When the victim was being aggressive and considered a risk, I accept that it is hard to be 100% sure that any force used was not appropriate, But I do think as individuals with a decent knowledge of what happened, we can make our own judgements. Where there is any doubt you have to give the benefit of any doubt to the accused legally, but not in relation to what you believe.
It is clear that the Police officers were not setting out with the intention of murdering Atkinson when they went on the call. But there has to be a real doubt whether you sat through the evidence in a court or not whether the level of violence was appropriate. Kicking somebody in the head is a dangerous and extreme action. Was it done because of a fear for their safety, or was there an element of anger? That is something nobody can prove, but we can have our suspicions.
When the victim was being aggressive and considered a risk, I accept that it is hard to be 100% sure that any force used was not appropriate, But I do think as individuals with a decent knowledge of what happened, we can make our own judgements. Where there is any doubt you have to give the benefit of any doubt to the accused legally, but not in relation to what you believe.
It is clear that the Police officers were not setting out with the intention of murdering Atkinson when they went on the call. But there has to be a real doubt whether you sat through the evidence in a court or not whether the level of violence was appropriate. Kicking somebody in the head is a dangerous and extreme action. Was it done because of a fear for their safety, or was there an element of anger? That is something nobody can prove, but we can have our suspicions.
Thankfully, there's a means of determining whether the accused is guilty - and of what - with an appropriate burden of proof, based on independent, eligible individuals considering all the relevant evidence, under oath. And all the relevant questions are posed for consideration.
Of course, and we also have a means of making personal judgements based on what we know, which may be right or wrong of course, that we are fully entitled to make.
Of course, and we also have a means of making personal judgements based on what we know, which may be right or wrong of course, that we are fully entitled to make.
Thankfully convictions aren't based on personal judgements made by those with a limited knowledge of the evidence.
I am not saying they should be, they clearly shouldn't, but people can have valid opinions whilst a conviction has to be sure, and we can still make our own judgements like a kicking somebody in the head may not have been necessary.
I am not saying they should be, they clearly shouldn't, but people can have valid opinions whilst a conviction has to be sure, and we can make judgements.
I agree with this completely. Except for the word 'valid'.
I am not saying they should be, they clearly shouldn't, but people can have valid opinions whilst a conviction has to be sure, and we can make judgements.
It is based on the view expressed on here that people can't form opinions based on what they know. And that any opinion they form is automatically wrong. Whilst accepting of course that it could be wrong. It is a forum where people express their views and concerns. There you go.
It is based on the view expressed on here that people can't form opinions based on what they know. And that any opinion they formed is automatically wrong. There you go.
I thought you were questioning the conviction initially on the basis it should have been murder?
I was saying my belief is it was murder, but I think it was established that the kicking in the head was not appropriate hence manslaughter. It them comes down to the motivation and that is where it is difficult to prove surely. But it doesn't mean you can't take a view it was likely to be done in anger without being able to prove either way. Shooting down people's 'valid' views is incorrect.
If I was on the jury I may have had the same view but of course there will always be doubt as you can't get into somebody's head and know what their thoughts were at the time are you have to respect the doubt. I think the principle is pretty straightforward and it is only the rigidity of the challenge which means I have to type all of this. I expressed a view and I still hold that view.
I was saying my belief is it was murder, but I think it was established that the kicking in the head was not appropriate hence manslaughter. It them comes down to the motivation and that is where it is difficult to prove surely. But it doesn't mean you can't take a view it was likely to be done in anger without being able to prove either way. Shooting down people's 'valid' views is incorrect.
If I was on the jury I may have had the same view but of course there will always be doubt as you can't get into somebody's head and know what their thoughts were at the time are you have to respect the doubt. I think the principle is pretty straightforward and it is only the rigidity of the challenge which means I have to type all of this. I expressed a view and I still hold that view.
If you express a view be prepared for others to not see it as 'valid' as we are talking about the law here. Nobody is stopping you expressing your view.
