Just/justice?

Sugar_Ray

I was reading this the other day and would like to hear your views. I know he's a boxer, but this will surely apply to anyone from a serious combat type sporting backround. I have to say though I doubt he meant to kill the fellow, he had to know he was going to really do damage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5221728.stm

loz

Sugar_Ray wrote:

I was reading this the other day and would like to hear your views. I know he's a boxer, but this will surely apply to anyone from a serious combat type sporting backround. I have to say though I doubt he meant to kill the fellow, he had to know he was going to really do damage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5221728.stm

Price fell backwards and hit his head on the ground, fracturing his skull.

- Wasn't the force of the punch that killed him - However - Manslaughter - Doormen shouldn't really be going round punching people.

Rofl @ James Farrell being dumped in shrubbery ! - assume its not the James farrell some of us here know !

Sugar_Ray

The courts and the world see it as assault with a deadly or deadly weapons which is very true indeed. You push a guy in front of a train, the train kills him, but your push is the reason the train kills him. So the punch has more to do with the chaps death than him just hitting his head

Dragan

From what i read of the story neither of the two guys who were in the pub, the guy who ended up in the shrub or the chap was died, actually acted violent in any way.

The doorman just seems to have struck the guy for nothing in which case he is a thug and had the guy not died should have been done at least for assault.

Sadly he did die, however this does not automatically mean murder. There is that difference between murder and manslaughter in the eyes of the law.

As far as i am aware, to be convicted of murder the prosecution needs to show that you MEANT for the deceased to be killed, and i do not think that the guy meant to kill him.

As such, i do not agree with the murder charge. Manslaughter yes. Murder, no.

He must have had a sh1t defence to be honest.

Sugar_Ray

I think the jury and prosecution ascertained that because he was an ex pro boxer, he knowingly threw the punch with the intent of doing the victim serious harm. So some would say that he knew that he could kill him, so why did he do it. Maybe Delaney did realy want to kill him. Only he will know that.
The law will rule that his fists are deadly weapons, much the same way as a guy with a gun or knife. Assault with a deadly weapon resulting in death is murder in my opinion, unless it can be proven he acted in self defence

Mola.mola

am i the only one getting a sense of deja vu here?

loz

Mola.mola wrote:

am i the only one getting a sense of deja vu here?

Thats just the admins changing something.....

dlofnep

The bouncer threw the guy out, sprayed something in his eyes and then uppercutted him and killed him. Is this correct?

Dragan

dlofnep wrote:

The bouncer threw the guy out, sprayed something in his eyes and then uppercutted him and killed him. Is this correct?

Nope, i thought the same and had to reread the article. The problem with internet news is it seems to be written by monkeys.

It was a different guy who was throw out and sprayed, the victim was his friend who came out to complain and gave some verbal and was subsequently punched for his trouble.

As for the "deadly weapons".... the aim of boxing is not to kill your opponent, and the aim of boxing training is not to train people to do so, so to assume that someone who would be trained as a boxer would be instantly trying to kill because he struck somebody is a bit of a reach in my opinion.

That is just my opinion mind.

dlofnep

Bouncer was in the wrong.. You can't just going around uppercutting people for shouting or whatever.. He had just sprayed his friend, I think a bit of lip was expected. I don't think he meant to kill him, but he definately meant to hurt him and the result was death.

judomick

From the article it seems pretty clear that the bouncer pretty much over reacted, there was no need to become physical with either of the guys, i think the bouncer stated he knew it would cause serious harm etc... so i think he could be convicted of murder

Dragan

Still though, there is a difference between me dropping someone in the road and saying

"i knew it would cause them serious harm"

and

"I knew it would kill them"

Don't get me wrong, i hate doormen who get violent for no reason....and i like to see them punished to the extent of the law, but to me this was going beyond that.

If the man had lived it would have been Assualt, Actual Bodily Harm and maybe Grievous Bodily Harm depending on extent of the injuries.

The fact that he died should have brought it up to Manslaughter, unless the man said "Yeah, i meant to kill him" or unless the prosecution could proof without doubt that he meant to , which is pretty much impossible in a heat of the moment case like this.

Also, for it to end up as a Murder, it meant that his defence team may not questioned the "deadly weapons" reference, which they always should have done, and the man can effectively appeal the case based on this fact.

As the prosecution would have had no way to prove that he meant to kill him, i can only assume there case centered around the argument that as a boxer, the man should have been aware of his "deadly weapons".

For me, this case has a lot of conotations for any future cases where people who practice a martial art find themselves on the stand, be it there fault or not.

Scramble

This is from the Law Reform Commission here in Ireland, and contains some useful summaries of Case Law in relation to 'intention' and the offence of murder: http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/lrc114/lrc_114.html

What I take from it is that the question of whether or not someone is guilty of manslaughter or murder will often depend on how much foresight they are expected to have in relation to their actions.

A particular course of action will have probable consequences. In the case of this uppercut to the head, it might have ranged from minor injury at the low end of the scale to very serious injury and death at the other end. Irrespective of what the bouncer might say his intention was, one perspective is that he was still reckless as to the possibility of his action causing the death of the other party.