Dalian Atkinson Taser death:

Rangerstid72

Well-Known Member
Thousands. You can bet your life on that (no pun intended). If they weren't being tazered they'd be being shot.

In fact I'd say a high %age of tazer-involved deaths in the States are where the tazer deployment is ineffective and the suspect is then shot.

I remember watching a video of a guy out of his mind on steroids being tazed repeatedly just pulling the barbs out and continuing to walk around threatening the officers trying to arrest him
The guy who died during the incident that caused the thread, apparently, was covered in blood and threatening to kill family members /deranged. I'd ask members on here to ask themselves, without the benefit of hindsight, what they would have done? And in a split second.
 

Spin City

Well-Known Member
The guy who died during the incident that caused the thread, apparently, was covered in blood and threatening to kill family members /deranged. I'd ask members on here to ask themselves, without the benefit of hindsight, what they would have done? And in a split second.
I 100% agree but the only reservation I have is Taser-deployment guidelines state that Tasers should not be deployed against disturbed individuals. Now I don't know how hard and fast that guideline is or whether exceptions can be made. Common-sense tells me there has to be certain exceptions but whether there actually are I don't know.

EDIT: I haven't actually followed this case much but as far as I understand it he tried to strangle his dad and he told his dad he'd already killed his (Dalian Atkinson) sister and two brothers. So when the cops got there they were faced with a big athletic guy, covered in blood, who had allegedly killed 3 people and attempted to murder a 4th.

The cops had nowhere to go on this one..
 
Last edited:

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
I'm still waiting my turn behind a queue of jumped up bacon sandwiches.
You know. The ones telling, no demanding people are wrong. Talking bollocks. Typing nonsense. And so forth...
It's ironic. When that kind of know it all. Listen to no one attitude sees you up on a murder charge.

I'll stick to being glad this killer is off the street, for the time being at least. Rather than playing judge, jury, executioner, lawyer and fiscal in a uniform.
I have no dog in this fight, but the bold part is fucking unintentionally hilarious :D
 

Spin City

Well-Known Member
I didn't do the research. At least the guy put his name to it and offers an explanation.
I don't have any problems with driving. I drive responsibly as usually have kids in the car.

I've had more extended run ins with police than I care to mention, fortunately, above glorified rock steady staff, there is a justice system so it's always seemed to work in my favour with only my time waste by the thick cuuunts in uniform.
Hopefully this thick know it all killer faces justice.
Now, your authority, which gives you a better understanding than those in the article?
Still waiting.
For someone so strident you suddenly have nothing to say..?

You couldn't have been arrested again, because you were on this forum today..
 

Blue Goose

Well-Known Member
How can you charge someone with murder when using a taser - which is a tool given to cops so they don’t use lethal force?
I think the circumstances of the whole incident including eye witnesses has added to the charge or charges imo. I don't think that the taser alone is the issue.
 

HarryBosch

Well-Known Member
I read you like a book from a few lines and now your covering every possible base to try have a dig.
If you think every post bar mine are reasonable your in your own wee world.
Policemen don't constitute authority.
I have no problem with real authority.

You seem to believe everyone, level with or above rock steady constitutes authority. Maybe start there and tell us where that comes from. I might open up then if I see you do so first.
And take your time. To intelligently think out another one of your killer responses.
Im calling bullshit on this - I don't believe for a second you've ever read a book.

Your ill-informed posts about Taser usage are bad enough, but a grown man using phrases like 'piggy' and 'smell of bacon' is fucking tragic.
 

HarryBosch

Well-Known Member
So I've to believe any of the anonymous names on a forum who've taken the huff when questioned? Over my own experience, respected medical and scientific opinion, when not one of you will quantify why you are of authority to tell people they are "cstegorically wrong", "talking nonsense", "bullshit", and then have the audacity to shout for sensible debate. Right you are.
What experience do you have? What expert medical and scientific experience?

You're gibbering on about something you have no idea about.
 

Slobear

Active Member
Just to chuck in a wee hand grenade, how do people feel about taking out wee hairies on mopeds and that. Mopeds mbe a bit iffy but I think joyriders in cars should be rammed as soon as a quiet bit of road is found
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
What experience do you have? What expert medical and scientific experience?

You're gibbering on about something you have no idea about.
The same as Everyone else on here with an opinion then?
Oh and for such an educated book lover, using fucking as an adjective should surely be beneath you?
 

MagneticFields

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I’m by no means anti police but it’s important to note ths5 the initial police version of events isn’t always what actually happened, the killing of Jean Charles Menezes being a good example.

