Dalian Atkinson Murder Trial | Page 5 | Vital Football

Dalian Atkinson Murder Trial

Lienking said:
Nothing I've said is wrong. You seem to be confusing an opinion with a right/wrong situation. You are entitled to an opinion, just as I am. Monk overstepped the mark as is clear from the manslaughter verdict.

"As for the sentence - wrong again. Although a manslaughter charge can carry a life sentence, the sentence given is usually 2-10 years, particularly in cases of involuntary manslaughter or where he didn’t deliberately set out to kill him."

In the UK manslaughter either has a degree of provocation, or involuntary manslaughter has "no intention of committing murder".

You are then comparing this to the Second degree murder of George Floyd. According to wikipedia Second-degree murder Any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned.[18]

Clearly "didn't deliberately set out to kill him" is NOT the same as second degree murder in the states, which clearly states intentional murder.
Click to expand...
Did you actually follow the links? Knowing you probably not…

There are two charges put up for a reason - he can only be found guilty of one as a maximum. The jury found him not guilty of murder and there is only one possible reason for that - the evidence presented was not sufficient. That is not opinion, that is fact.

You can hide behind semantics as much as you like but to find someone guilty of a crime relies on weight of evidence. There is a burden of proof and the prosecution are required to get beyond it.

UK manslaughter includes a wide range of scenarios including voluntary and involuntary as well as things like diminished responsibility. The sentence of eight years is at the higher end of the range and reflects how serious Monks crime was deemed to be.

The US system is very different but again the link I posted showed that it included the involuntary killing of someone. Nobody has said that either Monk or Chauvin set out that day to kill someone which is why the more serious charges were not proven.

2nd degree murder in the US is an unplanned killing that becomes intentional in the heat of the moment ie he lost his temper. You are confusing prior intent with ‘heat of the moment intent’. Again, U.K. manslaughter caters for this within its wider range of meaning because to prove murder you must prove prior intent.

The actual sentence of Chauvin doesn’t suggest it is the more serious crime because US law allows for much tougher sentencing.

I would ask what part of this is opinion but the reality is you probably haven’t read anything anyone else has posted or looked at links so I don’t think I will bother.

At the end of it all both Chauvin and Monk may not have set out to kill someone but the fact is that they did and they have been found guilty within the respective laws. Neither have expressed any remorse so that is about as much as we need to know about them.
 
Last edited:
Basha73 said:
The jury found him not guilty of murder and there is only one possible reason for that - the evidence presented was not sufficient. That is not opinion, that is fact.

?
Click to expand...

There is a lot of opinion about " the evidence presented wasn't sufficient". That could mean anything from you thinking that Monk murdered him, but it couldn't be proved, through to Monk was totally innocent on that charge. English law takes the latter position.

None of what you have put is relevant to my initial statements, which actually related to Paz. Monk did NOT get "only 8 years for murder" (he was cleared of that charge) , and there was far more than "criminal damage" before he was tasered.

In my OPINION there is no comparison between this case and the George Floyd one, from what I've read about this. Were there actually any allegations of racism in this case?
 
Lienking said:
There is a lot of opinion about " the evidence presented wasn't sufficient". That could mean anything from you thinking that Monk murdered him, but it couldn't be proved, through to Monk was totally innocent on that charge. English law takes the latter position.

None of what you have put is relevant to my initial statements, which actually related to Paz. Monk did NOT get "only 8 years for murder" (he was cleared of that charge) , and there was far more than "criminal damage" before he was tasered.

In my OPINION there is no comparison between this case and the George Floyd one, from what I've read about this. Were there actually any allegations of racism in this case?
Click to expand...
English law takes the position that he was found not guilty. It makes no other distinction.

Once a charge is listed then the Prosecution is required to prove that the defendant is guilty of the charge. If they cannot prove it then the defendant is found not guilty. That is how the law works.

How far away from proving it is a different matter and only the jury can really say whether there was no proof at all or a level of proof that was not sufficient. Again English Law makes no distinction and just goes with ‘not guilty’.

Monk got 8 years for killing someone. I think you are taking Paz’s wording too literally. Also at the time the police turned up Atkinson had assaulted his father, smashed a window and shouted and screamed. He was known to be mentally ill.

