of the victim.
I find it really difficult to accept that tazering someone for 6 times the recommended length of time, and kicking them in the head twice does not constitute an attempt to cause GBH.
It’s feels right on the cusp of the dividing line between murder and manslaughter, and I think if a member of the public kicked someone in the head twice and killed them, they might well end up with a murder conviction.
If you dig enough then you will find plenty of manslaughter convictions for members of the public where looking from the outside you would think that the actions warrant murder.
As you (and others) have already put in earlier posts it’s the intent that is important. For example if it can proven the risk of death was foreseen then that can potentially prove intent, amongst other things, to secure a murder conviction.
I don’t disagree that there are plenty that go the other way too, but as I say, it’s on the edge. A member the public might lose their temper, or not really have thought through the damage a kick in the head can do, but I think we should be able to expect a police officer to have more knowledge and control....so I hope they throw the book at him sentence wise.
-
I agree that a Police officer should, and I’m sure that will be an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing.
As I said earlier I think that he will get double figures.
-
Kicks to the head will be enough for a murder charge, but rarely it seems enough for a jury to convict. I've had three defendants (I think) acquitted of murder in those circumstances, whereas one who was convicted did a lot more besides.
It's not an exact science. The Preddie brothers who killed Damilola Taylor were only convicted of manslaughter, despite giving him a gash in his leg deep enough to sever an artery. No evidence of an intention to kill, but to cause serious harm? I'd have thought so, but they weren't even tried for murder.
-
Given the level of viciousness involved in the assault of a prone man, it's unlikely this was the first time this cop assaulted someone
-
It also has to be taken into account that Atkinson had underlying health conditions, and I understand was not far from death in any event. Whilst the "eggshell skull" rule will, I assume, come into play, a Judge will probably take this into consideration.
-
I'm no expert but a manslaughter verdict at least reduces the risk of him getting released on appeal.
-
I very much doubt an intent to either kill Atkinson or cause him serious injury, rather debilitate him to the point of incapacity. You could of course argue that he'd have to cause injury in order to incapacitate but that's probably the line between murder and manslaughter.
-
I very much doubt an intent to either kill Atkinson or cause him serious injury, rather debilitate him to the point of incapacity. You could of course argue that he'd have to cause injury in order to incapacitate but that's probably the line between murder and manslaughter.
‘Intent’ is always difficult to prove because you can never know what someone thought, but when you kick someone in the head you are either intending to cause serious harm or you have ‘lost it’.
Is ‘losing it’ a defence against intent? I’m not sure. I’m not sure it should be or can be - otherwise every pissed up shithead would walk for anything they did. I’m not saying that the police were pissed up, I’m saying that I’m trying to picture this scenario at closing time at the pub with an ordinary bloke and his girlfriend trying to claim they didn’t mean to cause serious injury, when they have knocked someone down and kicked him so hard that their lace prints are in his head.
-
Possibly Full of testosterone he had his girlfriend with him probably trying to impress her.
-
As a complete layman when it comes to the law, it seems to me that the difference between convicting for murder or manslaughter usually boils down to intent before the incident happened. Did the policeman go to the address with the intention of killing Dalian? No, he was responding to a call out as part of his job. Did things then get seriously out of hand while he was there, and did he go too far in his response, clearly yes. Obviously there are degrees, if he'd arrived, pulled out a gun and shot somebody, then that would be clear murder, but I think all things considered here, manslaughter is probably the right decision.
-
I very much doubt an intent to either kill Atkinson or cause him serious injury, rather debilitate him to the point of incapacity. You could of course argue that he'd have to cause injury in order to incapacitate but that's probably the line between murder and manslaughter.
‘Intent’ is always difficult to prove because you can never know what someone thought, but when you kick someone in the head you are either intending to cause serious harm or you have ‘lost it’.
Is ‘losing it’ a defence against intent? I’m not sure. I’m not sure it should be or can be - otherwise every pissed up shithead would walk for anything they did. I’m not saying that the police were pissed up, I’m saying that I’m trying to picture this scenario at closing time at the pub with an ordinary bloke and his girlfriend trying to claim they didn’t mean to cause serious injury, when they have knocked someone down and kicked him so hard that their lace prints are in his head.
Wasn't his defence that he was frightened that Dalian would attack him/them? After he had banged on his Dad's door threatening to do the same? Not defending the horrific actions in any way but I think it's a difficult, sad case to extract justice from.
-
I very much doubt an intent to either kill Atkinson or cause him serious injury, rather debilitate him to the point of incapacity. You could of course argue that he'd have to cause injury in order to incapacitate but that's probably the line between murder and manslaughter.
‘Intent’ is always difficult to prove because you can never know what someone thought, but when you kick someone in the head you are either intending to cause serious harm or you have ‘lost it’.
Is ‘losing it’ a defence against intent? I’m not sure. I’m not sure it should be or can be - otherwise every pissed up shithead would walk for anything they did. I’m not saying that the police were pissed up, I’m saying that I’m trying to picture this scenario at closing time at the pub with an ordinary bloke and his girlfriend trying to claim they didn’t mean to cause serious injury, when they have knocked someone down and kicked him so hard that their lace prints are in his head.
Wasn't his defence that he was frightened that Dalian would attack him/them? After he had banged on his Dad's door threatening to do the same? Not defending the horrific actions in any way but I think it's a difficult, sad case to extract justice from.
