tinfoilhat Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Ah, it is that time of day! I think society is less violent than it was, when I was a teenager getting into scrapes, and yes I've punched plenty as a youth and been on the receiving end of a good hiding too, but not without provocation either way. How many times have we heard the father's of bully victims telling them to pick on the biggest and punch his lights out, we used to celebrate aggression in youths. To be honest, I agree with you about the sentencing, but I don't think the circumstances of this case would put it on the same level as a sentence for someone who sets out to deliberately kill someone. I agree, it's not murder it's definitely manslaughter. I don't know whether society is less violent - it probably is. You don't have the level of football related violence, and I had some mates who thought a Good Friday night ended up with a punch up with like mind individuals. It's the casual nature of some of these "king hit" (I think they call it that in NZ - they're changing their laws to combat it). You've got this case, another one where it was a councillor in Scotland on a works night out. People who aren't looking for trouble, soft targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 No it wasn't. Yes it was pre-meditated. While Gill stood there, he decided he was seriously going to injure his victim. It was an unprovoked attack ie GBH. It wasn't even in self defence. The law states that the necessary intent of murder OR GBH, qualifies someone to be given a life sentence. This was pre-meditated and as a result of GBH, someone died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 In what way was the attack pre-meditated? He thought about punching a defenseless man and did, he was either too thick to understand the consequences, or he new full well that the man would be knocked backwards onto the road and have a very high probability of being killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 He thought about punching a defenseless man and did, he was either too thick to understand the consequences, or he new full well that the man would be knocked backwards onto the road and have a very high probability of being killed. Exactly. Why did he have to be physically violent at all, why didn't he just verbally reprimand him? I'm sure pre-meditated does not mean you plan something days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I I agree that this 90% is utterly ludicrous. Think about the number of punches that must get thrown in this country every year - I think we'd have to arrive at a figure in the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands. Then think about the number of times we hear of people who have died following a single punch. Sadly, it's not unheard of, but it's clearly a comparitively rare event. I think if you compared like for like the chances of the victim dying would be very high. Most people punched with that amount of violence would have fallen back onto the road, and many of them would die as a result of the impact with the road, or possibly a passing bus, lorry or car. Being too thick to realise that isn't a very good excuse. ---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 18:33 ---------- Exactly. Why did he have to be physically violent at all, why didn't he just verbally reprimand him? I'm sure pre-meditated does not mean you plan something days ago. I agree, what this violent yob did was far worse than what Tony Martin did and he was originally convicted for Murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Yes it was pre-meditated. While Gill stood there, he decided he was seriously going to injure his victim. It was an unprovoked attack ie GBH. It wasn't even in self defence. The law states that the necessary intent of murder OR GBH, qualifies someone to be given a life sentence. This was pre-meditated and as a result of GBH, someone died. You are still wrong. In the eyes of the law, this wasn't a premeditated assault. Your understanding of what legally premeditation is incorrect. ---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 18:59 ---------- I agree, what this violent yob did was far worse than what Tony Martin did and he was originally convicted for Murder. No it wasn't. The man who threw the punch neither intended to kill the victim, nor to have good reason to believe that a punch would kill him. Tony Martin shot a man in the back with a weapon he had picked up with intent. He knew full well that a likely consequence of shooting someone is killing them. No comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 You are still wrong. In the eyes of the law, this wasn't a premeditated assault. Your understanding of what legally premeditation is incorrect. Just as well you're lawyer then. You are aren't you? Where are the recognised lawyers from this very forum? They're conspicuous by their absence on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I think if you compared like for like the chances of the victim dying would be very high. People being felled by a punch is common, people dying from being felled by a punch is rare. ---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 19:02 ---------- Just as well you're lawyer then. You are aren't you? No, but I know enough about it to know that this assault would not be considered premeditated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 He thought about punching a defenseless man and did, he was either too thick to understand the consequences, or he new full well that the man would be knocked backwards onto the road and have a very high probability of being killed. I don't think you've grasped the meaning of pre-meditated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 You are still wrong. In the eyes of the law, this wasn't a premeditated assault. Your understanding of what legally premeditation is incorrect. . No I'm not wrong, a lawyer from Chambers stated this very fact on the radio yesterday re. GBH, regardless of it being pre-meditated. The consequences were this GBH assault resulted in a death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.