Bouncer guilty

[I_Am_Vengeance]

The guy abused his knowledge as a boxer and his position as a bouncer. How you can argue that it wasnt murder is totally beyond me. He opted to use the most elaborate of punches, the most harmful of punches, his reckless behaviour and disregard for human life lead to prices death. If it was a punch to the side of the face, the nose, the jaw, the stomach, its entirely possible price would still be alive. He CHOSE to use the upper cut and THAT is what caused him to be lifted off the ground and THAT is what lead to his death. Murder, life imprisonment. No question.

 

[theleg]

Again, I concur... In boxing.

Bust as soon as you take off the gloves, the punch is roughly 3 times as "strong"/powerful because the surface area hit is smaller. Every boxer will know this.

One of my mates was punched in the jaw (1 punch), in Reading town and his jaw had to be wired together for 6 weeks! Had the guy been wearing a glove, I'm sure it wouldn't have been broken.

Thats nice....but again, more noses are broken than jaws...The nose is far more easy to break.

 

[jpmonkey69]

How do you know it was unnecessary? The fact that a big, ex boxing bouncer had to use a spray in the first place would imply necessity to me..

but thats a side issue...and we have agreed to disagree on the main one

Thats what juries are for after all...Id have gone with not guilty.

I thought it was illegal in the UKto spray people with mace / purfume / pepper sauce etc in the face. It comes under the heading of aggrevated assault IIRC.

The fact the guy did what he did makes me assume that he sprayed the guy, not because he had to, but for ***** and giggles. He's a big guy. If he wanted to incapacitate him he could have 1) restrained him with his long arms 2) kicked him in the groin 3) physically ejected him.


** Can I just say again that I have nothing against bouncers at all... IME, the bouncers I've met are at best, really sound, and at worst a tad surley

 

[theleg]

The guy abused his knowledge as a boxer and his position as a bouncer. How you can argue that it wasnt murder is totally beyond me. He opted to use the most elaborate of punches, the most harmful of punches, his reckless behaviour and disregard for human life lead to prices death. If it was a punch to the side of the face, the nose, the jaw, the stomach, its entirely possible price would still be alive. He CHOSE to use the upper cut and THAT is what caused him to be lifted off the ground and THAT is what lead to his death. Murder, life imprisonment. No question.

Some of you guys need to stop basing your opinions on the movies.

Punches to the side of the face, the nose, the jaw(it was to the jaw by the way) and even to the stomach are all very likely to knock someone over..I know in the movies they all take all these punches and remain standing...If you watch a fight in real life, its very different..Especially if those invovled have been drinking as these had.

 

[Borris]

The guy abused his knowledge as a boxer and his position as a bouncer. How you can argue that it wasnt murder is totally beyond me. He opted to use the most elaborate of punches, the most harmful of punches, his reckless behaviour and disregard for human life lead to prices death. If it was a punch to the side of the face, the nose, the jaw, the stomach, its entirely possible price would still be alive. He CHOSE to use the upper cut and THAT is what caused him to be lifted off the ground and THAT is what lead to his death. Murder, life imprisonment. No question.

Ultimately, the choice of punch is irrelevant (as is the lifting up etc.).

If the bouncer punched the victim in any other way that you described, and the end result was still death, the charge would still be of murder.

The only possible mitigation, or defense of manslaughter, would be if the punch were demonstrably not intended to cause harm (such as might occur in in a self defense plea).

 

[theleg]

I thought it was illegal in the UKto spray people with mace / purfume / pepper sauce etc in the face. It comes under the heading of aggrevated assault IIRC.

The fact the guy did what he did makes me assume that he sprayed the guy, not because he had to, but for ***** and giggles. He's a big guy. If he wanted to incapacitate him he could have 1) restrained him with his long arms 2) kicked him in the groin 3) physically ejected him.

I think it is...but thats a side isse..

What? How on earth can you say he did it for a laugh? Thats a pretty outrageous assumption...We dont know anything about what happened inside the bar. Its silly to even discuss it..Anything could have happened to make him spray the guy, but we have no clue.

 

[jpmonkey69]

Some of you guys need to stop basing your opinions on the movies.

Punches to the side of the face, the nose, the jaw(it was to the jaw by the way) and even to the stomach are all very likely to knock someone over..I know in the movies they all take all these punches and remain standing...If you watch a fight in real life, its very different..Especially if those invovled have been drinking as these had.

It's the direction in which they fall though.

Out of ALL those punches, you can rely on an uppercut to the chin to knock someone backwards. There is a much better chance to stop a fall with your hands if you're not falling backwards.

 

[z0mbi3]

Voluntary Manslaughter -This arises in cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for murder is mitigated by the application of a defense. For example, the defendant may be provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding a spouse in the arms of a lover or witnessing an attack against his or her child, or the defendant may have diminished capacity.

Murder -Murder is the premeditated unlawful killing of one human being by another through any action intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

GBH- Grievous bodily harm or GBH is a type of assault resulting in, for example, broken bones or cuts to the skin.

Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years.

In the offence under section 20 … the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the mavity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.

Sorry to throw wiki quotes about but if you look at it logically it makes more sense as murder than manslaughter.

 

[I_Am_Vengeance]

It's the direction in which they fall though.

Out of ALL those punches, you can rely on an uppercut to the chin to knock someone backwards. There is a much better chance to stop a fall with your hands if you're not falling backwards.

I'm glad at least someone understood my comments.

 

[jpmonkey69]

I think it is...but thats a side isse..

What? How on earth can you say he did it for a laugh? Thats a pretty outrageous assumption...We dont know anything about what happened inside the bar. Its silly to even discuss it..Anything could have happened to make him spray the guy, but we have no clue.

Fair enough... Although a bouncer using illegal weapons at work sounds a little wierd to me. What I said about the spray was purely conjecture, but I still think there was/must have been another way to deal with controling the spray-ee.

Thinking about it, maybe the spray-ee pulled out some mace on the bouncer?

I've enjoyed this discussion with you, but I'm gonna have to pop out to lunch now, then do some actual work... I'll check up on the thread later, and post tomorrow

 

[willd58]

How was the bouncer supposed to know that his punch would result in death?

Its murder IIRC because there was intent to cause seriouse harm or injury, which resulted in death. Thats the law. If i wack you over the head with an iron bar, and say i was only guna hurt you, i didnt mean for you to die, its still murder. Being the bouncer is a trained professional, that uppercut becomes the iron bar.

 

[theleg]

Its murder IIRC because there was intent to cause seriouse harm or injury, which resulted in death. Thats the law. If i wack you over the head with an iron bar, and say i was only guna hurt you, i didnt mean for you to die, its still murder. Being the bouncer is a trained professional, that uppercut becomes the iron bar.

but the iron bar didnt kill him...

 

[jpmonkey69]

but the iron bar didnt kill him...

But he has to deal with the repurcussions of what DID happen after he hit him with the iron bar, because the guy may[/] not have cracked his head if he hadn't been hit.

Otherwise I'd be able to run someone over, knock them 100 yards down the road, have them die by getting run over by another car, and then saying "well, it wasn't MY fault he was run over again".

It would be, because if I'd not hit him in the first place, then the second car wouldnt have hit him at all.

/lunch now

 

[theleg]

Sorry to throw wiki quotes about but if you look at it logically it makes more sense as murder than manslaughter.

I can definitely see what you mean mate...but still, it just doesnt feel right....That someone can be convicted of murder for something so accidental...

I dont agree with the law on this one.

 

[I_Am_Vengeance]

I can definitely see what you mean mate...but still, it just doesnt feel right....That someone can be convicted of murder for something so accidental...

I dont agree with the law on this one.

" so accidental "

 

[theleg]

" so accidental "

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.

 

[Raymond Lin]

but the iron bar didnt kill him...

Uppercut - Floor - Broken Skull - Death

That is the Chain of Causation, he started it, and if you have read what i posted before on causation and the chain Forged in Titanium, unless the chain is somehow broken by say medical treatment that was judged to be treatment was "palpably wrong" the wound is a substantial and operating cause of death’.

I'll quote you something from a judge in Empress Car co v NRA

"The question is not whether the consequences ought to had been foreseen, it’s whether the defendant had caused the pollution. And foresee ability is not the criteria for deciding the person caused something or not. People often cause things that they could not have foreseen, the true common distinction is in my view between after the event which was not necessarily foreseeable in this particular case, are in the generality a Normal and familiar fact of life. Only something so extraordinary and unusual that you never could have foreseen it, that they are to be exonerated.”

It is not out of extraordinary circumstances to foresee that he might hit his head and break his skull, since he would know that from a uppercut will sent the victim flying from his experience as a boxer. Therefore it is reasonable to foresee that he will fall on the ground, and it is also reasonable to forsee there is a possiblilty he would land and hit his head.

 

[Sequoia]

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.

He does not need to know, or even have a reasonable expectation, that death would result. That is not the criteria required for murder.

But, you can't separate the act from the result. This bouncer hit someone, who died as a result.