Was he still frightened when he was on the floor? Unconscious/semi-conscious? Policing is a tough job but the people who do it, choose it. If feeling threatened was a defence, the police would be allowed to kill people every day, because diffusing aggression is the job they are trained for.
None of us were there, and the jury having heard all the evidence have decided on manslaughter, & his sentence will hopefully reflect the severity of what happened. That’s OK - as I also said, it’s a fine line.
It does say something about the notion of defunding the police. If funding is redistributed so that mental health workers went out with police on calls like this, we may be able to prevent stuff like this happening, and have professional witnesses we can learn from.
I was out on a call when I was with the substance misuse services when a young lad I was working with was holding a lighter and threatening to set fire to himself (no petrol - just a shell suit!). I was really shocked when police took him down with a baton behind his knees and threw him over the bonnet to cuff him, but they came to me immediately afterwards and explained every step of their actions & I accepted that they acted in his best interests because they had to take him down quickly, and he was basically unhurt. I’m not sure I would feel the same if I’d been there when Dalian was brought down, but I do have to accept that it was explained to the jury, & this is what they got from it.
-
As a complete layman when it comes to the law, it seems to me that the difference between convicting for murder or manslaughter usually boils down to intent before the incident happened. Did the policeman go to the address with the intention of killing Dalian? No, he was responding to a call out as part of his job. Did things then get seriously out of hand while he was there, and did he go too far in his response, clearly yes. Obviously there are degrees, if he'd arrived, pulled out a gun and shot somebody, then that would be clear murder, but I think all things considered here, manslaughter is probably the right decision.
I agree - how many police officers go on duty with an intention to kill someone? The call out went spectacularly wrong though. And the degrees to restrain Dalian went way too far - hence he was negligent, which I assume means he can be convicted of manslaughter - but I might be completely wrong.
-
Hope they throw the book at the female copper too. That omerta in police forces around the world does them no favours.
-
The intent to kill or seriously injure has to exist at the time the act causing the death occurs. It does not have to exist prior to that.
-
The jury have been unable to reach a verdict on the female PC. CPS will now have to decide whether to ask for a retrial.
-
BBC News - Dalian Atkinson: Jury fails to reach decision about second officer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-57595434
-
Kicks to the head will be enough for a murder charge, but rarely it seems enough for a jury to convict. I've had three defendants (I think) acquitted of murder in those circumstances, whereas one who was convicted did a lot more besides.
It's not an exact science. The Preddie brothers who killed Damilola Taylor were only convicted of manslaughter, despite giving him a gash in his leg deep enough to sever an artery. No evidence of an intention to kill, but to cause serious harm? I'd have thought so, but they weren't even tried for murder.
Horrible world in which we live. Wouldn’t fancy your job at all. The Damilola Taylor case was about 30 years ago? You’d have thought things might’ve moved on since then? Maybe not.
-
BBC News - Dalian Atkinson: Jury fails to reach decision about second officer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-57595434
Jury appear to be feckin arseholes.
-
Why do they?
-
BBC News - Dalian Atkinson: Jury fails to reach decision about second officer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-57595434
I don't know whether any of our lawyers can explain this to me, but I've always wondered what the determining factor is between a jury coming to a majority verdict and failing to reach a decision?
Presumably they fail to reach a decision because they don't agree with each other. So in that case, why don't they just go with a majority verdict? Isn't that the point of having several people on a jury? Or is it the case that if they're genuinely split down the middle - six for, six against - that's when they fail to reach a verdict?
-
I imagine with a murder trial the goal is to be absolute certain. Or as certain as can be based on the evidence presented. The consequences are obviously significant tied to an error. You hope all jurors are impartial and open to hearing the evidence without bias. The goal would be to present the evidence and have complete alignment on the outcome.
-
BBC News - Dalian Atkinson: Jury fails to reach decision about second officer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-57595434
I don't know whether any of our lawyers can explain this to me, but I've always wondered what the determining factor is between a jury coming to a majority verdict and failing to reach a decision?
Presumably they fail to reach a decision because they don't agree with each other. So in that case, why don't they just go with a majority verdict? Isn't that the point of having several people on a jury? Or is it the case that if they're genuinely split down the middle - six for, six against - that's when they fail to reach a verdict?
The minimum number for a majority verdict is 10 (if the jury consists of 11 or 12 members) or nine (if they're down to 10).
It's a relatively recent development - to secure more verdicts by eventually discounting the one or two outliers. There's no reason in theory why you can't have a simple 7-5 majority, but it suppose it doesn't have the same weight to it. In a criminal trial you're asking people to be sure before they convict (or else acquit) so a small majority doesn't really tally with that.
I don't know what the stats are, but hung juries are relatively rare, and certainly not regular enough to water down the majority needed.
-
Unbelievable. Also extremely believable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/28/dalian-atkinson-killing-officer-was-kept-on-despite-gross-misconduct
-
Unbelievable. Also extremely believable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/28/dalian-atkinson-killing-officer-was-kept-on-despite-gross-misconduct
your second half of the statement is the most important and it isn't limited to police in the UK. I would put money on it being everywhere. Certainly we have seen situations like that in Canada, it has been proven very common in the US. Cops look after cops and the union hide and shield their members all the time. When you condone the behaviour you embolden the members who form the culture.
-
There are not many places that would not sack someone over undisclosed Criminal cautions / convictions in a job application. Doubly surprised the Police did as it sounds like it was found when they started a check on the National Database which they didn't have back then.
-
There are not many places that would not sack someone over undisclosed Criminal cautions / convictions in a job application. Doubly surprised the Police did as it sounds like it was found when they started a check on the National Database which they didn't have back then.
Yes, that's bizarre. Normally any blatant porky pie on a CV would see somebody get the shove from most jobs as you say, but you'd have thought that lying when applying to the police would be much worse, and doubly so when it relates to actual criminal behaviour that you haven't disclosed. I wouldn't expect such a thing to bar somebody from a role with the police altogether, but it should at the very least be disclosed and discussed at the time of application. However, the fact that they found out that he'd lied and then did what amounts to nothing about it is staggering.
-
Makes you wonder how many other "wronguns" there might be in uniform?
Sadly, this information will further undermine confidence in the police - to the detriment of the decent coppers out there.
-
Unbelievable. Also extremely believable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/28/dalian-atkinson-killing-officer-was-kept-on-despite-gross-misconduct
"During the trial, the jury had noticed that Monk was not offering evidence of his good character. In a note sent to the judge, they queried why this was the case and were told to focus only on the evidence before them."
This is often a problem for the defence. With hindsight I bet they wish they'd disclosed the cautions to the jury. There's always the danger that they'd speculate about why they're not hearing about his good character, and assume there's (worse) things they're not being told. If it's not that bad or relevant (and if it was the prosecution would be applying to admit it in the trial anyway) the defence are probably better off volunteering it to end the speculation.
Anyway, the prosecution are suggesting the correct starting point is one of 'High' culpability at 12 years. I don't know if the defence accept this, but it seems likely. Sentence tomorrow at 2pm.
-
Unbelievable. Also extremely believable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/28/dalian-atkinson-killing-officer-was-kept-on-despite-gross-misconduct
"During the trial, the jury had noticed that Monk was not offering evidence of his good character. In a note sent to the judge, they queried why this was the case and were told to focus only on the evidence before them."
This is often a problem for the defence. With hindsight I bet they wish they'd disclosed the cautions to the jury. There's always the danger that they'd speculate about why they're not hearing about his good character, and assume there's (worse) things they're not being told. If it's not that bad or relevant (and if it was the prosecution would be applying to admit it in the trial anyway) the defence are probably better off volunteering it to end the speculation.
Anyway, the prosecution are suggesting the correct starting point is one of 'High' culpability at 12 years. I don't know if the defence accept this, but it seems likely. Sentence tomorrow at 2pm.
Thanks Hopadop. Always very enlightening!
-
Unbelievable. Also extremely believable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/28/dalian-atkinson-killing-officer-was-kept-on-despite-gross-misconduct
your second half of the statement is the most important and it isn't limited to police in the UK. I would put money on it being everywhere. Certainly we have seen situations like that in Canada, it has been proven very common in the US. Cops look after cops and the union hide and shield their members all the time. When you condone the behaviour you embolden the members who form the culture.
Absolute nonsense. Nobody despises a crooked cop more than cop. The union you speak of in the UK are powerless and British cops are not considered as employees so do not have the same employee rights that there international counterparts may or may not have.
Although I do accept the notion that there are crooked cops. A society within a society and you will naturally get some bad eggs.
-
Unbelievable. Also extremely believable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/28/dalian-atkinson-killing-officer-was-kept-on-despite-gross-misconduct
your second half of the statement is the most important and it isn't limited to police in the UK. I would put money on it being everywhere. Certainly we have seen situations like that in Canada, it has been proven very common in the US. Cops look after cops and the union hide and shield their members all the time. When you condone the behaviour you embolden the members who form the culture.
Absolute nonsense. Nobody despises a crooked cop more than cop. The union you speak of in the UK are powerless and British cops are not considered as employees so do not have the same employee rights that there international counterparts may or may not have.
Although I do accept the notion that there are crooked cops. A society within a society and you will naturally get some bad eggs.
I think you are naive if you believe that cops don’t look out for their own. It might be a little different in the UK than say the US, but the code or “thin blue line” is a reminder that they have to stand together. Which many of them do. There’s lots of great cops who are afraid to step forward to call out their bent colleagues for fear of recrimination. That’s how the bad cops stay employed.
-
Unbelievable. Also extremely believable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/28/dalian-atkinson-killing-officer-was-kept-on-despite-gross-misconduct
your second half of the statement is the most important and it isn't limited to police in the UK. I would put money on it being everywhere. Certainly we have seen situations like that in Canada, it has been proven very common in the US. Cops look after cops and the union hide and shield their members all the time. When you condone the behaviour you embolden the members who form the culture.
Absolute nonsense. Nobody despises a crooked cop more than cop. The union you speak of in the UK are powerless and British cops are not considered as employees so do not have the same employee rights that there international counterparts may or may not have.
Although I do accept the notion that there are crooked cops. A society within a society and you will naturally get some bad eggs.
I think you are naive if you believe that cops don’t look out for their own. It might be a little different in the UK than say the US, but the code or “thin blue line” is a reminder that they have to stand together. Which many of them do. There’s lots of great cops who are afraid to step forward to call out their bent colleagues for fear of recrimination. That’s how the bad cops stay employed.
I know Police officers that have spoken out against colleagues and know plenty that would of had to.
No naivety at all here mate.
-
I think it's naive to make blanket statements either way, some police are scumbags who'd be in prison if they weren't police, some police are happy to protect those guys and some hate them and will happily blow the whistle.
-
Should say I don't think we should defund the police. I think we should spend a lot of money on vetting, crisis aversion, conflict resolution and training how not to be a violent panicky fuckwit.
-
I expect the belief that the Police look after their own stems that just in the UK in the last few months we have had a trial (that collapsed on a technicality) of the West Mid Police accused of changing evidence and statements of Liverpool supporters whilst investigating if SYP had done anything wrong. We have also just had the study that the Police HAD covered /botched the investigation of the Murder of the PI because they were friends with them or Ex-Cops.
Of course, we also have had the one who took photos of the dead teenagers in the park for their own personal use and the Copper charged and arrested for the rape and murder in London recently. The question here was they were really fast at suspecting the latter so I wonder if more info will come out at his trial of his "behaviour" which if not a copper, might have lead to disciplinary / arrest sooner. I believe there have already been fluttering's already on that side.
So yes, Coppers will happily blow the whistle, the question is how much will they let go before they do.
-
Correct. Nobody is saying that there aren’t good coppers or good coppers (in the end) but that’s exactly it. For some they can turn a blind eye through their entire careers and ultimately become part of the culture where they look after their own. Only a few are brave enough to come out against their colleagues.
-
Is it time to change the title? The trial is over, and he was found guilty of manslaughter.
-
Is it time to change the title? The trial is over, and he was found guilty of manslaughter.
What title would you like to suggest?
-
Eight years.
-
What a sodding disgrace.
He’ll be out in four years.
-
I'd imagine the Sentencing Remarks will be uploaded given the public interest in the case.
-
Although I do accept the notion that there are crooked cops. A society within a society and you will naturally get some bad eggs.
A few bad eggs? The Met were described as institutionally corrupt on a few weeks ago. And Cressida Dick was personally criticised for obstructing an investigation. Seems to me like more than just a few bad eggs
-
He's going to have a seriously shit time in there.
A copper who killed someone. There will be many people who will want to see him harmed that's for sure. Not that I'm advocating violence of course.
-
Although I do accept the notion that there are crooked cops. A society within a society and you will naturally get some bad eggs.
A few bad eggs? The Met were described as institutionally corrupt on a few weeks ago. And Cressida Dick was personally criticised for obstructing an investigation. Seems to me like more than just a few bad eggs
So every single Met Police Officer is corrupt?? Good grief….
-
Believe it or not 8 years for manslaughter is a good sentence in the UK. You only have to scan the news for some shocking low 3 and 4 year sentences for really violent offences.
Today’s should have been double figures.
Sentencing guidelines here really do need looking at.
-
Although I do accept the notion that there are crooked cops. A society within a society and you will naturally get some bad eggs.
A few bad eggs? The Met were described as institutionally corrupt on a few weeks ago. And Cressida Dick was personally criticised for obstructing an investigation. Seems to me like more than just a few bad eggs
So every single Met Police Officer is corrupt?? Good grief….
He didn't say that.
-
Although I do accept the notion that there are crooked cops. A society within a society and you will naturally get some bad eggs.
A few bad eggs? The Met were described as institutionally corrupt on a few weeks ago. And Cressida Dick was personally criticised for obstructing an investigation. Seems to me like more than just a few bad eggs
So every single Met Police Officer is corrupt?? Good grief….
Stop falsifying my statement, officer. That’s not what I said
-
What a sodding disgrace.
He’ll be out in four years.
I still wouldn't fancy four years inside. Especially if I was a former copper. Also if anyone wants to take out a racial grievance on the ex copper whilst inside he will need to watch his back on that score too. Definitely rather him that me, it could be a long four years for the guy.
-
Rest in peace Dalian and thank you for some of the greatest moments of all my years following the Villa.
-
I'd imagine the Sentencing Remarks will be uploaded given the public interest in the case.
Bound to be. I'd be interested to know where eight's come from - it's a big chunk up or down from the two possible starting points.
Most likely he decided it's unusual, is going to give him what he thinks it's worth and will make the guidelines fit.
-
What a sodding disgrace.
He’ll be out in four years.
I still wouldn't fancy four years inside. Especially if I was a former copper. Also if anyone wants to take out a racial grievance on the ex copper whilst inside he will need to watch his back on that score too. Definitely rather him that me, it could be a long four years for the guy.
Five years four months.
You serve two thirds now for certain offences - basically violent or sexual ones that carry life sentences.
-
Although I do accept the notion that there are crooked cops. A society within a society and you will naturally get some bad eggs.
A few bad eggs? The Met were described as institutionally corrupt on a few weeks ago. And Cressida Dick was personally criticised for obstructing an investigation. Seems to me like more than just a few bad eggs
So every single Met Police Officer is corrupt?? Good grief….
Stop falsifying my statement, officer. That’s not what I said
And I never said a few bad eggs either.
-
Rest in peace Dalian and thank you for some of the greatest moments of all my years following the Villa.
Exactly this.
I was a kid and remember him signing my autograph book by the old club shop next to the trinity.
My favourite moment being his goal at Wembley when we beat Utd.
RIP Dalian
-
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-monk-sentencing-remarks/
-
The sentencing was on the basis that the Judge (and the jury) could not be sure that the tasering caused Dalian to be subjected to an electrical current beyond the point when the use of the taser was reasonable force. The unlawful act was therefore the kicking. As that did not of itself cause serious injury that reduced the degree of culpability. He arrived at a starting point of 6 1/2 years and then increased it to 8 years on the basis of the aggravating factors, the fact that he was a Police officer being the important one.
