Bouncer guilty

Sequoia said:
Then perhaps this will teach him, and with a bit of luck, some others too, to be a bit more selective about using their fists.

As I said earlier, he did not need to intend to kill for it to be murder. If he intended to cause serious injury, and death resulted (whether he meant it or not) it qualifies. Of course, it can be argued what "serious injury" means, and whether he meant to inflict it or not. But intent to kill is NOT required for a killing to be murder.
Click to expand...

I thought the definition of murder was that there had to be some degree of planning before hand?

If he didn't intend to kill the guy then it's voluntary manslaughter by definition.

edit:

Thinking on it more, assuming the guy wasn't provoked then I guess it had to be murder.

It's a bit of a technical one though :confused:
 
Last edited:
I agree too - surely this is a textbook case of manslaughter. I'm confused why a murder conviction was possible in this case.
 
dirtydog said:
How was the bouncer supposed to know that his punch would result in death?
Click to expand...


Well if it lifted him off his feet, he obviously meant to cause a lot of damage. Being an ex-pro boxer he should know he has a lot of power in his punch, and he should know when it's appropriate to use it. (ie, never outside the ring, unless it's self defence)...

What this bouncer did sounds like he was on a typical bouncer power rush. He even sprayed the victims face with "something that made him scream".

In English law, the definition of murder is:

The killing of another person whether by act or omission having either the intention to kill (with "malice aforethought") or to cause grievous bodily harm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#United_Kingdom

I agree that the verdict should have been murder. Lock him up for 15 I say, and he can serve as a warning to other (bad) bouncers. I know a lot of bouncers in Reading, as I used to help my mates hand out flyers etc at closing times. 99% of the bouncers I know are quality people.
 
Last edited:
But it wasn't the punch that killed him per se, but the way the victim landed was it not? I think the murder verdict is a travesty - there is no way that the bouncer intended to kill the man or could have known that his punch would result in death. Hopefully he will appeal and the correct verdict will be reached.

I'm not defending the bouncer's actions but I believe a murder verdict and a life sentence is disproportionate to his crime.
 
dirtydog said:
But it wasn't the punch that killed him per se, but the way the victim landed was it not? I think the murder verdict is a travesty - there is no way that the bouncer intended to kill the man or could have known that his punch would result in death. Hopefully he will appeal and the correct verdict will be reached.

.
Click to expand...


Dude,

He was an ex-pro boxer, you are telling me he didn't know that a punch from him would result in at least GBH, I don't think you read the article properly.

It was a uppercut and it LIFTED him off his feet.

In my eyes, anything after that punch was the result of it, no? He may not have MEANT to kill the guy, but he certainly meant to cause GBH, because you just don't throw an uppercut at someone unless you want to hurt them, badly.. He KNEW how much power his punches had.. he MUST have done.
 
dirtydog said:
But it wasn't the punch that killed him per se, but the way the victim landed was it not?
Click to expand...

Spot on. The guy died from a fractured skull. I'd only agree with the murder conviction if the bouncer had repeated smacked the mans head onto the floor resulting in the injury that actually caused his death.
 
jpmonkey69 said:
Dude,

He was an ex-pro boxer, you are telling me he didn't know that a punch from him would result in at least GBH, I don't think you read the article properly.

It was a uppercut and it LIFTED him off his feet.

In my eyes, anything after that punch was the result of it, no? He may not have MEANT to kill the guy, but he certainly meant to cause GBH, because you just don't throw an uppercut at someone unless you want to hurt them, badly.. He KNEW how much power his punches had.. he MUST have done.
Click to expand...

I think I did read the article properly :) It is always a possibility when you punch someone that they will fall in a certain way and injure themselves to a degree beyond which your punch itself would cause.

Just because he was a boxer doesn't mean that all of his punches are deadly. Boxers know how to punch, but a single punch killing someone is not something that the bouncer could have reasonably forseen.
 
dirtydog said:
but a single punch killing someone is not something that the bouncer could have reasonably forseen.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference, if the defination of murder in Wiki is correct. He killed the man with the intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

I agree with the murder sentance entirely.
 