The independent police investigation and the CPS obviously believe there are grounds for the charges - doesn’t make them guilty or innocent, just a case of waiting for the legal process to run its course.
 

HarryBosch

Well-Known Member
The same as Everyone else on here with an opinion then?
Oh and for such an educated book lover, using fucking as an adjective should surely be beneath you?
You weren't giving an opinion though. You were posting inaccurate information as facts. Again, what is your experience of Taser's?

If the abjective fits.......
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
What is your experience of Taser's?
Why have you not asked anyone else this?
I have, countless times to be met with no answer.
Do me a favour, go get answers from half of them, and I'll humour you, off you trot.
Or is it just that the shte they are spouting aligns with the shite you believe, so it's somehow more valid that my shite?

I knew a lad, a bouncer, he got into fights every week, punching %^*& out of folk and often getting punched %^*& out of.
One day he hit someone the wrong way while working and the other lad died.
Now, was this murder? It turns out it wasn't, because he didn't mean to kill the guy. And normally a punch in the face won't kill someone.
Now, seeing as a jury decided it wasn't murder, does that mean he didn't kill the guy?
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
Why have you not asked anyone else this?
I have, countless times to be met with no answer.
Do me a favour, go get answers from half of them, and I'll humour you, off you trot.
Or is it just that the shte they are spouting aligns with the shite you believe, so it's somehow more valid that my shite?

I knew a lad, a bouncer, he got into fights every week, punching %^*& out of folk and often getting punched %^*& out of.
One day he hit someone the wrong way while working and the other lad died.
Now, was this murder? It turns out it wasn't, because he didn't mean to kill the guy. And normally a punch in the face won't kill someone.
Now, seeing as a jury decided it wasn't murder, does that mean he didn't kill the guy?
Doesnt matter.

There is no consideration in law as to whether or not the force used would kill another person. The only consideration is whether or not the force used killed the victim. If the victim died because he or she had underlying health concerns or health defects then that doesnt change the potential charge. It is of no relevance in court that the force used to kill the victim wouldn't have been sufficient to kill your average person on the street.

Owens v Liverpool Corp [1939] 1KB 394

Thats one of the more popular cases that fall under the generic "eggshell skull" argument. Whilst it's a civil case regarding damages, the principle applies equally to criminal matters. The judge put it pretty clearly:

“it is no answer to a claim for a fractured skull that the owner had an unusually fragile one”.

What changes the charge is the intention of the accused. If the victim dies then it's still potentially murder if the accused can be shown to have intended to kill the victim or to have shown a complete disregard for the likely consequence of their action. What changes the charge from murder to either manslaughter or culpable homicide is the guilty intent. Is it clear that the accused only intended to harm the victim? Was there no reckless disregard for the accused's consequences? It's why we also have charges of involuntary manslaughter/culpable homicide.

In the Atkinson case there's now a suggestion that the officer in question used the taser twice after the victim had been tasered and was on the ground. Whether or not Atkinson would have died following a single taser use because of an underlying heart condition is of absolutely no relevance. Of relevance in this case will be whether or not the officer deployed the taser multiple times, whether or not it was reasonable for them to do so and whether or not the officer showed a reckless disregard for the victim if they did use the taser multiple times and if such use was disproportionate to the perceived threat.
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
Doesnt matter.

There is no consideration in law as to whether or not the force used would kill another person. The only consideration is whether or not the force used killed the victim. If the victim died because he or she had underlying health concerns or health defects then that doesnt change the potential charge. It is of no relevance in court that the force used to kill the victim wouldn't have been sufficient to kill your average person on the street.

Owens v Liverpool Corp [1939] 1KB 394

Thats one of the more popular cases that fall under the generic "eggshell skull" argument. Whilst it's a civil case regarding damages, the principle applies equally to criminal matters. The judge put it pretty clearly:

“it is no answer to a claim for a fractured skull that the owner had an unusually fragile one”.

What changes the charge is the intention of the accused. If the victim dies then it's still potentially murder if the accused can be shown to have intended to kill the victim or to have shown a complete disregard for the likely consequence of their action. What changes the charge from murder to either manslaughter or culpable homicide is the guilty intent. Is it clear that the accused only intended to harm the victim? Was there no reckless disregard for the accused's consequences? It's why we also have charges of involuntary manslaughter/culpable homicide.

