Dalian Atkinson Taser death:

Rangerstid72

Well-Known Member
I thought it was common knowledge that no one was allowed to taser anyone in the heart because of the risk of death?
Tasered in the heart? Tasers can be utilised by firing the probes into the body, or removing the probes and used as a stunning device. The taser carries a chip that registers data regarding discharge time, period that the taser was active etc.
 

Portrushbear

Well-Known Member
They attend emergency situations every day, most likely with a subject who is classed as EMD (emotionally/mentally distressed) their actions are often unpredictable and violent

If the cop has felt the need to taser him he doesn't have time to sit down and run through his whole medical history before making his decision about the best course of action to take

Hindsight is a wonderful thing when looking at cases like this, maybe he should have used Cs spray or a baton but for whatever reason he used his taser. It will be interesting to see how this plays out
 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)
So an intention to kill is murder but also intention to do GBH isn't charged as GBH, which I thought was a charge in and if itself, it's charged as murder?
Or, have I seen too many episodes of The Sweeney
Are talking of degrees of GBH, here?
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
Tasered in the heart? Tasers can be utilised by firing the probes into the body, or removing the probes and used as a stunning device. The taser carries a chip that registers data regarding discharge time, period that the taser was active etc.
They aren't supposed to be deployed in the upper torso. But of course, if you know everything else you typed, you know what I meant and decided to act the online Billy Big baws. We'll done you.
 

Portrushbear

Well-Known Member
So an intention to kill is murder but also intention to do GBH isn't charged as GBH, which I thought was a charge in and if itself, it's charged as murder?
Or, have I seen too many episodes of The Sweeney
Are talking of degrees of GBH, here?
There are separate charges of gbh and gbh with intent

The intent is difficult to prove so you'll often get plea deals for the lesser charge of gbh
 

Gibraltar Loyal

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

There getting more like American cops,act first,ask questions later
Not really. Tasers are meant to disable not kill like a gun. The reason tasers are there are so police can act first and ask questions later. Not sure they have time to ask suspect to fill in a health questionnaire.
 

Mexi

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”.
It's been three years and there was no hint of wrongdoing at the time, either from the CPS or the family
 

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
It's been three years and there was no hint of wrongdoing at the time, either from the CPS or the family
They must have decided to do it for a laugh then. With no evidence of wrong doing the cops legal team will get him off with ease so that’s great for him.
 

Mexi

Well-Known Member
They must have decided to do it for a laugh then. With no evidence of wrong doing the cops legal team will get him off with ease so that’s great for him.
Wouldn't be the first time a head of CPS reopens a predecessor's case to make a name for themselves
 

SHOTTSLOYAL

Well-Known Member
I will bet money the officer is found not guilty on both counts. A political decision to avoid accusations of institutional racism.
 

AllanD

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.
If they are misused in excess when unnecessary, then that's intent of cause. Police have a responsibility to use reasonable force only.

Certainly seems like there's more to it for this charge.
 

muffed ivor

Well-Known Member
I don't understand this at all. There must be further information to come out that hasn't already been disclosed by the family.

He said his brother had attacked their 85-year-old father, Ernest, at his home on Monday before police were called to the scene.

"My brother had lost it. He was in a manic state and depressed - out of his mind and ranting. He had a tube in his shoulder for the dialysis and he had ripped it out and was covered in blood," he told the newspaper.

"He got Dad by the throat and said he was going to kill him. He told Dad he had already killed me, our brother Paul and sister Elaine and he had come for him.

So the police turn up here see a man covered in blood who's attacked an old man and has said he has already killed three others. What are they meant to do?
So the police turn up see a man covered in blood who's attacked an old man and has already said he has killed three others. What are they meant to do ?
Say, Hello Hello Hello.....
 

RBRFC

Well-Known Member
Murder is absurd; even culpable homicide would be absurd, reckless and negligent perhaps but the simple truth is the officer is being made an example of because the person who died was black and high profile - and everyone knows it even tho most are too petrified to mention it, in the post truth era.
 

Mickethius

Active Member
Were you there? No you were not.

CPS don't put a murder charge on anything without decent enough evidence to back it up. Let's see what the courts decide.

