Got away with it I think, especially considering his past disciplinary issues.
Last edited by ForensicShoe; 19-07-2012 at 16:28.
Hmm... I'll be honest about my ignorance when it comes to topics like law, but isn't manslaughter basically killing someone (or your actions resulting in someone being killed) without the element of malicious pre-meditation? If I'm wrong and it means something different then I might be inclined (slightly...) to agree with the jury, but at the moment, due to me thinking manslaughter is basically the above, I can't see how he was found innocent...
(Original post by monk_keys)
Because being the cause of someone's death isn't automatically a criminal offence.
EDIT: Doing a quick look on Wikipedia (not the best source I know...) it sounds to me like what he would have been charged with was involuntary manslaughter... which requires 3 criteria to be met:-
. defendant must do an unlawful act (in this case presumably assault)
. act must be dangerous (assault is dangerous)
. act must result in death (again not sure here, but I think a while back after a couple of coroner's reports they said it did)
Even with that though... I'm still finding it difficult to see how he's innocent, what with the video evidence and all - perhaps someone could enlighten me?
Last edited by TheHistoryStudent; 19-07-2012 at 18:43.