-
I tell you what, that's a very poorly written piece of work.
Interesting that in effect the judge has decided on the minimum sentence of 8 years within the guidelines for high culpability but adjusted down to six-and-a-half.
He must serve two thirds of the 8 years.
-
Ultimately a man’s life has been lost. A man that really needed some help. A man that many of us have fond memories of so we feel this pain more than if it happened to someone we didn’t know.
The truth is it does happen all too often to men (mainly) that we don’t know. That there isn’t press coverage because someone didn’t catch it on a camera or witness it first hand. And the report that got filed was full of lies and a cover up. Leaving the families to fight the agony and for the truth long after the attention has gone away. They are left with the emptiness of it all. Seldom does it result in true justice.
-
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf
-
What a sodding disgrace.
He’ll be out in four years.
I still wouldn't fancy four years inside. Especially if I was a former copper. Also if anyone wants to take out a racial grievance on the ex copper whilst inside he will need to watch his back on that score too. Definitely rather him that me, it could be a long four years for the guy.
Five years four months.
You serve two thirds now for certain offences - basically violent or sexual ones that carry life sentences.
And it will never be spent, so he'll have to disclose this conviction - when asked to - for the rest of his life.
-
BBC News - Dalian Atkinson: PC Benjamin Monk jailed for ex-footballer's death
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-57603091
-
I tell you what, that's a very poorly written piece of work.
Interesting that in effect the judge has decided on the minimum sentence of 8 years within the guidelines for high culpability but adjusted down to six-and-a-half.
He must serve two thirds of the 8 years.
He certainly didn't want to start at 12 years. He doesn't have to for cases that don't fit neatly in the culpability levels but he's not been particularly clear about how he's reached the final sentence.
It's a bit of a mess, but some cases just don't work comfortably with the guidelines. He's ended up with a sentence at the higher end of medium culpability which he feels is correct. On the facts as he describes them I think he's right.
-
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-monk-sentencing-remarks/
That is a tough read and an eye opening reality check.
-
The other officer is to face a retrial.
-
And how long will that take? It's five years next month since poor Dalian died!
-
The other officer is to face a retrial.
that's actually good news, I thought she would walk. As a bystander can see how she is making herself out to be a bit of a Mother Theresa its so transparent.
-
BBC News - Dalian Atkinson: Police apologise for killing black ex-footballer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59798500
-
A forced apology - should have been made immediately after the trial.
-
What about his accomplice, Bettley-Smith, will she ever get sentenced for her part in it?
-
I googled this today, nothing new since July ! My faults are they are hoping it will go away
-
And I suppose lessons have been learnt
-
The letter says the right things. The person writing the letter has only come into post since the trial and is attempting to put things right.
-
What about his accomplice, Bettley-Smith, will she ever get sentenced for her part in it?
She's currently on retrial for it...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-62893946
-
She’s been found not guilty
-
From BBC.
A police officer has been found not guilty of assaulting an ex-footballer the night he was killed.
Mary Ellen Bettley-Smith was accused of striking Dalian Atkinson with her baton when he posed no threat in August 2016, but claimed she was "very frightened".
Mr Atkinson had been acting out of character outside his father's house in Telford due to ongoing health issues and died after being Tasered by PC Bettley-Smith's partner, Benjamin Monk.
He was jailed for manslaughter in 2021.
At Birmingham Crown Court, jurors heard the two West Mercia Police officers were called to Mr Atkinson's father's home on Meadow Close in Trench late on 15 August.
The former striker, who played for Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday and Ipswich Town, was said to have been in a disturbed mental state - likely as a result of a build-up of toxins linked to renal failure.
Dalian Atkinson
IMAGE SOURCE,FAMILY
Image caption,
Dalian Atkinson was in a disturbed mental state at the time he was killed
PC Bettley-Smith, 32, told the court she was "terrified" of the 48-year-old who she said looked "huge" and "very angry".
Monk would go on to deploy three Taser cartridges, but after the first PC Bettley-Smith said "there was literally no reaction" from Mr Atkinson.
Her colleague was jailed last year after being convicted of manslaughter. Mr Atkinson died in hospital about an hour after Monk tasered him and kicked him in the head with enough force to leave imprints of his bootlaces.
PC Bettley-Smith struck him three times with her baton while he was laying on the ground after the final discharge.
Prosecutors argued that PC Bettley-Smith, while not contributing to Mr Atkinson's death, caused him actual bodily harm.
They argued she was "angry" with Mr Atkinson, who they said was laying on the ground and posing no threat however jurors agreed with the defence that the officer had used her baton lawfully as a last resort.
Jurors deliberated for just over three hours before acquitting PC Bettley-Smith.
-
There’s a fucking surprise. She only battered him with her truncheon 3 times while he was lying on the ground after her boyfriend had kicked his face in…
-
Scandalous verdict!
-
From BBC.
A police officer has been found not guilty of assaulting an ex-footballer the night he was killed.
Mary Ellen Bettley-Smith was accused of striking Dalian Atkinson with her baton when he posed no threat in August 2016, but claimed she was "very frightened".
Mr Atkinson had been acting out of character outside his father's house in Telford due to ongoing health issues and died after being Tasered by PC Bettley-Smith's partner, Benjamin Monk.
He was jailed for manslaughter in 2021.
At Birmingham Crown Court, jurors heard the two West Mercia Police officers were called to Mr Atkinson's father's home on Meadow Close in Trench late on 15 August.