If you do something intending to cause "serious injury", and the result is death, then the way the law is phrased, that opens the door to a murder charge and, if proven, a murder conviction. And I'll repeat it, seeing as a number of people seem to not realise it ... you do NOT have to intend death as a result to be guilty of murder.

But .... it's an area of some legal contention. A murder charge is supposed to be reserved for the most heinous of crimes. That's why we have various categories of homicides, and why there are several levels of defence that will drop the charge to manslaughter but not result in an acquital.

Whether this should be classified as murder is one issue. But, if it can be established that the act in question was intended to result in serious harm, and death results, then the law says it's murder, whether death was intended or not. We can argue whether the law should say that, but until something changes it, it does.

It's an area that has been fought over in many courts, right up to the House of Lords, for decades. If I push you down a flight of stairs and you die, is it murder? If I smack you on the arm with an iron bar with the intent to break your arm, and you fall over, hit your head and die, is it murder? After all, a broken arm is serious injury, but it's a stretch to anticipate it could be fatal. And if it is murder, should it be? After all, I intended to break your arm and couldn't reasonably have foreseen your death, let alone intended it?

It's a contentious and somewhat controversial issue but, nonetheless, with the law as it stands, if you intend serious harm and death results, you are likely to be tried for and, if found guilty, convicted of murder. So people getting involved in punchups outside pubs (for instance) should do so with the clear understanding that they could end up doing a life sentence for murder as a result. All it needs is for someone to die because of your acts.

 

[Raymond Lin]

He does not need to know, or even have a reasonable expectation, that death would result. That is not the criteria required for murder.

But, you can't separate the act from the result. This bouncer hit someone, who died as a result.

If you do something intending to cause "serious injury", and the result is death, then the way the law is phrased, that opens the door to a murder charge and, if proven, a murder conviction. And I'll repeat it, seeing as a number of people seem to not realise it ... you do NOT have to intend death as a result to be guilty of murder.

But .... it's an area of some legal contention. A murder charge is supposed to be reserved for the most heinous of crimes. That's why we have various categories of homicides, and why there are several levels of defence that will drop the charge to manslaughter but not result in an acquital.

Whether this should be classified as murder is one issue. But, if it can be established that the act in question was intended to result in serious harm, and death results, then the law says it's murder, whether death was intended or not. We can argue whether the law should say that, but until something changes it, it does.

It's an area that has been fought over in many courts, right up to the House of Lords, for decades. If I push you down a flight of stairs and you die, is it murder? If I smack you on the arm with an iron bar with the intent to break your arm, and you fall over, hit your head and die, is it murder? After all, a broken arm is serious injury, but it's a stretch to anticipate it could be fatal. And if it is murder, should it be? After all, I intended to break your arm and couldn't reasonably have foreseen your death, let alone intended it?

It's a contentious and somewhat controversial issue but, nonetheless, with the law as it stands, if you intend serious harm and death results, you are likely to be tried for and, if found guilty, convicted of murder. So people getting involved in punchups outside pubs (for instance) should do so with the clear understanding that they could end up doing a life sentence for murder as a result. All it needs is for someone to die because of your acts.

Very nicely put without my legal jargon !

And makes perfect sense to me, if you could get away with just GBH then surely it'll sent a signal out to others that it is OK to hit someone with an iron bar across the arm, it is fine to uppercut people and sent them flying because you'll never get convicted for murder even if they die.

Imagine that, and then imagine the crimes that results from it.

 

[theleg]

Uppercut - Floor - Broken Skull - Death

That is the Chain of Causation, he started it, and if you have read what i posted before on causation and the chain Forged in Titanium, unless the chain is somehow broken by say medical treatment that was judged to be treatment was "palpably wrong" the wound is a substantial and operating cause of death’.

I'll quote you something from a judge in Empress Car co v NRA

"The question is not whether the consequences ought to had been foreseen, it’s whether the defendant had caused the pollution. And foresee ability is not the criteria for deciding the person caused something or not. People often cause things that they could not have foreseen, the true common distinction is in my view between after the event which was not necessarily foreseeable in this particular case, are in the generality a Normal and familiar fact of life. Only something so extraordinary and unusual that you never could have foreseen it, that they are to be exonerated.”

It is not out of extraordinary circumstances to foresee that he might hit his head and break his skull, since he would know that from a uppercut will sent the victim flying from his experience as a boxer. Therefore it is reasonable to foresee that he will fall on the ground, and it is also reasonable to forsee there is a possiblilty he would land and hit his head.

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.