One night I was promoting an event in a local club, me and a few mates were DJ'ing there and the bouncers were out of order. Kept trying to grope my girlfriend when she went to the toilet. They also told the clubbers to give the money to them, when they knew full we were making them pay at the door. Had a word with the barman but when he went to speak to them they just gave him a load of abuse.

Another time I was DJ'ing and I always carry a small pen in a record bag for writing on white labels etc so I can work out my mixes and so on. Apparantly there had been some graffiti in the toilets and the bouncers asked to search peoples bags. I said before they searched that there was a pen in there and before I could finish my sentance I was dragged outside into an alley where 1 of them punched me to the floor. He carried on screaming at me stomping on my head whilst his mate looked on. He made me hand over my wallet/phone/bracelet and he said I could get them back when I came and apologised the next day. I tried explaining to him why I had the pen and then when he realised he said I could still spend the night in the club. Idiot, like i'm going to stay there with blood all down my t-shirt. Managed to get my stuff back although I lost my chain when he was stomping on my head, and left. Went hospital the next day as I woke up with a hole in my head about a cm deep, turns out I had a broken nose and I had possible eye damage. I have had nightmares about it and I often get bad headaches/pains around my nose which I think is because of it.

Hardly ever go out now and if I do it's not in my hometown. Tend to go to Sheffield or Leeds where the atmosphere is a lot more relaxed and people actually want to dance/enjoy the music rather than just get drunk and fight.

Sorry to go slightly O/T. :)
 
Trojan said:
Makes no difference, if the defination of murder in Wiki is correct. He killed the man with the intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

I agree with the murder sentance entirely.
Click to expand...

Can you define grievous bodily harm for me please?

As a boxer he has spent his life hitting people repeatedly in the head and they have not died...

You guys all say that as a boxer he KNEW that the punch would cause such massive damage to the guy that it must mean it was murder...Id argue the exact opposite...In the average boxing match, how many times does a man get hit in the head? Granted they have gloves on but it the illusion that it creates...
 
Balddog said:
Can you define grievous bodily harm for me please?

As a boxer he has spent his life hitting people repeatedly in the head and they have not died...

You guys all say that as a boxer he KNEW that the punch would cause such massive damage to the guy that it must mean it was murder...Id argue the exact opposite...In the average boxing match, how many times does a man get hit in the head? Granted they have gloves on but it the illusion that it creates...
Click to expand...

Then why choose the uppercut..the single most damaging punch a boxer can throw? I'm guessing he chose it because it would do the most damage and would incapacitate the victim in the shortest amount of time.

There were many ways a trained boxer could've punched him and not done that amount of damage...and that makes it murder imho.
 
Last edited:
He'd probably hit people that way dozens of times without it resulting in their death. How should he have known than this occasion would result in a freak incident where the person died? His punch resulted in death = manslaughter. He had no intention or way of knowing that his punch would cause death = no way it was murder.
 
Balddog said:
Can you define grievous bodily harm for me please?

As a boxer he has spent his life hitting people repeatedly in the head and they have not died...
Click to expand...

Do you know how much power a boxing glove takes out of a punch?... And as above, an uppercut is a severely devastating blow, especially if you've not had "practice" at taking one.


lets just say I'd prefer to be hit by someone wearing a boxing glove than the same person NOT wearing one....
 
dirtydog said:
He'd probably hit people that way dozens of times without it resulting in their death. How should he have known than this occasion would result in a freak incident where the person died? His punch resulted in death = manslaughter. He had no intention or way of knowing that his punch would cause death = no way it was murder.
Click to expand...


He hit him with the intent to hurt him.. not a little bit, but badly. An uppercut is a very powerful punch if done correctly.

In my eyes, the bouncer set out to cause GBH. As a result, a man died. According to english law, that makes him a murderer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom