Dalian Atkinson Taser death:

Mexi

Well-Known Member
The incident was three years ago, and there was no complaints from the family at the time

Has there been a new head of the CPS since then?
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
Id be looking at the Atkinson “might have had a weak heart” line.
Did the officer know this?
Doesn't matter. The legal principal translates from latin as "you must take your victim as you find him". It's well held and long established in cases where a victim refused a life saving transfusion on religious grounds or where a victim died due to injuries sustained from an undiagnosed soft skull. The really famous ones typically involve a punch where the victim falls, hits the back of their head, has a weakened skull and subsequently dies of their skull/brain injuries.

The stronger argument would be that for murder you'd typically need to show a guilty action and a guilty intent (Actus Reus and Mens Rea). For manslaughter (or culpable homicide in Scotland) you need not demonstrate the guilty intent. You then get into the realms of voluntary or involuntary depending on whether there was an intent to harm that fell short of an intent to kill.
 

StuGers

Well-Known Member
I wonder if it is like that case in Scotland of the guy (can’t remember his name, African sounding) in which he was full of drugs, acting aggressively, had a knife, yet the police were under fire for him unfortunately dying when restrained.
 

Dougoi7

Active Member
Go on stand that up, tell us exactly how that relates to this case.
You'd also be better off spending your time improving your grasp of basic English rather than jumping on bandwagons.
Theres plenty of videos on you tube,go and watch some professor

Did I spell a word wrong?
Is that good enough English for you?
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
I can't see how they will convince any jury that the officer in question set out to murder him. If tasers are so deadly and there's a risk of death if you've got heart problems they shouldn't be issued in the first place. Especially if you're going to then charge PCs when people die after using them.
I thought it was common knowledge that no one was allowed to taser anyone in the heart because of the risk of death?
 

SmileyBear

Well-Known Member
I wonder if it is like that case in Scotland of the guy (can’t remember his name, African sounding) in which he was full of drugs, acting aggressively, had a knife, yet the police were under fire for him unfortunately dying when restrained.
I read about that the police did there job the family seem to be pushing a racist angle in the hope of a payout.
 

BlueBritain

Well-Known Member
What part of the job is to kill unarmed suspects?

There getting more like American cops,act first,ask questions later
My mates a cop in California.

There's been more than a few instances that if he stood to ask questions, then he would be dead.

Totally irrelevant to this case all the same.
 

watp85

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
If I was a firearms cop or a taser cop I'd hand it back.

%^*& that for a carry on.
 

sapper

Well-Known Member
Surely that would be manslaughter? I thought, and I am not connected to the law in any way, that murder involved 'malice aforethought'?
In England to prove a charge of murder, you have to prove intent. That is proving that the cops intent was to kill, when firing a taser.
 

monkey magic

Well-Known Member
A tragic case for all concerned. I'd be very surprised if the cops deliberately murdered anyone by taser and will be almost impossible to prove that motive.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
Doesn't matter. The legal principal translates from latin as "you must take your victim as you find him". It's well held and long established in cases where a victim refused a life saving transfusion on religious grounds or where a victim died due to injuries sustained from an undiagnosed soft skull. The really famous ones typically involve a punch where the victim falls, hits the back of their head, has a weakened skull and subsequently dies of their skull/brain injuries.

The stronger argument would be that for murder you'd typically need to show a guilty action and a guilty intent (Actus Reus and Mens Rea). For manslaughter (or culpable homicide in Scotland) you need not demonstrate the guilty intent. You then get into the realms of voluntary or involuntary depending on whether there was an intent to harm that fell short of an intent to kill.
I’m a wee bit aware of the first part here from a previous life.
If the police officer(s) found a guy acting aggressively to the point they felt endangered, would they not be entitled to defend themselves?
You used “found the guy” it was only later, perhaps after other options had been exhausted, they “found” something else.
It reads to me like we’re asking the police, or anybody else, to make determinations that only time would prove if correct or not.
 

monkey magic

Well-Known Member
I’m a wee bit aware of the first part here from a previous life.
If the police officer(s) found a guy acting aggressively to the point they felt endangered, would they not be entitled to defend themselves?
You used “found the guy” it was only later, perhaps after other options had been exhausted, they “found” something else.
It reads to me like we’re asking the police, or anybody else, to make determinations that only time would prove if correct or not.
If the cops were white and the deceased an ethnic minority, it only adds a more incendiary mix to what is already a tragic event, and would be used by the likes of Dianne Abbot, Lammy, and the rest to race-bait if the police involved weren't put on trial on some charge or another.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
It seems extremely harsh however the prosecution must feel they have enough to liable the charge so there will probably be more to it, rather than just an erratic dangerous male being tasered.

If someone is tasered in Scotland then they have to be taken straight to hospital so they can be checked out by doctors. I'm not sure if it's the same in England but maybe this hasn't been done and it's the lack of care after him being tasered that's brought about the charge.

Either way the whole story will come out during the trial.
Just read one of the links on this and it states that an ambulance needs to be called if a taser has been used.
 

Steve Snedden

Well-Known Member
Doesn't matter. The legal principal translates from latin as "you must take your victim as you find him". It's well held and long established in cases where a victim refused a life saving transfusion on religious grounds or where a victim died due to injuries sustained from an undiagnosed soft skull. The really famous ones typically involve a punch where the victim falls, hits the back of their head, has a weakened skull and subsequently dies of their skull/brain injuries.

