Coward Punch - Murder or Manslaughter?

[cartwright]

Absolutely. Without a shadow of doubt.

I was standing in long line waiting to get into a club with a bunch of football mates.

Right behind us was a couple of weedy nerdy guys lined up waiting to get in. Doing nothing to nobody. Just playing on their phones.

Some pissed, tatted up ******* comes round the corner swearing and carrying on with a real hero attitude, eyeing everyone off.

So he gets in line and starts getting into these young guys behind us because they weren't responding to his bullshit aimed at them. All they did was keep their heads down and say nothing to him.

Next minute, bam he king hits one of them from behind and send the kid who must weight all of 65kgs flying into the wall and drops like a sack of shit.

He went to go the second kid but by then our group of 8-9 guys had started moving and one of our group had pretty much spear tackled the Syd to the ground and he then got a few smacks or ten and held until the cops arrived.

Don't be so naive to think there aren't people out there who aren't spoiling for a fight and need no provoking to smash someone as hard as they can for "fun".

WTF is wrong with people.

 

[cartwright]

I'm interested in what category people think a Coward punch (Aka King Punch) should fall under if someone dies from it. A coward punch is when someone punches someone in the head when they are not expecting it.

I'm in two thoughts about this. On one hand, most of the time the offender is only interested in causing serious injury and not necessarily wanting to kill the victim. So there is no intent to kill. However, it widely known that such an act has a fair potential to kill someone. So even if there is no intention to kill someone, does performing a criminal action where you know there is a reasonable chance the victim could die make it murder?

Manslaughter. But by god, punishment should be more than 4 years, more like 10-15.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

I see that as nothing more than apologist bullshit. Giving excuses to people for their actions.

Nobody has to throw the first punch. If nobody threw it then nobody would get hurt.

If you decided to throw the first punch then **** you, you've made the choice to inflict harm on another regardless of what effect the punch actually has.

Do you think the family of the victims feels any different if their child is shot to death or killed by someone hitting them?

Do families think oh hey, lucky he was only killled due to a punch, could have been much worse, could have been shot.

How can you not see the difference between the two? A man made a mistake in the heat of the moment. It is completely different to someone who has been planning the murder of someone for a few weeks. Thus, he should deserve a lighter sentence.

What if someone pushes someone over, he trips over, hits his head on the ground and dies? Is that the same? I mean, the guy was intending harm, it wasn't murder but he definitely pushed to harm.

I don't see how families factor into the sentencing of someone? What if the victim had no family? Should the perpetrator just walk away?

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Also you got the definition of voluntary manslaughter wrong, that's if it would've been murder except for a mitigating circumstance such as diminished responsibility or provocation (though historically provocation is only really used for men killing their unfaithful wives and as such it's rightly copped a lot of criticism and been abolished in a few jurisidictions).

'He called me a ****' doesn't count as provocation for legal purposes.

Probably, but my example was in an altercation.

In Gus' example beforehand, I would have classified that as murder, as no provocation had occurred.

 

[MarcusP2]

Unless the guy was actually mentally ill, it's not that big of a difference. You decided to punch someone with the intent to seriously injure them. 1 minute before, 1 day before, 1 week before, you still knew the consequence of the action before you took it.

 

[Gus Poyet]

How can you not see the difference between the two? A man made a mistake in the heat of the moment.

Umm have you ever been in a fight? It's not a mistake if you smash someone in the head. It's a deliberate action. King hitting someone is NOT a heat of the moment action.

You do not walk past someone and just smash them. The thought will already be in someones head before they even raise their fist to strike.

It is completely different to someone who has been planning the murder of someone for a few weeks. Thus, he should deserve a lighter sentence.

Both are campaigners of human beings and if both actions lead to someone losing their life then they both should be treated the same.

What if someone pushes someone over, he trips over, hits his head on the ground and dies? Is that the same? I mean, the guy was intending harm, it wasn't murder but he definitely pushed to harm.

Don't push someone over. Pretty simple.

Stop making excuses for total and utter morons.

I don't see how families factor into the sentencing of someone? What if the victim had no family? Should the perpetrator just walk away?

You're saying deaths are different. Explain to the families of the dead people why the loss of one persons life should be viewed as worth less when it comes to punishment.


It's about actual justice and the loss of someones life.

 

[Gus Poyet]

WTF is wrong with people.

A lot of people just don't give a **** about other people. It's a game to them.

Look at those pieces of shit who shot the Aussie baseballer in the US, because they were bored.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Unless the guy was actually mentally ill, it's not that big of a difference. You decided to punch someone with the intent to seriously injure them. 1 minute before, 1 day before, 1 week before, you still knew the consequence of the action before you took it.

Meh, I see the difference. Not saying I have the capacity to do it, but I've certainly been a part of rage where I completely lose control for 1 second and I can certainly see how one action, 1 second, can completely come from unconscious control who had no intention of the unfortunate end result.

I can also understand that there are people out there, who are uneducated, and do not know the capability a punch can hold. I don't think it's as common knowledge as knowing that a gun shot or a knife stab could easily cause eventual death.

Umm have you ever been in a fight? It's not a mistake if you smash someone in the head. It's a deliberate action. King hitting someone is NOT a heat of the moment action.

You do not walk past someone and just smash them. The thought will already be in someones head before they even raise their fist to strike.

You just described two separate events.

My example did not include someone "walk past someone and just smash them".

Both are Syds of human beings and if both actions lead to someone losing their life then they both should be treated the same.

I don't see how you can't see the difference between the two, one is more sinister than the other but whatever. I don't see it as black and white as you do.

