(Original post by O133)
There has to be some responsibility for one's actions here. There was no need to cause death and thus I would support a manslaughter charge here.
The blunt force trauma causing death was from hitting the floor and not the punch itself. The story is very limited, teenager A could have slipped on the floor following a light punch; a punch which under usual circumstances would do no damage. It could have been teenager A's stance which caused him to fall after taking a punch, or the fact he was walking backwards etc... The situation is not a question of whether reasonable force in self-defence was used. If it was, the only 'reasonable' defence would be to cower in the corner as any action taken in defence could cause teenager A to fall resulting in the same outcome. I agree in taking responsibility for one's actions under most circumstances but teenager B should take responsibility for an action which did not cause death (again it was not the punch which caused death), deciding whether the punch caused the fall and therefore the punch indirectly caused death still resulting in a manslaughter charge is the new debate, but that should be decided on before filing a manslaughter charge.
If the punch did cause the fall or even death directly, I believe having an aggressor pay with his life in unfortunate circumstances is fitting. That aside, why do you feel the need to afford criminals, aggressors or bullies rights?