Dalian Atkinson (1968-2016)

[Manxst]

In the same scenario, an AFO would be perfectly legally entitled to shoot the offender dead in order to save the life of the potential victim. A kick to the head is reasonable force in the circumstances. Methinks Fantail used to drive a desk before retirement. And try to throw his colleagues under the proverbial bus. 
 

baton strike to the arm? Lol! By the time you draw the baton, extend it, aim for the knife arm (which may be away from you, or making you put yourself into knife reach), the offender would have killed the woman in this scenario. I’m guessing you’d have shouted several warnings first too, and allowed him time to put the knife down without any violent action being taken…or even tactically withdrawn from the room to await a negotiator…

 

likewise…running in and rugby tackling puts more people at risk, and potential more injuries to both yourself, the woman, and the offender. You might well have served time as an officer, but you left with very little knowledge of both the law, and how to practically deal with situations ED209 clearly has experience in. 

 

[Interpolic]

When Fantail Breeze realises...

[Fantail Breeze]

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.

[Si]

It's class that they can think of lots of reasons that a kick to head could be justified but so few alternative solutions but I guess it's hard when you're posting in the heat of the moment

[Manxst]

4 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

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.

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. 

[Fantail Breeze]

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.

[TheHoob]

Spoiler

 

[Robster]

It's an interesting debate though, nonetheless.

[Happinesstan]

2 hours 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.

I won't argue with your right to do so. I should have clarified that it is never reasonable for a trained officer of the law.

[Big Geordie]

16 hours ago, HTT II said:

Tragic story, he was one of those players you’d watch in the early ‘90s  and thought, I’d love him here. 

He was linked when he was with Ipswich (When Willie McFaul was boss)

It's a horrendous story and I hope these two coppers will face significant jail time - if found guilty.

[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.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

47 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

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.

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 ..."

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

20 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

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.

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

[ED209]

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

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.

To be fair there is only you saying I am wrong.

Of course I am going to rugby tackle a man with a knife and risk me getting stabbed as well when the kick to the head would be far safer and far more likely to swiftly end the situation.

I can’t give you a court example of a kick to the head being found by a court to be lawful probably because an example like I have given would never make it to court in the first place because there is no prospect of a conviction. 

Have a read of Palmer vs R 1971. 
 

 

[Fantail Breeze]

6 minutes ago, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

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 ..."

The conversation is getting lost between the acts of a police officer at work and those of a member of the public. I’m not arguing a member of the public could define it as self defence, but it would be different for a trained police officer at work.

But, the scenario where it genuinely is a act of self defence in any case are very low.

[ED209]

So you think the 1/2 days of training given to most front line cops a year on self defence/restraint makes them experts and able to handle no violent situation like some kind of ninja master?  
 

I despair I really do, you strike me as the time who does their probation then looks for a job in an office working day shifts where you spend a lot of time applying hindsight judgement to how cops have dealt with fast moving situations at 2am when you were safely tucked up in bed. 

[Fantail Breeze]

2 minutes ago, ED209 said:

So you think the 1/2 days of training given to most front line cops a year on self defence/restraint makes them experts and able to handle no violent situation like some kind of ninja master?  
 

I despair I really do, you strike me as the time who does their probation then looks for a job in an office working day shifts where you spend a lot of time applying hindsight judgement to how cops have dealt with fast moving situations at 2am when you were safely tucked up in bed. 

 The 24 year old expert with no experience, telling me about my own career. All of which is completely inaccurate, but based on your other posts, not a surprise.

[Interpolic]

1 minute ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 The 24 year old expert with no experience, telling me about my own career. All of which is completely inaccurate, but based on your other posts, not a surprise.

Mate, he's been a copper for 24 years man he's not a 24 year old with 24 years life experience like you keep saying  this is why I posted the spiderman thing. 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Interpolic

[ED209]

1 minute ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 The 24 year old expert with no experience, telling me about my own career. All of which is completely inaccurate, but based on your other posts, not a surprise.

Who ever said I was 24? Your attention to detail is poor

[Fantail Breeze]

6 minutes ago, Interpolic said:

Mate, he's been a copper for 24 years man he's not a 24 year old with 24 years life experience like you keep saying  this is why I posted the spiderman thing. 

I’m not having that  There is no way a serving officer reckons he could walk in and “kick his head as hard as you possibly can using every ounce of strength you can muste”

 

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Fantail Breeze

[Thumbheed]

Where do we stand on Stone cold stunners? 

Aye or nay?

[Anderson]

Can't believe that's had to be spelled out, or that this is still going on ffs.  

[Anderson]

Just now, Thumbheed said:

Where do we stand on Stone cold stunners? 

Aye or nay?

Reasonable force, unless 2 middle fingers are administered immediately after.

[Thumbheed]

4 minutes ago, Anderson said:

Reasonable force, unless 2 middle fingers are administered immediately after.

I see, but what if the other person is brandishing the people's elbow? 

 

[Miles]

So far as I have seen on this thread, what ED209 has said is absolutely correct. The use of lethal force by whatever means necessary is lawful and justifiable should the circumstances permit, and it is the juries responsibility to determine this. To state a firearms Officer should aim for the arms of someone wielding a knife is wrong. The target area is the largest body mass.

Fantail. From what I have seen so far, I am far from convinced you are ex job.