controversial issue - David Hookes Death

[Truetiger]

This issue has been on my mind for awhile now. I still feel the result was wrong. The day it went to court and the Jury come back not guilty has got to me some what. Why on earth did he spend 0 time in jail when its clear in my mind he Zdavko Micevic was clearly guilty of Manslaughter. I have done security for many years. I was told when you are about to kick someone out if they were on the way out of the building as it seems David Hookes was then you let them go. However this security officer failed to do just that. He always new the right place to hit David with the worst results maybe in mind. How the Jury come back with a not Guilty result is a farce and a big joke. Am i the only one here that feels this was clearly the wrong result. I would be interested to hear peoples thoughts.

 

[BadGuy]

Re: controversial issue

Honestly though I agree but really it all depends on what evidence was shown at the court and in front of the jury. Dont get me wrong what you've said there sounds like that bodyguard attacked Hookes with no reason, but there has been stories I think that are true that Hookes was kicked out of the club and tried to get himself back into the nightclub then when the body guard said no, Hookes tried to have a fight with him and then the rest is explained but yeah I dont know but by looks of it, if Hookes tried to have a fight with the bodyguard whether it be inside or outside of the pub, the body guard was only trying to protect himself.

But as you have been saying on chat, if Hookes was heading to his car and the bodyguard came from behind and attacked him then yes the bodyguard should have got a few years in prison.

The only problem that could've arose is not enough evidence, thats the only way I can see it for that guy in not getting any jail time.

 

[notting18]

Re: controversial issue

But as you have been saying on chat, if Hookes was heading to his car and the bodyguard came from behind and attacked him then yes the bodyguard should have got a few years in prison.

If that was the case it would be murder, not manslaughter.

 

[Fred]

No it wouldn't unless that was his intention, which would be virtually impossible to prove.

 

[Truetiger]

No it wouldn't unless that was his intention, which would be virtually impossible to prove.

I would of charged him with Murder. as Soon as the family pulled the life support that was then as good as Murder and not Manslaughter. He is so lucky as if it was up2 me he would be in jail for life for what he did it was clearly wrong. Another that has got off in a victorian court when in fact he should of been given life or close 2 it.

 

[Bombers_Forever]

He should have been convicted of manslaughter, no murder and serve time.

But then again, so many criminals get away with murder other crimes these days

 

[BadGuy]

But then again, so many criminals get away with murder other crimes these days

Yeah its pathetic how these criminals get away with so much these days, its pretty sad though really. The courts are pathetic.

 

[notting18]

No it wouldn't unless that was his intention, which would be virtually impossible to prove.

Under Vic law, if he had intentionally tried to cause serious injuries and that caused the death the accused would be guilty of murder. Coming from behind to seriously attack someone as was suggested sounds exactly like he was intentionally causing serious injury, but that may just be my interpretation.

Although most people here seem to forget there are such things as the standard/burden of proof when discussing cases like this though...

 

[Bomber32]

Most of the witnesses in the David Hookes case gave so many conflicting versions of what happened that it was impossible for the jury to find Micevic guilty.

 

[MagpieScouser]

and typical the prick used the noteriety of all this and tried to become a boxer

 

[Richo88]

To those saying the security guy should be thrown into prison what evidence are you actually using to come to this conclusion? Is it merely because David Hookes was a sport star that you have only considered the version of events which would see the other guy sent to jail. It went to court obviously there was not enough evidence no appeal was lodged from what i remember so why is it such an issue?

 

[Truetiger]

To those saying the security guy should be thrown into prison what evidence are you actually using to come to this conclusion? Is it merely because David Hookes was a sport star that you have only considered the version of events which would see the other guy sent to jail. It went to court obviously there was not enough evidence no appeal was lodged from what i remember so why is it such an issue?

It would not matter if the person that he hit that night was just a normal person like myself and you. The fact is he new were to hit him to do alot of damage. That alone is enough to charge him on something. THe issue at hand in my mind is the court got it wrong. Almost pro boxer for one secondly he left the building so there is no need for the security officer to follow him. Then he was almost into the car when it happened. He should of been charged and spent atleast some time in jail.

 

[OneEyedHawk]

and typical the prick used the noteriety of all this and tried to become a boxer

Not sure he used the notoriety, did he? Given the overwhelming public feeling, you'd have to be fairly stupid to use an event like that to further your career. I know any publicity is good publicity in some industries, but at what cost?

From what I understand he pursued a boxing career, which was already a legitimate aspiration of his. And which he has every right to do.

 

[Richo88]

It would not matter if the person that he hit that night was just a normal person like myself and you. The fact is he new were to hit him to do alot of damage. That alone is enough to charge him on something. THe issue at hand in my mind is the court got it wrong. Almost pro boxer for one secondly he left the building so there is no need for the security officer to follow him. Then he was almost into the car when it happened. He should of been charged and spent atleast some time in jail.

Just because a person knows where to hit an individual should not mean anything when considering whether he should have been charged or not. I can't say i know the whole story but is it your contention to say all that happened was david hookes walking towards to his car and then out of no where he was set upon by the bouncer surely something else happened in between.

 

[deeman12]

Yeah its pathetic how these criminals get away with so much these days, its pretty sad though really. The courts are pathetic.

Yeh and David Hookes didnt provoke the bouncer at all.

 

[BadGuy]

Yeh and David Hookes didnt provoke the bouncer at all.

Not just talking about that, I dont know whether he provoked the bouncer or not, but in all I'm talking about more than just Hookes.