They will if there is any doubt just to show they are being even handed, no way on gods earth will they achieve a conviction for murder.
 

coplandrearl36

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
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.
Not in Scotland
 

Calvinist

Well-Known Member
Sorry that’s incorrect, it may be reduced to Culp Hom but initial charge by Police would be Murder.
youre wrong .

police regularly liase with crown office and pf and can competently charge with culp home . I’ve seen it first hand on numerous occasions
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
that’s utter nonsense .

the only guidance is to try to avoid sensitive areas like the face and genitas but they’re not off limits
Utter nonsense? Quantify that please? How exactly is it Utter nonsense?
I may or may not be incorrect, but your hyperbole is the only nonsense on that last post.

I'd have thought ramming 50,000 volts around the area of someones heart would be pretty stupid.
Either way, the info the PF has, was obviously enough to charge the guys.


Researchers looked at eight cases involving men and teen boys who lost consciousness after getting shocked by the TASER X26, a weapon widely used by law enforcement and the military.

In each case, the stun gun was applied to the chest, and the individuals experienced cardiac arrest after their hearts began to beat either too fast or abnormally.
 
Last edited:

coplandrearl36

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
youre wrong .

police regularly liase with crown office and pf and can competently charge with culp home . I’ve seen it first hand on numerous occasions
Worked in Glasgow for over 10 yrs. It was always a charge of Murder never ever did we charge Culp Hom.
 
Last edited:

Rangerstid72

Well-Known Member
They aren't supposed to be deployed in the upper torso. But of course, if you know everything else you typed, you know what I meant and decided to act the online Billy Big baws. We'll done you.
Well your wrong again. The intent is one probe hits a major muscle group as does the other probe. Ideally one chest and one thigh for example. I wasnt acting BBB. But wgat you said was wrong.
 

Rangerstid72

Well-Known Member
Worked in Glasgow for over 10 yrs. It was always a charge of Murder never ever did we charge Culp Hom.
Hi mate, wires crossed. My post was meant to read manslaughter and culp. Homocice are virtually identical. I wasnt getting into what the cop should or would be charged with. As yet circumstances arent explained. It does sound unusual as i believe in England the CPS liaise and advise the charge.
 

Mexi

Well-Known Member
Well your wrong again. The intent is one probe hits a major muscle group as does the other probe. Ideally one chest and one thigh for example. I wasnt acting BBB. But wgat you said was wrong.
I can't imagine it would be easy to aim a taser at the chest but avoidng the heart, it's heard enough with a gun. Especially with a moving target
 

Rangerstid72

Well-Known Member
I can't imagine it would be easy to aim a taser at the chest but avoidng the heart, it's heard enough with a gun. Especially with a moving target
Its range isn't huge and there is a laser sighting system. Usually, when the red dot is seen on the chest compliance occurs. But, the main body mass is the target. Ie, the chest. For the amont its been deployed fatalities are very low. No cop in their right mind wants to use it. Investigation up ymthe yahoo. It is classed as a firearm.
 

Dougoi7

Active Member
Not really. Tasers are meant to disable not kill like a gun. The reason tasers are there are so police can act first and ask questions later. Not sure they have time to ask suspect to fill in a health questionnaire.
you have disagreed with me and agreed with me all in the same sentence
 
I can't imagine it would be easy to aim a taser at the chest but avoidng the heart, it's heard enough with a gun. Especially with a moving target
The probes are relatively small it would pierce the skin but wouldn't be able to hit the heart it would just be the general chest area even if in front of the heart. They are very unlikely to kill people unless they have underlying health conditions ie these cases or fall and suffer a knock to the head, even then in both cases death is unlikely.
 

Blue Goose

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that it's still in existence however there is a unit at the Crown Office whose sole remit is to look at criminal complaints against the Police. They had to show that they were fit for purpose and used to cite cops with things such as assaults, traffic offences etc. The vast majority of which was a not guilty. A stats thing if you like. The issue was that the pressure these cops were under, for utter shite, was and can be immense. Cops behind bars for minor offences, when Joe Public gets a slap on the wrist, isn't a good thing for them.
You only need look at the cop a fortnight ago in Stirling who killed himself due to a complaint.

This thing smacks of a show piece type trial. Appeasement.

If I was an armed cop with a Taser, I would be handing it in after this announcement.
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
Well your wrong again. The intent is one probe hits a major muscle group as does the other probe. Ideally one chest and one thigh for example. I wasnt acting BBB. But wgat you said was wrong.
I'll stick to expert opinion thanks. Rather than the thoughts of a crank on FF.
Hopefully piggy goes down for a few years.
Typical police know it all and can do what I like attitude has seen this thug in a uniform get a bit of karma, hell mend him.
 
Top