Whatever his actions there is no justification for a 33 second taser burst and kicks to the head. Remember as well that none of the other officers who attended the scene corroborated Monk’s version of events which suggested he was in fear of his life.
 
in_the_top_one said:
And "beyond reasonable doubt", at that.
Lienking needs to go back to law school.
Click to expand...

So what have I said that was wrong ? Monk was convicted of manslaughter NOT murder. There is no "not proven " in English Law, so under English Law he was cleared of the murder charge. He was therefore clearly NOT sentenced to 8 years for murder, as was stated.

I've been on holiday, so missed some of the trial, plus it's remarkable how the paper coverage dropped off once the initial allegations were made. So were there actually any allegations of racism ?
 
Last edited:
Lienking said:
There is a lot of opinion about " the evidence presented wasn't sufficient". That could mean anything from you thinking that Monk murdered him, but it couldn't be proved, through to Monk was totally innocent on that charge. English law takes the latter position.
Click to expand...
This.
English law does not take "the latter position" that he "was totally innocent on that charge".
 
in_the_top_one said:
This.
English law does not take "the latter position" that he "was totally innocent on that charge".
Click to expand...

He was found NOT GUILTY of murder therefore under English Law he did NOT commit murder. The manslaughter charge was a separate charge , even though it obviously related to the same incident.

Not guilty

adjective

A court's verdict that the person charged with a crime did not commit it. When criminal court cases start the defendants are asked for their pleas. If they want to deny they committed the offence they plead not guilty. If a court's verdict is that the prosecution has not proved the defendant committed a crime, the defendant has been found not guilty.
 
Basha73 said:
Whatever his actions there is no justification for a 33 second taser burst and kicks to the head. Remember as well that none of the other officers who attended the scene corroborated Monk’s version of events which suggested he was in fear of his life.
Click to expand...

I haven't said anything about there being a justification for what Monk did, or that the manslaughter verdict was incorrect. I do sympathise generally with police being sent into these situations though. I certainly wouldn't do the job.
 
in_the_top_one said:
There you go.

They do not make proclamations of innocence.
Click to expand...

No they don't , but under English Law you are innocent until proved guilty, which logically means that if you are not found guilty you are innocent, though as you say under English Law there is no need to prove innocence.

The Human Rights Act also states

2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law
 
Last edited:
Lienking said:
No they don't , but under English Law you are innocent until proved guilty, which logically means that if you are not found guilty you are innocent, though as you say under English Law there is no need to prove innocence.

The Human Rights Act also states

2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law
Click to expand...
Read your post again with the definition of Not Guilty.

Nowhere in that definition is the word innocent used and it specifically states that it is the Court’s verdict. It does not state that the person hasn’t committed the crime, just that he has been found not guilty. They are very different things.

And ‘presumption of innocence’ within the human rights act means something very different to what you are implying. It means that everyone should be treated as though they are innocent until they are found guilty. It does not mean they actually are innocent even if they are found not guilty.

You can twist and turn as much as you like but you are wrong on this.
 
Last edited:
Basha73 said:
I am not sure what he finds so difficult about this - one too many episodes of the bill I guess.

I did three modules of law for my degree and spent 6 years as a legal and technical advisor but what do I know…?
Click to expand...

So under the Human Rights Act you are deemed to be innocent until found guilty before a trial, but after you have been found not guilty of any particular charge you are no longer innocent of that charge..........
 
Lienking said:
So under the Human Rights Act you are deemed to be innocent until found guilty before a trial, but after you have been found not guilty of any particular charge you are no longer innocent of that charge..........
Click to expand...
Now you are either being obtuse and/or not reading previous posts.

You are not ‘deemed’ anything under the human rights act. The word is ‘presumed’ which is very different. What the human rights act is saying that you should be treated as though you are innocent or ‘presumed innocent until found guilty’. It does not say you are innocent.

In the same way U.K. criminal legislation uses Guilty or Not Guilty for verdicts with the definition of being ‘deemed guilty <or> not guilty by the Court’.

There is no such thing as being found innocent in U.K. law and as has been stated before you are misinterpreting the human rights act either deliberately or…

And as I am losing the will to live I am going to give up now so agree or disagree, do whatever you like with the information…

Law can be a fascinating and sometimes amusing subject. Except when you are trying to explain its concepts to someone who doesn’t want to understand.
 
I would be supportive of Basha73's attempt to explain the effect of judicial proceedings and jury verdicts to others, but for the fact that he seems not to follow his own logic when it comes to Hillsborough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.