The former striker, who played for Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday and Ipswich Town, was said to have been in a disturbed mental state - likely as a result of a build-up of toxins linked to renal failure.
Dalian Atkinson
IMAGE SOURCE,FAMILY
Image caption,
Dalian Atkinson was in a disturbed mental state at the time he was killed
PC Bettley-Smith, 32, told the court she was "terrified" of the 48-year-old who she said looked "huge" and "very angry".
Monk would go on to deploy three Taser cartridges, but after the first PC Bettley-Smith said "there was literally no reaction" from Mr Atkinson.
Her colleague was jailed last year after being convicted of manslaughter. Mr Atkinson died in hospital about an hour after Monk tasered him and kicked him in the head with enough force to leave imprints of his bootlaces.
PC Bettley-Smith struck him three times with her baton while he was laying on the ground after the final discharge.
Prosecutors argued that PC Bettley-Smith, while not contributing to Mr Atkinson's death, caused him actual bodily harm.
They argued she was "angry" with Mr Atkinson, who they said was laying on the ground and posing no threat however jurors agreed with the defence that the officer had used her baton lawfully as a last resort.
Jurors deliberated for just over three hours before acquitting PC Bettley-Smith.
That bold bit is pretty worrying, tased 3 times, kicked in the head and she felt it was a 'last resort' to hit him with her baton. If nothing else it shows a pretty severe lack of judgement and comes entirely as a a result of the 'terrified' thing a few lines above.
-
Fucking corrupt scum.
-
Shameful and disgraceful verdict.
-
The reporting doesn't help. This:
They argued she was "angry" with Mr Atkinson, who they said was laying on the ground and posing no threat however jurors agreed with the defence that the officer had used her baton lawfully as a last resort.
Just isn't correct. What it should say is "jurors agreed with the defence that the officer had used her baton lawfully as a last resort, or at least were not sure that she had not done so."
They may have thought she was not guilty at all and the prosecution of her was a disgrace. Or they may have thought it likely she was guilty. Those two, and everything in between, should result in the acquittal.
This jury, who took the oath and heard all the evidence, were not sure of her guilt. Worth remembering neither were a majority of the previous jury who convicted her colleague of manslaughter.
-
What a load of old shite that is.
-
What is? The jury system? The burden and standard of proof?
It's quite important.
-
Well I for one shall sleepy soundly knowing there's police out there who despite their 'training' are so fucking shit at their job that they can't realise that a bloke lying unconscious on the floor having already being tazered 3 times, and also kicked in the head just for good measure, isn't actually any threat.
-
What is? The jury system? The burden and standard of proof?
It's quite important.
The verdict.
-
That's fine, but unless you've sat in court and heard all the evidence you're not in a position to really assess. I've had many cases where I've read the report and not recognised the account given. Living and breathing it, as you hope the jury do, is totally different.
Again, the previous jury who convicted her colleague of the far more serious offence, couldn't agree on her. And another has now acquitted her. That would give me pause.
There's plenty who think that juries get it wrong all the time. Most of them are ranting in the Daily Mail comments.
-
Reading about this just makes me angry and sad for the poor bloke and his family.
You obviously have to defer to the jury as they have heard all the evidence and have to make a decision based on what the law says. But the woman is clearly a baton-happy twat.
-
You don't have to defer to the jury given the long history, worldwide, of obviously bollocks verdicts given in favour of scumbag police officers. Like this one.
-
Very odd decision. If a member of the public whacked someone on the head with a baton as 'a last resort' when already incapicitated, they would be in deep trouble.
-
Disgusting verdict
-
You don't have to defer to the jury given the long history, worldwide, of obviously bollocks verdicts given in favour of scumbag police officers. Like this one.
You do until you've heard everything that they did.
-
Nonsense. The evidence is overwhelming. She battered an unarmed Black man while he was lying on the ground. If we dismiss this because we assume the jury can't possibly make a mistake then we dismiss all the other times that Black people have been assaulted and/or died at the hands of police and not received justice. I'd rather not.
-
Absolutely shocking. How on earth did the Jury come to that conclusion.
Something not right.
-
Nonsense. The evidence is overwhelming. She battered an unarmed Black man while he was lying on the ground. If we dismiss this because we assume the jury can't possibly make a mistake then we dismiss all the other times that Black people have been assaulted and/or died at the hands of police and not received justice. I'd rather not.
Not just once either, THREE TIMES. Was it the fact he didn't respond to the first smack that forced her to repeat it twice more ? You would think having witnessed her partner taser him three times and kick him in the head so hard it left an imprint that she might have been moved to sympathy and concern for his health. Of course the police can say whatever they want as Dalian isn't around to provide his side of the story. And if that was lawful use of the baton then the law is a joke.
-
Well I for one shall sleepy soundly knowing there's police out there who despite their 'training' are so fucking shit at their job that they can't realise that a bloke lying unconscious on the floor having already being tazered 3 times, and also kicked in the head just for good measure, isn't actually any threat.
Agreed, PWS.
I am largely sympathetic towards police officers, I certainly couldn't do their job. But generally speaking, if somebody dies before arrest, things have gone kind of wrong.
We're not in America. Looking black within a mile of a crime shouldn't be a death sentence.
-
Dalian's 'crime' was mental illness and renal failure. It was medical and psychiatric care he needed, not jackboot justice. Shame on those police officers, I hope it haunts them forever.
-
Dalian's 'crime' was mental illness and renal failure. It was medical and psychiatric care he needed, not jackboot justice. Shame on those police officers, I hope it haunts them forever.