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

not that im condoning what the guy did to hookes but its not as simple as everyone thinks. Apparently David Hookes was a loud mouth and was having some sort of stoush with the guy. Hadn't he been kicked out of the pub or something?
Also you can't prove that someone wasnted to murder someone when they punch them. you have to prove that it was pre meditated.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

not that im condoning what the guy did to hookes but its not as simple as everyone thinks. Apparently David Hookes was a loud mouth and was having some sort of stoush with the guy. Hadn't he been kicked out of the pub or something?Also you can't prove that someone wasnted to murder someone when they punch them. you have to prove that it was pre meditated.

That's the problem with the bulk of bouncers these days, they need to be forced to realise that they aren't the police, and any power that they may have to physically interfere with people ends once they walk away from whatever pub/club they're working at.

Should have been a clearcut case of manslaughter, Micevic had no right to follow Hookes down the road and king hit him, irregardless of what Hookes may or may not have said.

 

[Carson_Kressley]

This issue has been on my mind for awhile now. I still feel the result was wrong. The day it went to court and the Jury come back not guilty has got to me some what. Why on earth did he spend 0 time in jail when its clear in my mind he Zdavko Micevic was clearly guilty of Manslaughter. I have done security for many years. I was told when you are about to kick someone out if they were on the way out of the building as it seems David Hookes was then you let them go. However this security officer failed to do just that. He always new the right place to hit David with the worst results maybe in mind. How the Jury come back with a not Guilty result is a farce and a big joke. Am i the only one here that feels this was clearly the wrong result. I would be interested to hear peoples thoughts.

the problem with the security game is since the terrorist threats and all, the game has been opened up. they let virtually anyone into the security game now. they even let me in and i have a criminal record.so now u have these crowd controllers that are getting off on abit of power by throwing drunks out and giving them acouple on the way out. its appalling and im so glad i dont do crowd control anymore cept for the afl games.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

It would not matter if the person that he hit that night was just a normal person like myself and you. The fact is he new were to hit him to do alot of damage. That alone is enough to charge him on something. THe issue at hand in my mind is the court got it wrong. Almost pro boxer for one secondly he left the building so there is no need for the security officer to follow him. Then he was almost into the car when it happened. He should of been charged and spent atleast some time in jail.

The fact is anyone is able to use "reasonable force" to protect themselves to a perceived threat.

I guess the job of the jury was to find out whether reasonable force was used and if it was called for.

We are not privvy to the evidence that was given.

Overall, it was a tragic case, how a 21 year old can provide security at a licensed establishment is beyond me, just asking for trouble.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Yeh and David Hookes didnt provoke the bouncer at all.

Provoking someone is hardly reason for someone to get hit.

At the end of the day a 21 year old providing security is not the best option.

Too likely to get trigger happy and start belting people, also likely to cop a bit of flak from people a lot older which can lead to incidents.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I wasnt there when it happened, so i have no idea if he was guilty or not ,and neither did any of you. So it was most likely a correct decision.

 

[thefamilyguy]

It would not matter if the person that he hit that night was just a normal person like myself and you. The fact is he new where to hit him to do alot of damage. PROOF?? That alone is enough to charge him on something. THe issue at hand in my mind is the court got it wrong. Almost pro boxer for one secondly he left the building so there is no need for the security officer to follow him. Then he was almost into the car when it happened. PROOF?? He should of been charged and spent atleast some time in jail.

Were you there?? Have you heard the 20 different versions of the story? If you have 2 or 3 slightly differing versions of the story you cant be 100 percent sure that he's guilty, which is the whole basis of our crimminal/legal system.

What is worse, putting someone in jail for something they didnt' do, or not putting someone in jail for something they did do? You have to remember, even if this guy was 100 percent in the right, and followed all procedures correctly, his name is now dirt. People know his name, and will remember him as the person who killed david hookes all his life.

 

[BadGuy]

You know I've been thinking alot about this and in all honesty, I can see why the courts didnt throw that Zdravko Micevic away to prison. Because lets be honest, there probably wasnt enough evidence and in all, he (Zdravko) was probably trying to defend himself. I've read some of the Hookes death on the internet and I can understand and see why he isnt in prison mainly because lets face it, Hookes' apparently threw two punches first and in all, if Zdravko was defending himself then yes he was in the right.

I think the court in itself did the right thing by not throwing Zdravko into the slammer for murder, etc. because as facts look like Hookes threw the first two punches and Zdravko was only trying to defend himself.

 

[Truetiger]

Were you there?? Have you heard the 20 different versions of the story? If you have 2 or 3 slightly differing versions of the story you cant be 100 percent sure that he's guilty, which is the whole basis of our crimminal/legal system.

What is worse, putting someone in jail for something they didnt' do, or not putting someone in jail for something they did do? You have to remember, even if this guy was 100 percent in the right, and followed all procedures correctly, his name is now dirt. People know his name, and will remember him as the person who killed david hookes all his life.

Ok was i there at the hotel on the night it happened no.
Was i there at the trail at the courts? Yes cause I have worked within the court system hence I was there for every day of the trail . I have seen many court case's and found the results were wrong or soft and some correct. This time around though in my mind it was incorrect.Thats all I will say.

I don't care to much if his name is now dirt. From listening to everything that went on within the court room I would find him guilty that's just my thoughts. Face it he new what he was doing he is a pro boxer for goodness sakes so he new were to hit him that in my mind is assault.