Bouncer guilty

I_Am_Vengeance · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:19

Balddog said:
Do you honestly believe that he foresaw the man falling and smashing his head on the concrete and dying as a result?

Please dont roll your eyes. If you want to debate, then debate..Dont act like a petulant child.

You ask me to not roll my eyes at you then follow that up with " petulant child " ? grow up.

He foresaw that he would do serious damage, if he didnt punch him, he would be alive today. You need to understand that his actions lead to prices death.

theleg · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:21

I_Am_Vengeance said:
You ask me to not roll my eyes at you then follow that up with " petulant child " ? grow up.

He foresaw that he would do serious damage, if he didnt punch him, he would be alive today. You need to understand that his actions lead to prices death.

It was your rolling eyes that prompted me to say that...If you act like a child, throwing out insulting smilies with no comment, you can expect to have someone call you on it.

I do understand that :dunno: Have you not been following the conversation?

Raymond Lin · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:23

Balddog said:
Yes mate I understand what youre saying...but people are talking as though the punch killed him...It did not..I understand that in a legal sense it directly led to his death, but the punch did not kill him. Therefore its silly to make comparisons to whacking someone over the head with an iron bar or shooting them.

I realise the punch is not what killed him, but his action did. It is that chain of event which led to the victim's death, and thus he was charged and found guilty of the offence.

theleg · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:26

Raymond Lin said:
I realise the punch is not what killed him, but his action did. It is that chain of event which led to the victim's death, and thus he was charged and found guilty of the offence.

Yes I know....but I wasnt addressing you with that post...I was addressing those who are arguing this as though the punch was intended to kill.

I_Am_Vengeance · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:26

Balddog said:
It was your rolling eyes that prompted me to say that...If you act like a child, throwing out insulting smilies with no comment, you can expect to have someone call you on it.

I do understand that :dunno: Have you not been following the conversation?

Oh, i " :dunno: " didnt your superior intellect assume that perhaps i was typing before you last posted. This of course, wouldnt enable me to follow the conversation. Understand ?

233 · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:29

Jeez you guys

have none of you ever worked as a door steward?

been there done that and the guy is completely in the wrong and deserves the murder rap

he's a trained and hopefully badged steward the more people like him out the buisiness the better, i mean ffs sprayed the guy with a noxious substance(bouncer spray???????) and then continued it outside his job is to look after the patrons of the premises not go beating people up oustide thats the polices concern from the door onward

theleg · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:30

I_Am_Vengeance said:
Oh, i " :dunno: " didnt your superior intellect assume that perhaps i was typing before you last posted. This of course, wouldnt enable me to follow the conversation. Understand ?

Superior intellect?

Last post? From the first post I made in this thread I accepted that the punch resulted in his death..Where have I said otherwise?. Ive been arguing about motivation. I dont quite understand how you could think otherwise unless you havent been reading my posts.

Borris · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:31

Balddog said:
Yes I know....but I wasnt addressing you with that post...I was addressing those who are arguing this as though the punch was intended to kill.

It doesn't matter that the punch was not intended to kill - It's enough that the punch was intended.

Is anybody suggesting that the punch was meant to be a killer blow?

theleg · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:32

sormicoft said:
Jeez you guys

have none of you ever worked as a door steward?

been there done that and the guy is completely in the wrong and deserves the murder rap

he's a trained and hopefully badged steward the more people like him out the buisiness the better, i mean ffs sprayed the guy with a noxious substance(bouncer spray???????) and then continued it outside his job is to look after the patrons of the premises not go beating people up oustide thats the polices concern from the door onward

Go back and read the article again mate..

They were turned away from the disco so they went to drink in the bar..One of them started causing trouble and the barman asked the bouncer to ask him to leave..Bouncer took him outside and sometime in the course of doing that, the spray was used..but the story doesnt elaborate on that..

Then the other guy who was drinking comes out to argue/fight with the bouncer...Its at this point that the punch happens..He didnt just beat the guy up on the street.

theleg · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:33

Borris said:
It doesn't matter that the punch was not intended to kill - It's enough that the punch was intended.

Is anybody suggesting that the punch was meant to be a killer blow?

Yes, the people who have been comparing it to an iron bar and a gun...the whole OMG HIS HANDS ARE LETHAL WEAPONS crew.

Borris · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:39

Balddog said:
Yes, the people who have been comparing it to an iron bar and a gun...the whole OMG HIS HANDS ARE LETHAL WEAPONS crew.

In that case, I shall stand next to you, point at them, and laugh.

sargatanas · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:43

Balddog said:
but the iron bar didnt kill him...

[analogy]Your argument is like a country using a nuclear weapon on another country, then not being held responsible for the radiation drifting over borders and killing innocents, because the nuclear weapon didnt kill them directly. They are completely to blame and their actions had a direct impact on the deaths of those innocents.[/analogy]

He is guilty of murder imo.

Raymond Lin · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:45

Balddog said:
Yes, the people who have been comparing it to an iron bar and a gun...the whole OMG HIS HANDS ARE LETHAL WEAPONS crew.

Then they have got it wrong, The punch was the start of a chain of events that led to his death. It wasn't the bullet, it was the trigger. Small distinction but important nevertheless.

theleg · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:48

sargatanas said:
[analogy]Your argument is like a country using a nuclear weapon on another country, then not being held responsible for the radiation drifting over borders and killing innocents, because the nuclear weapon didnt kill them directly. They are completely to blame and their actions had a direct impact on the deaths of those innocents.[/analogy]

He is guilty of murder imo.

Does every punch result in falling onto the floor and fatally cracking your head open?

Does every nuclear attack result in fallout?

theleg · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:49

Raymond Lin said:
Then they have got it wrong, The punch was the start of a chain of events that led to his death. It wasn't the bullet, it was the trigger. Small distinction but important nevertheless.

Yep I agree..

I still dont believe it should be murder, but I can understand why he was convicted now.

sargatanas · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:50

Balddog said:
Does every punch result in falling onto the floor and fatally cracking your head open?

Does every nuclear attack result in fallout?

Thats regardless, it DID happen and his actions were a direct result of that.

Raymond Lin · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:53

Balddog said:
Yep I agree..

I still dont believe it should be murder, but I can understand why he was convicted now.

Theb Criminal Law 101 has finished for the day.

theleg · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:55

sargatanas said:
Thats regardless, it DID happen and his actions were a direct result of that.

It does matter...

Letting off a nuclear bomb means a 100% chance of fallout.
The chances of the punch resulting in the mans death were very small..

Obviously that doesnt excuse it...but the chances were small.

Liefrich · 4 Aug 2006 at 13:57

"But for" the punch would the guy of died.

No.

Murder.

Yes the punch did not directly kill him but in the eyes of the law he is guilty of murder, remember to commit murder you only have to have the intent to inflict GBH or real serious harm as this judge put it.

sargatanas · 4 Aug 2006 at 14:07

What if you shot someone in the leg with intent to cause serious damage but not murder, but then they died from loss of blood? Anything that has a direct impact on someones death is murder.