Spot on Dave.
-
Agreed again. The verdict does a disservice to the overwhelming majority of police officers who do their duty in a correct manner.
-
I thought that after someone has been rendered incapacitated by Tazer the next stage is to handcuff them.
Apparently the procedure is to kick them in the head and batter them with a truncheon.
-
Nonsense. The evidence is overwhelming. She battered an unarmed Black man while he was lying on the ground. If we dismiss this because we assume the jury can't possibly make a mistake then we dismiss all the other times that Black people have been assaulted and/or died at the hands of police and not received justice. I'd rather not.
I don't think anyone's assuming juries can't make mistakes. When they got it wrong it's normally as a result of evidence that's flawed or withheld.
The point still stands that the 12 people on the jury, who actually hear all the evidence, are in a better position to assess it than you, me or anyone else that hasn't.
in my experience I'd say they get it right most of the time. In about 80% of cases they do exactly what I'd expect on, acquit or convict. I might be disappointed at the latter but not surprised. In about 15% they acquit where I'd expected them not to. Normally they're deeply suspicious and unhappy with the defendant but there was something that made them unsure. Often it's something that was lost on me. 5%, they convict when they really shouldn't, either because I think there should be a doubt or (worst case) I've actually thought the defendant innocent. It's those that have caused me serious loss of sleep over the years, wondering what I did wrong or what more I could've done.
But it's never occurred to me that a bunch of people of people who were never in court, never heard the evidence, and never received a direction from the judge on the law, would be in a better position to decide someone's guilt or innocence.
-
Strong "you can't talk about football unless you've played the game" vibes from that post.
She's a white cop, he's Black. She battered him while he was posing no threat and now he's dead, like so many other Black people at the hands of the police. You don't need to have studied law to work out what's gone on.
-
Dalian's 'crime' was mental illness and renal failure. It was medical and psychiatric care he needed, not jackboot justice. Shame on those police officers, I hope it haunts them forever.
This.
-
I think a fairer analogy to what Hopadop was saying would be to say that you can’t necessarily comment on a 90 minute game if you’ve only seen the highlights on MOTD.
-
Strong "you can't talk about football unless you've played the game" vibes from that post.
She's a white cop, he's Black. She battered him while he was posing no threat and now he's dead, like so many other Black people at the hands of the police. You don't need to have studied law to work out what's gone on.
And this.
-
Strong "you can't talk about football unless you've played the game" vibes from that post.
She's a white cop, he's Black. She battered him while he was posing no threat and now he's dead, like so many other Black people at the hands of the police. You don't need to have studied law to work out what's gone on.
Any vibes unintended. As I'm sure are any of yours.
My point is the 24 jurors who've heard all the evidence in the case are in the best position to assess it. Any additional baggage added is yours.
-
But you're not simply talking about it, you're levelling thinly veiled insinuations at a jury made up of members of the public of either incompetence, racism or corruption.
-
Surely the fact that Hopadop reckons they get 1 in every 5 verdicts wrong means that we shouldn't just blindly accept the decision.
-
Strong "you can't talk about football unless you've played the game" vibes from that post.
She's a white cop, he's Black. She battered him while he was posing no threat and now he's dead, like so many other Black people at the hands of the police. You don't need to have studied law to work out what's gone on.
Any vibes unintended. As I'm sure are any of yours.
My point is the 24 jurors who've heard all the evidence in the case are in the best position to assess it. Any additional baggage added is yours.
But you can apply the same argument to any infamous miscarriage of justice from Brum 6 to OJ. I'm happy to defer to your greater knowledge and take your word that juries get it right most of the time. It seems pretty much impossible that they've got it right this time, though, given that they've just allowed someone who battered an unarmed man who posed no threat and has subsequently died to walk free.
-
Nonsense. The evidence is overwhelming. She battered an unarmed Black man while he was lying on the ground. If we dismiss this because we assume the jury can't possibly make a mistake then we dismiss all the other times that Black people have been assaulted and/or died at the hands of police and not received justice. I'd rather not.
I don't think anyone's assuming juries can't make mistakes. When they got it wrong it's normally as a result of evidence that's flawed or withheld.
The point still stands that the 12 people on the jury, who actually hear all the evidence, are in a better position to assess it than you, me or anyone else that hasn't.
in my experience I'd say they get it right most of the time. In about 80% of cases they do exactly what I'd expect on, acquit or convict. I might be disappointed at the latter but not surprised. In about 15% they acquit where I'd expected them not to. Normally they're deeply suspicious and unhappy with the defendant but there was something that made them unsure. Often it's something that was lost on me. 5%, they convict when they really shouldn't, either because I think there should be a doubt or (worst case) I've actually thought the defendant innocent. It's those that have caused me serious loss of sleep over the years, wondering what I did wrong or what more I could've done.
But it's never occurred to me that a bunch of people of people who were never in court, never heard the evidence, and never received a direction from the judge on the law, would be in a better position to decide someone's guilt or innocence.
Without leaning too heavily on the numbers that 15% seems very high and probably explains why so many people feel like this is the wrong verdict. I understand that it may be that something in the defence created sympathy for her but, without experiencing the trial, a defence of "he was big, angry and very scary so I felt I had no choice but to beat him whilst he lay dying on the floor" doesn't feel like that should've bene the case.