The stronger argument would be that for murder you'd typically need to show a guilty action and a guilty intent (Actus Reus and Mens Rea). For manslaughter (or culpable homicide in Scotland) you need not demonstrate the guilty intent. You then get into the realms of voluntary or involuntary depending on whether there was an intent to harm that fell short of an intent to kill.
So would I be right in assuming that if a police officer tasered a potentially dangerous suspect and the suspect suffered a heart attack and died then the policeman would probably face involuntary manslaughter?

I'm not talking about the Atkinson case because clearly a different sequence of events must have taken place for the CPS to bring forth the murder charge?
 

coplandrearl36

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Surely that would be manslaughter? I thought, and I am not connected to the law in any way, that murder involved 'malice aforethought'?
Eg, You punch a guy he falls backwards and cracks head on pavement, dies. Charge is murder, however it may be reduced later pre trial or at trial, but initial charge is Murder.
 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
Eg, You punch a guy he falls backwards and cracks head on pavement, dies. Charge is murder, however it may be reduced later pre trial or at trial, but initial charge is Murder.
You probably know better than me but that just sounds wrong, IMHO that's a tragic accident, that's manslaughter. If 'you' have murderous intent then you don't hit someone with your fist. Firstly that doesn't speak to murderous premeditation and secondly it's a very, very inefficient way of killing someone, you need a weapon of some sort.
Unless you're Bruce Lee.
 

coplandrearl36

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
You probably know better than me but that just sounds wrong, IMHO that's a tragic accident, that's manslaughter. If 'you' have murderous intent then you don't hit someone with your fist. Firstly that doesn't speak to murderous premeditation and secondly it's a very, very inefficient way of killing someone, you need a weapon of some sort.
Unless you're Bruce Lee.
As I said, if you commit a reckless act you need to be aware of the consequences, sometimes they are not what you expected. The PF will always charge the accused with the most severe charge which can be reduced later.
 

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
I’m amazed people can just spring to the defence of the copper. They wouldn’t have any grounds for that charge if there wasn’t robust evidence that he’d done something wrong, so I think it’s best to wait before saying “pile of shit, he’s done nothing wrong”.
 

imager

Administrator
Staff member
See reply 69.
From the CPS -

murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.
 

pepsimax73

Active Member
Seems to me to be harsh in the extreme on the officers in question.
Scape goats is the answer, two officers answer a call and if they feel threatened to the point of using force and then taser someone there will be three sides to this the victims, the police and the truth mixed with both accounts
 

Thommo2006

Well-Known Member
I’m amazed people can just spring to the defence of the copper. They wouldn’t have any grounds for that charge if there wasn’t robust evidence that he’d done something wrong, so I think it’s best to wait before saying “pile of shit, he’s done nothing wrong”.
I'm not so sure. People will no doubt disagree but cops are held to a higher standard than Joe public I've seen police officers arrested and prosecuted for things with flimsy evidence that Joe public would never be charged with.

I can't say what's happened here but my bet is its taken 3 years to get to this so the copper has either been suspended on full pay or is at a desk somewhere. The murder charge will go nowhere then the force can have a second bite and sack him for gross misconduct.

This is the reason I will never pick up a firearm in the job as you get the experts on the Monday morning who haven't done front line policing for years telling you how you should act in that split second when you have someone threatening you.
 

El Jock Grande Sabia

Well-Known Member
So would I be right in assuming that if a police officer tasered a potentially dangerous suspect and the suspect suffered a heart attack and died then the policeman would probably face involuntary manslaughter?

I'm not talking about the Atkinson case because clearly a different sequence of events must have taken place for the CPS to bring forth the murder charge?
Every case will be dealt with individually. It will be based on what is deemed reasonable force in any given incident.
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
So would I be right in assuming that if a police officer tasered a potentially dangerous suspect and the suspect suffered a heart attack and died then the policeman would probably face involuntary manslaughter?

I'm not talking about the Atkinson case because clearly a different sequence of events must have taken place for the CPS to bring forth the murder charge?
It would depend on the circumstances.

The argument would go that it's still potentially murder if the only reason that the victim had a heart attack was that they had an underlying heart defect. It wouldn't matter if an otherwise healthy individual wouldn't have been fatally injured. There is no consideration of what a healthy person would experience, only the fatal injury that the victim experienced - heart defect, thin skull or any other underlying health issue that would make an injury more likely to be fatal to them in particular.

But the argument for murder would also be that there was an intention to harm with the probable loss of life.

If there was an intent to harm then it's more likely to be voluntary manslaughter/voluntary culpable homicide. If there wasn't a deliberate intention to harm then it's involuntary.
 

Steve Snedden

Well-Known Member
It would depend on the circumstances.

The argument would go that it's still potentially murder if the only reason that the victim had a heart attack was that they had an underlying heart defect. It wouldn't matter if an otherwise healthy individual wouldn't have been fatally injured. There is no consideration of what a healthy person would experience, only the fatal injury that the victim experienced - heart defect, thin skull or any other underlying health issue that would make an injury more likely to be fatal to them in particular.

But the argument for murder would also be that there was an intention to harm with the probable loss of life.

If there was an intent to harm then it's more likely to be voluntary manslaughter/voluntary culpable homicide. If there wasn't a deliberate intention to harm then it's involuntary.
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond.

It is appreciated.
 
Top