Fantail Breeze

1 hour ago, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

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. 

I think a murder conviction is quite possible in this incident from what I’ve heard so far. An officer will know from training that a kick to the head is likely to cause serious injury. That’ll form a lot of the prosecutions argument, it’s difficult to say you don’t intend to cause injury when carrying that act out.

Although it’s massively complicated by the fact Dalian had a number of health conditions and the use of the taser. I don’t know if the pathologist has identified a single cause of death. If it’s the kicks to the head, I think it’d have a good chance at conviction. If not or the cause is unclear, I agree it’ll probably end up being manslaughter.

2 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Tell us…is kicking someone in the head less justified than shooting someone dead? If ‘reasonable force’ can be justified to take someone’s life in a premeditated action like a shooting, how can the same not apply to a kick? It’s an extreme action and admittedly it’d be a rare time that anyone would find themselves in that situation, but to say you simply ‘can’t’ is nonsense. Similarly I could legally pick up a brick and put it into someone’s head if I thought it was proportionate, and justifiable. 

It’s worth noting the aim is rarely to ‘shoot someone dead’ but they are trained to use the minimum force required to achieve the objective. In this example, they’d probably shoot them in the arm to disarm them.

The rare situation where people are purposely shot dead is usually terror related where it’s believed they may have a device.

I think you’ve been watching too much TV. Every use of force has to be justified.

As I’ve said, it’s very different when we’re talking about a trained police officer and member of the public. It’d be easier to justify for a member of the public. You and ED are getting the two entwined and confused.

I give up  

I’ll await the court example(s) of legal use of kicking people in the head. I’m sure with it being so clear cut, there must be at least one example.

5 minutes ago, ED209 said:

You don’t kick him in the head as hard as you can she dies. You don’t have time to read sodding APP or weight up the precise niceties of the situation. You act immediately. 

Correct. But would it be more proportionate and reasonable to run in and rugby tackle him off of her in order to disarm him?

Or, could you use your baton to strike the arm holding the knife to disarm him?

Two acts which would protect her life without the need to put his life at a serious risk. 

As I’ve pointed out, only the minimum level of force required to achieve the objective is lawful. This is where your argument falls down, every time.

The sheer arrogance of you thinking you are right is the worst part  You’re speaking so confidently but so wrongly. You have no knowledge of this area apart from your own ignorance and Google searches. Many people have now told you that you are wrong, including someone who has vast experience in the training and practical work.

Just now, ED209 said:

You attend a report of domestic violence, when you get to the door of the house it’s open, you here a female screaming inside. You run in and in the living room you see a female lying on the floor with a male straddling her, pinning her to the floor. He has a large knife in his hand, there’s blood on her clothing, he’s already stabbed her once, he’s just about to plunge the knife into her chest. You aren’t trained to use taser.  You have literally a second to form a plan and act or she is probably going to die. 
 

What do you do? You kick his head as hard as you possibly can using every ounce of strength you can muster. To make sure he cannot stab her and he cannot turn on you  

 

justified? 100% lawful 100%

No. There are several more proportionate acts to take before you boot someone in the head ‘with every ounce of strength you can muster’. Your own example is telling me you are using excessive force.

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/public-order/core-principles-and-legislation/police-use-of-force/ 

Might be worthwhile for you to get a better understanding of what is ‘reasonable’.

2 minutes ago, ED209 said:

i agree 100%. The circumstances you describe and in the circumstances outlined by the prosecution case yesterday would make a kick in the head totally unacceptable. I am not defending the cops at all in this case. 
 

To make the point that kicking someone in the head could never be justified in any circumstances is very wrong though. It worries me greatly that we have someone on here that claims to have been a cop doesn’t understand that. If you have a cop who doesn’t know their powers with regards to the lawful use of force and as a result wouldn’t use potentially lethal force in the correct circumstances then every time they leave the police station they are putting the public, their colleagues and themselves at risk. 

I’m still waiting for you to give me a (realistic) scenario where you can justify it.

22 minutes ago, ED209 said:

I am absolutely not wrong at all. In 24 years real life experience I have never kicked or needed to kick anyone in the head however that doesn’t mean I won’t need to today or tomorrow to defend myself or others. If I do I will sleep easy knowing that as long as my actions are reasonable, proportionate and necessary the law of the land will offer me protection.

If that is the case, you may learn some very harsh life lessons. As the prosecution summed up in this case: “Ms Healy said PC Monk was an experienced police officer of 14 years and would have known he risked causing Mr Atkinson "really serious injury" by kicking him in the head.”

A kick is very different to a punch, which you could easily argue is reasonable and self-defence.

Love it at 24 years old with no experience other than using Google, you think you are an expert.  