I was saying my belief is it was murder, but I think it was established that the kicking in the head was not appropriate hence manslaughter. It them comes down to the motivation and that is where it is difficult to prove surely. But it doesn't mean you can't take a view it was likely to be done in anger without being able to prove either way. Shooting down people's 'valid' views is incorrect.
If I was on the jury I may have had the same view but of course there will always be doubt as you can't get into somebody's head and know what their thoughts were at the time are you have to respect the doubt. I think the principle is pretty straightforward and it is only the rigidity of the challenge which means I have to type all of this. I expressed a view and I still hold that view.
If you express a view be prepared for others to not see it as 'valid' as we are talking about the law here. Nobody is stopping you expressing your view.
Great, well that is what I did. I didn't say there should be a retrial. Perfectly accepting for people to disagree with my view, but not taking the view that you didn't sit through the whole trial so can't hold that view. That is why it is valid, right or wrong.
I was saying my belief is it was murder, but I think it was established that the kicking in the head was not appropriate hence manslaughter. It them comes down to the motivation and that is where it is difficult to prove surely. But it doesn't mean you can't take a view it was likely to be done in anger without being able to prove either way. Shooting down people's 'valid' views is incorrect.
If I was on the jury I may have had the same view but of course there will always be doubt as you can't get into somebody's head and know what their thoughts were at the time are you have to respect the doubt. I think the principle is pretty straightforward and it is only the rigidity of the challenge which means I have to type all of this. I expressed a view and I still hold that view.
If you express a view be prepared for others to not see it as 'valid' as we are talking about the law here. Nobody is stopping you expressing your view.
Great, well that is what I did. I didn't say there should be a retrial.
You should also look up what 'valid' means in the dictionary.
It is based on the view expressed on here that people can't form opinions based on what they know. And that any opinion they form is automatically wrong. Whilst accepting of course that it could be wrong. It is a forum where people express their views and concerns. There you go.
So if I say in my valid opinion the officer acted in self defence and should have been found not gulity. Would you agree that I am not automatically wrong, although I could be? I understand what you are saying, but I agree with Chizz.
What about if the officer had a gun and shot Atkinson 25 times and then went in the house and shot his father 25 times whilst he was in bed.
Would you still argue that I had a valid opinion if I said the officer was not guilty of any crime?
This is the last I am going to say as it goes round in circles. But Valid in the dictionary is having a sound basis in logic or fact. I accept my view is based on logic rather than fact as we can't know the motivation in his head at the time. We can speculate and ultimately nobody will ever know one way or the other. A jury can't speculate on that, but we can as we are not ultimately convicting. Two opposing views can be valid if arrived at via a logical framework.
This is the last I am going to say as it goes round in circles. But Valid in the dictionary is having a sound basis in logic or fact. I accept my view is based on logic rather than fact as we can't know the motivation in his head at the time. We can speculate and ultimately nobody will ever know one way or the other. A jury can't speculate on that, but we can as we are not ultimately convicting. Two opposing views can be valid if arrived at via a logical framework.
Your argument is neither based on logic or fact and is simply based on your supposition/speculation.
I'm glad you know his motivation for kicking Atkinson in the head. You are probably the only one if you do. The rest of us can speculate on it. It was either in anger or self defence. How one or the other can be proved is beyond me, but it was not an appropriate action hence the verdict of manslaughter.
I'm glad you know his motivation for kicking Atkinson in the head. You are probably the only one if you do. The rest of us can speculate on it. It was either in anger or self defence. How one or the other can be proved is beyond me, but it was not an appropriate action hence the verdict of manslaughter.
You don't understand the law that much is evident and you don't know what 'valid' means.
I have at no stage said I know what the motivation was so please stop making ridiculous assertions.
Personally I don’t believe for a moment that the police officer had any intent to kill Atkinson when he kicked him in the head but that was the result of his actions. We can all speculate whether his actions were driven by fear or anger although I could recognise that it may have been a bit of both. In a violent situation you can easily get lost in the moment when the adrenaline kicks in but as a professional he let himself down. In my opinion a verdict of manslaughter was the just outcome.