-
Hopadop you disappoint me. It is the clearest case of the truism that is as old as time. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, every law of probability says it is a duck. She hit a dying man, not once but three times, in the head with a truncheon. The verdict was shameful.
-
Surely the fact that Hopadop reckons they get 1 in every 5 verdicts wrong means that we shouldn't just blindly accept the decision.
Just my view in those cases though, so if I'd been on any of those juries I would've been one of the dissenters. Why they introduced majority verdicts, to discount the outliers.
-
Strong "you can't talk about football unless you've played the game" vibes from that post.
She's a white cop, he's Black. She battered him while he was posing no threat and now he's dead, like so many other Black people at the hands of the police. You don't need to have studied law to work out what's gone on.
Any vibes unintended. As I'm sure are any of yours.
My point is the 24 jurors who've heard all the evidence in the case are in the best position to assess it. Any additional baggage added is yours.
But you can apply the same argument to any infamous miscarriage of justice from Brum 6 to OJ. I'm happy to defer to your greater knowledge and take your word that juries get it right most of the time. It seems pretty much impossible that they've got it right this time, though, given that they've just allowed someone who battered an unarmed man who posed no threat and has subsequently died to walk free.
No you're right to question, and I really don't intend to shut you or anyone else down. It's to your (and others) credit that you're upset about the case and what happened to DA. That probably sounds patronising but I don't mean it to be. I remember thinking that whatever state he was in, I hope he knew how loved he was.
I think I'm just a bit analytical when it comes to criminal law. I have to be to be good at it, but also I've learned to be to stop myself getting overwhelmed at times.
I can only think that she gave evidence very convincingly. Enough for this jury to acquit her unanimously, and for the other jury who were happy enough to pot her mate for manslaughter, to not be sure in sufficient numbers.
-
Nonsense. The evidence is overwhelming. She battered an unarmed Black man while he was lying on the ground. If we dismiss this because we assume the jury can't possibly make a mistake then we dismiss all the other times that Black people have been assaulted and/or died at the hands of police and not received justice. I'd rather not.
I don't think anyone's assuming juries can't make mistakes. When they got it wrong it's normally as a result of evidence that's flawed or withheld.
The point still stands that the 12 people on the jury, who actually hear all the evidence, are in a better position to assess it than you, me or anyone else that hasn't.
in my experience I'd say they get it right most of the time. In about 80% of cases they do exactly what I'd expect on, acquit or convict. I might be disappointed at the latter but not surprised. In about 15% they acquit where I'd expected them not to. Normally they're deeply suspicious and unhappy with the defendant but there was something that made them unsure. Often it's something that was lost on me. 5%, they convict when they really shouldn't, either because I think there should be a doubt or (worst case) I've actually thought the defendant innocent. It's those that have caused me serious loss of sleep over the years, wondering what I did wrong or what more I could've done.
But it's never occurred to me that a bunch of people of people who were never in court, never heard the evidence, and never received a direction from the judge on the law, would be in a better position to decide someone's guilt or innocence.
Without leaning too heavily on the numbers that 15% seems very high and probably explains why so many people feel like this is the wrong verdict. I understand that it may be that something in the defence created sympathy for her but, without experiencing the trial, a defence of "he was big, angry and very scary so I felt I had no choice but to beat him whilst he lay dying on the floor" doesn't feel like that should've bene the case.
I think it was a combination of a defence of self-defence, which has a big subjective element, and the fact she MUST have been very convincing. We none of us heard her giving evidence.
-
Hopadop you disappoint me. It is the clearest case of the truism that is as old as time. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, every law of probability says it is a duck. She hit a dying man, not once but three times, in the head with a truncheon. The verdict was shameful.
My apologies Brian. Maybe I'm too defence minded.
-
I did not intend to sound censorious Hopadop. You are one of the half dozen or so posters on H and V to whom I gravitate for wise counsel on topics that interest me.
-
30 years ago today Dalian did this.
https://twitter.com/AvfcArchive/status/1576865014840893440?t=dbMy2HWFR6Xp-8LBycTfqw&s=19
-
30 years ago today Dalian did this.
https://twitter.com/AvfcArchive/status/1576865014840893440?t=dbMy2HWFR6Xp-8LBycTfqw&s=19
One my favorite goals of all time. Much of past football is a blur to me but I remember this vividly.
-
30 years ago today Dalian did this.
https://twitter.com/AvfcArchive/status/1576865014840893440?t=dbMy2HWFR6Xp-8LBycTfqw&s=19
An old school mate of mine lives next door to Rioch, the umbrella fella. Sent me a photo of him in the pub the other week. He hasn’t aged well.
-
He were already scruffy-looking enough in '92.
-
Mary Ellen Bettley-Smith of West Mercia police found guilty of gross misconduct by disciplinary panel now facing the sack https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/17/police-officer-faces-sack-excessive-force-dalian-atkinson
-
Quite fucking right. Should have accepted in the first place, the arrogant, vile individual that she is.
-
Even reading the reports 6 years after the event it still shocks me!
BTW. Mary Ellen? That's a sackable offence right there!
-
PA saying not sacked
-
A PC who repeatedly struck ex-footballer Dalian Atkinson on the night he was killed by her colleague has been found guilty of gross misconduct.
A disciplinary panel decided the West Mercia Police officer used excessive force, but ruled she could keep her job and gave her a final written warning.
Gross Misconduct is normally a sackable offence in all jobs I'm aware of. Normally serious misconduct is the final warning (or two to three minor misconducts).
-
Very poor decision.