In the Atkinson case there's now a suggestion that the officer in question used the taser twice after the victim had been tasered and was on the ground. Whether or not Atkinson would have died following a single taser use because of an underlying heart condition is of absolutely no relevance. Of relevance in this case will be whether or not the officer deployed the taser multiple times, whether or not it was reasonable for them to do so and whether or not the officer showed a reckless disregard for the victim if they did use the taser multiple times and if such use was disproportionate to the perceived threat.
Correct answer.
The cop killed him.
The only doubt is the extent to which the cop should have known better.
The extent to which he followed protocol.
And, for his own good, that he didn't act Billy big bollocks when presented with the fact tasers are a deadly weapon if not used correctly. (in contrast to those above who know better than physics, the law, and biology)

My opinion of the police is irrelevant, even though the copper killed the lad.
It's for a judge and jury to decide if it was murder.
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
I have no dog in this fight, but the bold part is fucking unintentionally hilarious :D
It shows what I'm up against Ian, when someone i'd class as an intelligent and thoughtful poster, can't tell the difference between killed, and murdered.
The very reason that I've felt obliged to block a few people with a vested interest, to avoid derailing the thread and a potential temporary or permanent holiday.
One happened, that's fact. The other will be judged on by a jury of his peers.
 

iaatpies

Well-Known Member
Correct answer.
The cop killed him.
The only doubt is the extent to which the cop should have known better.
The extent to which he followed protocol.
And, for his own good, that he didn't act Billy big bollocks when presented with the fact tasers are a deadly weapon if not used correctly. (in contrast to those above who know better than physics, the law, and biology)

My opinion of the police is irrelevant, even though the copper killed the lad.
It's for a judge and jury to decide if it was murder.
It isn't about the police officer knowing better. If the police officer is found to have acted proportionately then at best it's involuntary manslaughter. Which could then be possibly not guilty.

The only certain thing is that you've got the police officer guilty because of your dislike of the police rather than any actual evidence.
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
It isn't about the police officer knowing better. If the police officer is found to have acted proportionately then at best it's involuntary manslaughter. Which could then be possibly not guilty.

The only certain thing is that you've got the police officer guilty because of your dislike of the police rather than any actual evidence.
Another apparent educated poster confused.

I have the police officer killing the guy.
That's not up for debate, it's fact.
A minor disturbance. If the policeman uses words, the guy doesn't die. He used force, man died. He killed him.

The trial will decide if he's guilty of a crime or not.
Not me, nor you.

I don't have him guilty of anything because I wasn't there.

Regardless of my feeling for police, I'd rather a person with the mentality to use force as an early point of recourse wasn't on the street.
He'll never patrol the streets and administer his interpretation of justice again. I make no apologies for being happy about that.
And I trust the law will decide if he merits jail time or not.

Not the first time I've made that known. Hopefully it's taken on board before any more of your wee clique accuse me of this or that.
Oh, and thanks for proving my point in the last post.
It's became apparent you done so unwittingly.
 

Spin City

Well-Known Member
Another apparent educated poster confused.

I have the police officer killing the guy.
That's not up for debate, it's fact.
A minor disturbance. If the policeman uses words, the guy doesn't die. He used force, man died. He killed him.

The trial will decide if he's guilty of a crime or not.
Not me, nor you.

I don't have him guilty of anything because I wasn't there.


Regardless of my feeling for police, I'd rather a person with the mentality to use force as an early point of recourse wasn't on the street.
He'll never patrol the streets and administer his interpretation of justice again. I make no apologies for being happy about that.
And I trust the law will decide if he merits jail time or not.

Not the first time I've made that known. Hopefully it's taken on board before any more of your wee clique accuse me of this or that.
Oh, and thanks for proving my point in the last post.
It's became apparent you done so unwittingly.
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.
So you don't have him guilty of anything eh..?

I'm guessing I'm one of the one's you've blocked. Saves having to answer difficult questions I suppose.

But you've proved you're talking garbage, so thanks for that.
 

Taki

Well-Known Member
Another apparent educated poster confused.

I have the police officer killing the guy.
That's not up for debate, it's fact.
It's not a fact, Boy Wonder.


"The exact circumstances of Dalian Atkinson's death haven't been revealed and it is not known whether the Taser contributed to, or caused, his death. "
 

HarryBosch

Well-Known Member
Another apparent educated poster confused.

I have the police officer killing the guy.
That's not up for debate, it's fact.
A minor disturbance. If the policeman uses words, the guy doesn't die. He used force, man died. He killed him.

The trial will decide if he's guilty of a crime or not.
Not me, nor you.

I don't have him guilty of anything because I wasn't there.

Regardless of my feeling for police, I'd rather a person with the mentality to use force as an early point of recourse wasn't on the street.
He'll never patrol the streets and administer his interpretation of justice again. I make no apologies for being happy about that.
And I trust the law will decide if he merits jail time or not.