Personally I don’t believe for a moment that the police officer had any intent to kill Atkinson when he kicked him in the head but that was the result of his actions. We can all speculate whether his actions were driven by fear or anger although I could recognise that it may have been a bit of both. In a violent situation you can easily get lost in the moment when the adrenaline kicks in but as a professional he let himself down. In my opinion a verdict of manslaughter was the just outcome.
It's terrible that it took so long to go to court.
If he'd just Tasered him, even for the 30s, he'd have probably got away with it. The boots to the head are what have got the conviction.
It's always possible to argue, in the heat of the moment, he didn't realise how long he'd held the button, or that he thought it wasnt working because Atkinson kept coming. But it's impossible to make any argument to defend a boot to the head of seone already on the ground.
My thoughts exactly. A cowardly, Scumbag act out of uniform, yet alone in one.
Total speculation based on no facts at all, in case anyone starts sealioning, but I wonder how much that he was in a relationship with the other officer present was a factor?
Was he showing off to her? Certainly, the standing on him as if he was a big game hunter with his "kill" points to that, to my mind at least.
If he'd just Tasered him, even for the 30s, he'd have probably got away with it. The boots to the head are what have got the conviction.
It's always possible to argue, in the heat of the moment, he didn't realise how long he'd held the button, or that he thought it wasnt working because Atkinson kept coming. But it's impossible to make any argument to defend a boot to the head of seone already on the ground.
Agree with the 'not working' part but i don't think you could hold it for 30 seconds and say you didn't realise how long. 30 seconds is a very long time.
If he'd just Tasered him, even for the 30s, he'd have probably got away with it. The boots to the head are what have got the conviction.
It's always possible to argue, in the heat of the moment, he didn't realise how long he'd held the button, or that he thought it wasnt working because Atkinson kept coming. But it's impossible to make any argument to defend a boot to the head of seone already on the ground.
Agree with the 'not working' part but i don't think you could hold it for 30 seconds and say you didn't realise how long. 30 seconds is a very long time.
I agree but I'm sure in court they could have spun it, and got some expert to testify that time perception changes under stress, etc. and introduced enough doubt to sway the jury
If he'd just Tasered him, even for the 30s, he'd have probably got away with it. The boots to the head are what have got the conviction.
It's always possible to argue, in the heat of the moment, he didn't realise how long he'd held the button, or that he thought it wasnt working because Atkinson kept coming. But it's impossible to make any argument to defend a boot to the head of seone already on the ground.
Agree with the 'not working' part but i don't think you could hold it for 30 seconds and say you didn't realise how long. 30 seconds is a very long time.
Comments
It is clear that the Police officers were not setting out with the intention of murdering Atkinson when they went on the call. But there has to be a real doubt whether you sat through the evidence in a court or not whether the level of violence was appropriate. Kicking somebody in the head is a dangerous and extreme action. Was it done because of a fear for their safety, or was there an element of anger? That is something nobody can prove, but we can have our suspicions.
If I was on the jury I may have had the same view but of course there will always be doubt as you can't get into somebody's head and know what their thoughts were at the time are you have to respect the doubt. I think the principle is pretty straightforward and it is only the rigidity of the challenge which means I have to type all of this. I expressed a view and I still hold that view.
However, situations do arise where lack of a strong response can be disastrous for the Police Officer.
Man charged over police officer throat cutting - BBC News
Would you agree that I am not automatically wrong, although I could be?
I understand what you are saying, but I agree with Chizz.
What about if the officer had a gun and shot Atkinson 25 times and then went in the house and shot his father 25 times whilst he was in bed.
Would you still argue that I had a valid opinion if I said the officer was not guilty of any crime?
I have at no stage said I know what the motivation was so please stop making ridiculous assertions.
Nobody is going to stop your speculation.
Was he showing off to her? Certainly, the standing on him as if he was a big game hunter with his "kill" points to that, to my mind at least.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-57637060