Shays Given Tim Flowers

Aguero is love, Aguero is life?

Give me Saudi over Ashley but it’s bittersweet

I look at Chelsea and City and I think do we really want to be another team pushing football further down the path

Claiming this one Drossbot?

It has to be proven to the Criminal standard that he intended to cause a really serious injury. Not just a serious injury.

You'll struggle because it is a jury matter which means it's hard to get appellate cases that consider the issue. The Court of Appeal has held that using a knife on an unarmed assailiant is prima facie capable of being self-defense. The Atkinson case is an example of it being possible to argue. If it was not possible for kicking in the head to be capable of amounting to a defence in Law the Judge would not let it go before the Jury. The Silk's opening would simply be a kick to the head is never lawful and therefore the officer is guilty of at least manslaughter, don't pay any heed to self-defence it doesn't exist in law. Again at Law there is no requirement to use the minimum amount of force in self-defence. Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814); "If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."

Yeah the issue is likely to be whether the kick to the head was intended to cause really serious injury in which case murder. Or whether the kicks to the head were an unlawful act that didn’t intend to cause really serious injury in which case manslaughter. it’s probably where the self defence argument comes into play more. ‘My actions weren’t intending to cause a really serious injury I was trying to look after myself my colleague’. Albeit it certainly seems that it was at best in an entirely inappropriate and excessive way. Probably scope for doubt on the murder. Based on the non-evidential opening speech it sounds very much like unlawful act manslaughter. Murder conviction unlikely but probably more likely than a blanket acquittal based on the opening.

To be fair ED209 is addressing the blanket point that a kick to the head can’t ever be self defence.

A very good review of LOD.

Also the Defence don't have to prove self-defence they simply have to produce some evidence to show that it was self defence (in this case probably by giving evidence or having said so in interview). The Crown then have to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. The real issue in the case is likely going to be whether or not the officer intended to cause a really serious injury to atkinson or whether his actions were not intended to cause a really serious injury but were born out of a need to defend himself his colleague, which could involve an intention to cause a less than 'really serious' injury.

Express yourself more clearly and you'll avoid the tedium.

Worth keeping in mind that the officer is charged with murder. Excessive self defence could lead to the lesser offence of manslaughter.

So clear you said in 'no situation'.

That's not what you said though.

That is wrong, self defence is always a value judgment for a jury, it will depend on necessity and whether the force was reasonable and proportionate. It does not have to be an approved technique to be lawful.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/live-updates-dalian-atkinson-murder-20519228 Quite a detailed account of the Prosecution opening.

Appalling way to die.

A mid table team makes 8 changes and it’s a procession for them.

Rodney Dangerfield would make a good Kinnear.

2/8 * 100 = 99

Caden is a middle class name over there?

He's not even the best Ferdinand.

Blog standard photography.

Up there with Sonias Snatch as one of the great NO non-sequiturs.