Not the first time I've made that known. Hopefully it's taken on board before any more of your wee clique accuse me of this or that.
Oh, and thanks for proving my point in the last post.
It's became apparent you done so unwittingly.
There's so much ignorance in your posts its hard to know where to start.

Its not fact that Taser's are a deadly weapon!
It's not fact the police officer killed Atkinson!

Your complete ignorance of Taser process and police policy is only outweighed by your absurd suggestion that this was a minor disturbance that could have been solved by words.

Perhaps you could share your wisdom, no doubt gleaned from your extensive experience of dealing with highly volatile situations, and tell us how you would have dealt with Dalian Atkinson?
 

Blue Goose

Well-Known Member
Another apparent educated poster confused.

I have the police officer killing the guy.
That's not up for debate, it's fact.
A minor disturbance. If the policeman uses words, the guy doesn't die. He used force, man died. He killed him.

The trial will decide if he's guilty of a crime or not.
Not me, nor you.

I don't have him guilty of anything because I wasn't there.

Regardless of my feeling for police, I'd rather a person with the mentality to use force as an early point of recourse wasn't on the street.
He'll never patrol the streets and administer his interpretation of justice again. I make no apologies for being happy about that.
And I trust the law will decide if he merits jail time or not.

Not the first time I've made that known. Hopefully it's taken on board before any more of your wee clique accuse me of this or that.
Oh, and thanks for proving my point in the last post.
It's became apparent you done so unwittingly.
Yeah, but it's your fact-no one else's. As you have said the jury will decide if he's guilty of a crime and IF he is proven not guilty then he's not guilty of killing him. That's not too difficult to understand. Again you said you weren't there, so how do you know it was a minor disturbance?

The fact that he was there, threatening to harm family members, clearly in a mental state would suggest that he wasn't well. How do you, or indeed I know that his medical state didn't actually contribute to his death? What do you class a minor disturbance? Have you been challenged in a minor disturbance? What would you do if you were in that situation? Reason I ask is that you are clearly a self proclaimed expert on the behaviours of people suffering from a mental illness, so I would like to hear your viewpoint and how you would deal with this?

If I read your posts correctly you probably wouldn't call the Police due to your inherent disregard for not only the Police, but authority so, you tell us how you would deal with this?
 

Woodrow Call

Well-Known Member
Don't think they should be firing tasers on any unarmed people. Part of their training is how to subdue and arrest people. They are cops. Sometimes they have to get in about it to make an arrest. Talk to the guy and judge the mood. There's a Glasgow expresssion. I got buckled..it means the cops used a wee bit of force to get you cuffed up and in the back of the car. Good cops do this easy.
 

HarryBosch

Well-Known Member
Don't think they should be firing tasers on any unarmed people. Part of their training is how to subdue and arrest people. They are cops. Sometimes they have to get in about it to make an arrest. Talk to the guy and judge the mood. There's a Glasgow expresssion. I got buckled..it means the cops used a wee bit of force to get you cuffed up and in the back of the car. Good cops do this easy.
"Mr Atkinson's brother, Kenroy, 53, told The Sun that the ex-Premier League star had undergone dialysis for kidney failure and was "not in his right mind".

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"

Talk to the guy, judge his mood!
 

Woodrow Call

Well-Known Member
"Mr Atkinson's brother, Kenroy, 53, told The Sun that the ex-Premier League star had undergone dialysis for kidney failure and was "not in his right mind".

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"

Talk to the guy, judge his mood!
Ok restrain him then using the techniques you've been taught during training.
 

BlueBritain

Well-Known Member
Another apparent educated poster confused.

I have the police officer killing the guy.
That's not up for debate, it's fact.
A minor disturbance. If the policeman uses words, the guy doesn't die. He used force, man died. He killed him.

The trial will decide if he's guilty of a crime or not.
Not me, nor you.

I don't have him guilty of anything because I wasn't there.

Regardless of my feeling for police, I'd rather a person with the mentality to use force as an early point of recourse wasn't on the street.
He'll never patrol the streets and administer his interpretation of justice again. I make no apologies for being happy about that.
And I trust the law will decide if he merits jail time or not.

Not the first time I've made that known. Hopefully it's taken on board before any more of your wee clique accuse me of this or that.
Oh, and thanks for proving my point in the last post.
It's became apparent you done so unwittingly.
Stop edging away from the burning question. Why are the police always at your door??

It's the only reason I'm still in this thread.
 
Top