Thanks for that mate, explains the context and legal process. I guess if there is no proof he intended to kill the lad then the Judge has a duty to direct the jury in this way.From the Guardian
“The judge said the jury should acquit Monk of murder if they were “not sure that Mr Monk intended to kill Mr Atkinson or intended to cause him really serious injury”. The judge said they should convict the officer of manslaughter “if you are sure that that force was an act which any reasonable person would realise was bound to subject another human being to the risk of physical harm”.”
Dalian Atkinsonâs family say five-year wait for trial was âunacceptableâ
Police officer Benjamin Monk convicted of manslaughter of former footballer during disturbance in 2016www.theguardian.com
Jesus, he's just been found guilty.Allegedly
This is the point I was trying to make rather badly.No allegedly - he has been convicted the only thing in contention was his intent. That cop is a killer - fact!
I believe the jury made a mistake - he may not have had intent to kill but with 2 kicks he had intent to do serious harm so it should have been murder. Some on jury must have felt cops should be judged to a different standard as you obviously do.
I believe cops should be held to a higher standard
With a second kick any right minded individual would believe he intended to cause serious harm which makes it murder - the jury were poorly directed!Thanks for that mate, explains the context and legal process. I guess if there is no proof he intended to kill the lad then the Judge has a duty to direct the jury in this way.
I think perhaps the need for action outweighed the ability to wait. It’s a tough judgement call if other persons are at risk of harm.If he was that much of a handful why hasn't he waited for back up to do it safely. I know a couple of people when getting arrested the first 2 officers stand and wait for another 2 to arrive before engaging.
Of trying to impress his girl?Jesus, he's just been found guilty.
No, of manslaughter.Of trying to impress his girl?
You misread my post... don't try and be a smart ass thanksNo, of manslaughter.
Should have been second degree murder at least.
Tasered him for 33 seconds solid and then kicked fuck out his head twice afterwards.
Only in this bizarro world could that ever be deemed fuckin manslaughter...
Be out on license in 4, unless the judge makes a recommendation that he serves a certain length before parole is considered.Jailed for 8 years
With the paedos and rapists.He will be kept in separate secure wing. No way he will be put in general area.
You need to have intent to kill to commit murder though, so you have kind of proven why he was convicted of the lesser offence as that was easily proven.No allegedly - he has been convicted the only thing in contention was his intent. That cop is a killer - fact!
I believe the jury made a mistake - he may not have had intent to kill but with 2 kicks he had intent to do serious harm so it should have been murder. Some on jury must have felt cops should be judged to a different standard as you obviously do.
I believe cops should be held to a higher standard
You only need intent to do serious harm not kill to be found guilty of murder - two kicks to the head more than satisfies intent to do serious harm the jury were poorly directedYou need to have intent to kill to commit murder though, so you have kind of proven why he was convicted of the lesser offence as that was easily proven.
There is only one law and everyone is judged by it equally (in theory).
The very fact everyone on here is debating what the offence is, is the reason why they went for the lesser offence.