Don't push someone over. Pretty simple.

Stop making excuses for total and utter morons.

So, are you going to argue that "a push is no different to a gun"?

You're saying deaths are different. Explain to the families of the dead people why the loss of one persons life should be viewed as worth less when it comes to punishment.


It's about actual justice and the loss of someones life.

Well, death is death, but the cause of death is different. The events that occurred prior to death is different. And last I checked, we don't punish those purely taking into account the end result, many other factors are taken into account to properly determine a justified sentence.

 

[Gus Poyet]

You just described two separate events.

My example did not include someone "walk past someone and just smash them".

I just described a king hit. To do it you need to think about how you are going to do it.

I don't see how you can't see the difference between the two, one is more sinister than the other but whatever. I don't see it as black and white as you do.

That's because you're making excuses for one person killing another using one method compared to another.

So, are you going to argue that "a push is no different to a gun"?

Well, death is death, but the cause of death is different. The events that occurred prior to death is different. And last I checked, we don't punish those purely taking into account the end result, many other factors are taken into account to properly determine a justified sentence.

Death is death I agree. In the end the family has to come to terms with the dead person.

Ah taking into account other factors. Thus making excuses for someones actions. That's big in todays society.

Seems it's like this these days...

Hey family of dead guy, look sorry your kid is dead and you'll never get to see them again, but here's the thing, the other guy he was drunk and he says hes sorry. Hope that makes you feel better and hope you dont mind if we lock him away for a few years.

You know so he can get out and get on with his life while your child rots in a box.

Thanks every so kindly

Signed

Softus Cockus - Civil Libertarian

 

[clogged]

I guess it depends on the kind of knowledge you expect a person to be equipped with before they commit the act.

If someone walks around shooting random people with a gun (not necessarily in the head) or stabbing them once with a knife, and as a result of the injuries a person dies, then we'd happily call that murder. While punches by themselves don't kill, the kind of unprovoked punches that are being inflicted on the unsuspecting (the 'king hit') most certainly do. Probably no less than being stabbed in the torso.

 

[Mofra]

As much as these idiots need to be punished, without being able to prove premeditation and intent to actually kill, I don't understand why a prosecution would opt for murder when the sentences for manslaughter are substantial enough.

It would make no difference to deterrence - I doubt many of the flogs belting people are considering the repurcussions of their actions.

 

[Armesy]

Absolutely. Without a shadow of doubt.



He went to go the second kid but by then our group of 8-9 guys had started moving and one of our group had pretty much spear tackled the Syd to the ground and he then got a few smacks or ten and held until the cops arrived.
.

What if one of the ten smacks, or the spear tackle had killed the guy. What should the punishment be for you and your mates?

 

[Gus Poyet]

What if one of the ten smacks, or the spear tackle had killed the guy. What should the punishment be for you and your mates?

None, we stopped the second kid getting his head punched in or the first young man getting further beaten while he was unconcious.

If the guy had died, **** him. That first young man didn't deserve what happened to him.

 

[Armesy]

None, we stopped the second kid getting his head punched in or the first young man getting further beaten while he was unconcious.

If the guy had died, **** him. That first young man didn't deserve what happened to him.

So the first young man gets a black eye but its ok to kill the guy that gave it to him?

 

[Norwegian Blue]

One of the thugs has been charged with murder:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-13/daniel-christie/5197764

I'd say it'll end up as guilty of manslaughter.

 

[Gus Poyet]

So the first young man gets a black eye but its ok to kill the guy that gave it to him?

Black eye? I'm pretty sure he ended up with a broken jaw. Could have been far worse given the impact his head hit the wall he was standing near.

The guy that hit him was an utter campaigner of a thing. But you go girl, you stick up for him and try to play down what he did.

 

[edgie]

Sydney Bloods has no clue. The waitress analogy is one of the worst I've seen

 

[Armesy]

Black eye? I'm pretty sure he ended up with a broken jaw. Could have been far worse given the impact his head hit the wall he was standing near.

The guy that hit him was an utter Syd of a thing. But you go girl, you stick up for him and try to play down what he did.

The question still stands though. Is getting killed an appropriate punishment for a broken jaw? You've missed what I was trying to say totally. Forget it.

 

[Unstable]

Killing someone in a fight = Manslaughter
Killing someone with unprovoked random king hit = Murder

 

[nobulltiger]

Should bring back the death penalty

 

[Gough]

Should bring back the death penalty

Murder is still murder regardless of whether it's state sanctioned.

 

[Xtreme]

Murder no if's, and's or but's.

 

[nobulltiger]

Murder is still murder regardless of whether it's state sanctioned.

There's a difference when one brings justice.

 

[Scotland]

Crime should be deemed manslaughter, punishment for manslaughter should be tougher.

If I am driving along safely to road conditions and out of nowhere someone runs out in front of my car it's hardly my fault if they are killed/injured. I'm not going to stop driving my car just because there's a chance I could kill someone in that manner, but if that sort of accident occurred I could potentially be accused of speeding or being drunk, charged with reckless driving etc.

By comparison, if I punch someone and they die then whatever excuses I can come up with for not meaning to kill them etc. I still punched them. Maybe they fell awkwardly and hit a their head, maybe they had an undiagnosed brain condition. Whatever - I still punched them. It's really quite easy to mitigate the risk of being charged with assault, GBH etc. for a 'one punch attack' - you just have to not punch people.

 

[Gough]

There's a difference when one brings justice.

That's some pretty old testament sort of thinking.