@ED209please give up, you are wrong  

3 hours ago, gdm said:

For balance Kennedy also said “is there gonna be a takeover before next season? It’s looking like a tough ask and we need to plan ahead (for next season) and Bruce will be going in to final year of his contract”

what ever his big story is he doesn’t sound too enthusiastic that it’ll be done soon 

(Sorry for chip pissing)

 #wait rumbles on...

Would never get tired of seeing Neymar fail. Pathetic little tosser.

PSG are such a team of dislikable players.

Man Utd aren’t for sale though, are they?

22 minutes ago, Disco said:

Heads up that Defensa y Justicia have 15 players out through Covid for their game with Palmeiras (4/7) later on. 

Independiente missing 8 players and their manager for their trip to Bahia (10/11), they also slept in the airport on arrival rather than a hotel.

Why do I get drawn into these?

Guaranteed to lose now I lump on.

Just as an aside, I’m not a serving officer any more  Although it wasn’t all that long ago that I was. Before I start getting pelters on here.

Just now, ED209 said:

I would suggest you need an OST refresher. Maybe a brush up on section 3 of the criminal law act  and section 117 of PACE. 

Feel free the quote the legislation where I’m wrong  rather than just Googling the names.

Just now, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

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 likelty 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.

Not wrong at all. I’ll be intrigued to hear the defence. Not had a chance to read up on this much but will be following it closely.

2 minutes ago, ED209 said:

Because it’s not the movies. You hit the largest target area to stop someone. When faced with lethal force (a knife) then it’s reasonable to defend yourself with lethal force. 
 

have you ever personally experienced the massive adrenaline dump and total loss of fine motor skills you get when faced with a real and immediate threat to your life? 

Yes, multiple times through my experience of working as a police officer.  Having had plenty of training on ‘force’ and how to apply it lawfully, in addition to being part of many prosecutions for it.

But sorry, you clearly know much more than me. Your first paragraph is very wrong.

1 minute ago, ED209 said:

Just as well I never mentioned kicking the person with the knife in the head then isn’t it. 

Hitting them on the head with a baton would be difficult to prove proportionate. Why would the officer not hit them on the hand/arm that was holding the knife? The head is further away.

Just now, ED209 said:

There have been many cases where police shooting someone dead have been deemed to be lawful in the circumstances. A far higher level of force than a kick in the head.  So why would it be so hard to imagine a circumstance where a kick may be reasonable? 

Of course they could shoot someone in that circumstance (assuming they are trained, of course).

But that’s entirely different to kicking someone in the head, which is a force that is very very unlikely to ever need to be used for the reasons I’ve pointed out.

3 minutes ago, ED209 said:

But we and you don’t know exactly what happened in this specific incident so how can you judge? 

Years of experience. What about you?

2 minutes ago, ED209 said:

You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. 
 

So are you saying if someone has a large knife and is about to stab you in the chest with it it would not be reasonable and lawful to hit them as hard as you possibly could in the head with a baton or whatever else you could lay your hands on?

of course it would be lawful whether you are a police officer or any random member of the public. 
 

 

I have no idea what I’m talking about  Okay.

If someone was going to stab you with a large knife, how would you kick them in the head? Unless we want to be ridiculous and throw a karate champion into this wild scenario.

Just now, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

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

Don’t be pedantic and upset if you’ve misinterpreted something  

Just now, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

So clear you said in 'no situation'. 

‘No situation’ in this specific incident between police officers. My whole post literally talks about police officers, I’m clearly not talking generally.

That said, it’d be incredibly hard to prove self defence in any incident where someone is kicked in the head, for similar reasons as I’ve pointed out.

Just now, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

That's not what you said though. 

I was talking about this specific incident, quite clearly.

Just now, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

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. 

I can tell you now, there isn’t a jury in the world that we see the act of kicking someone in the head as reasonable nor proportionate in the act of a police officer.

In order to kick someone in the head, they would either be on the floor or close to it. Therefore it’s unlikely they would be posing a significant threat to life at the point.

Police are also unable to use their baton on someone’s head, for good reason, which is why a kick to the head will be seen in a similar way.

Great move for him and Roma. Hope he does well.

13 minutes ago, ED209 said:

What are the other facts of the case though? In isolation that sounds horrendous on behalf of the police however there is no context as to what kind of threat Atkinson posed. Kicking someone in the head and tasering someone repeatedly could be reasonable and lawful force in some circumstances  of course on the other hand it might not. 

I get what you’re saying but there is no situation where kicking someone in the head is deemed lawful force.

The taser, yeah, but there’s no approved techniques for kicking people in the head.

I assume their defence will be his thrashing around caused contact with boots, which will be a poor/weak defence.