Dalian Atkinson trial

[andyh]

What about the bitch who was with him, has she been convicted ?

[darren woolley]

They should have been charged with murder.

[Axl Rose]

What about the bitch who was with him, has she been convicted ?

I was thinking that, too.

Despicable people.

Rest in peace our Dalian.

[Sexual Ealing]

The jury is still out on her so probs best not to say too much at this stage.

[Legion]

They should have been charged with murder.

They were. He was convicted of manslaughter.

[cdbearsfan]

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.

[olaftab]

They should have been charged with murder.

Darren I am totally perplexed at how this was NOT a murder.

[Damo70]

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?

[maidstonevillain]

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?

[dave.woodhall]

Please bear in mind that the trial is still ongoing until both verdicts have been reached.

[Ad@m]

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.

[ez]

How come he's not being held in prison until sentencing?

[amfy]

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.

[yammers]

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.

[amfy]

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.