The Commons Bar Mk VIII - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7041
Report 4 years ago
#7041
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
What do you think of the ruling in this situation?

Teenager A and teenager B start a little bit of pushing and shoving in school. Teenager A starts attacking teenager B at school. Teenager B retaliates by throwing a single punch at teenager A. Teenager B's punch hits the head sending teenager A to hospital. Teenager A dies three days later from blunt force trauma to the head. Teenager B is not to be charged for manslaughter. Court says teenager A was the aggressor. News article link.

I support the decision not to charge teenager B but fear if a similar event was to occur in the UK teenager B would be charged for manslaughter. Apparently it is never the answer to fight back, in self-defence or not in self-defence.

One could raise the question of whether B should have gone for the head but on the whole i agree with you.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7042
Report 4 years ago
#7042
(Original post by Rakas21)
One could raise the question of whether B should have gone for the head but on the whole i agree with you.
That is a tough stance to have. It raises further questions about the mental state of a person during a fight. I am not sure if a person makes a conscious decision to punch someone in the head when in a fight, or if the decision is to only punch back, but having a punch hit the head is due to height differences or the positions both people were in when the punch was t
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7043
Report 4 years ago
#7043
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
What do you think of the ruling in this situation?

Teenager A and teenager B start a little bit of pushing and shoving in school. Teenager A starts attacking teenager B at school. Teenager B retaliates by throwing a single punch at teenager A. Teenager B's punch hits the head sending teenager A to hospital. Teenager A dies three days later from blunt force trauma to the head. Teenager B is not to be charged for manslaughter. Court says teenager A was the aggressor. News article link.

I support the decision not to charge teenager B but fear if a similar event was to occur in the UK teenager B would be charged for manslaughter. Apparently it is never the answer to fight back, in self-defence or not in self-defence.

Until you mention that it was deadly I'm inclined to agree. There is surely a way to react in self-defence that doesn't lead to the initial aggressor falling like that onto a concrete floor and dying three days later.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7044
Report 4 years ago
#7044
(Original post by O133)
Until you mention that it was deadly I'm inclined to agree. There is surely a way to react in self-defence that doesn't lead to the initial aggressor falling like that onto a concrete floor and dying three days later.
If your trained or much stronger or have time to plan then yes.
0
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7045
Report 4 years ago
#7045
(Original post by Rakas21)
One could raise the question of whether B should have gone for the head but on the whole i agree with you.
I would have to agree, I think teenager B is completely right and in self defence- but the British courts wouldn't see it this way!
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7046
Report 4 years ago
#7046
(Original post by Rakas21)
If your trained or much stronger or have time to plan then yes.
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.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7047
Report 4 years ago
#7047
(Original post by adam9317)
I would have to agree, I think teenager B is completely right and in self defence- but the British courts wouldn't see it this way!
Thinking further though (since it brings back memories of a discussion some time ago), i would not agree with killing in self defense if for example a homeowner being burgled had weapon.

In this case though it was self defense and it's pretty hard to kill somebody with one hit from your fist without trying.
0
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7048
Report 4 years ago
#7048
(Original post by Rakas21)
Thinking further though (since it brings back memories of a discussion some time ago), i would not agree with killing in self defense if for example a homeowner being burgled had weapon.

In this case though it was self defense and it's pretty hard to kill somebody with one hit from your fist without trying.
If someone burgled a house and was being threatening with a weapon, then I think the home owner is well within their rights to use self defence to possibly kill.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7049
Report 4 years ago
#7049
(Original post by adam9317)
If someone burgled a house and was being threatening with a weapon, then I think the home owner is well within their rights to use self defence to possibly kill.
To use self defense, yes. To shoot, stab or batter somebody with a bat, only in the legs.
0
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7050
Report 4 years ago
#7050
(Original post by Rakas21)
To use self defense, yes. To shoot, stab or batter somebody with a bat, only in the legs.
If a house was being burgled and the intruder had a gun and was threatening to use it, I think any self defence, including the use of a firearm back is justified
0
ukip72
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#7051
Report 4 years ago
#7051
(Original post by adam9317)
If a house was being burgled and the intruder had a gun and was threatening to use it, I think any self defence, including the use of a firearm back is justified
I completely agree.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7052
Report 4 years ago
#7052
(Original post by adam9317)
If a house was being burgled and the intruder had a gun and was threatening to use it, I think any self defence, including the use of a firearm back is justified
Don't disagree with that (Mr Pistorius?) but that's quite a different situation to the one we were discussing.
0
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7053
Report 4 years ago
#7053
(Original post by O133)
Don't disagree with that (Mr Pistorius?) but that's quite a different situation to the one we were discussing.
Mr Pistorious- that is a completely different story. I think he is so guilty
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7054
Report 4 years ago
#7054
(Original post by adam9317)
Mr Pistorious- that is a completely different story. I think he is so guilty
But assuming that he did have reasonable grounds to believe there was an intruder then that is potentially the situation you described.
0
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7055
Report 4 years ago
#7055
(Original post by O133)
But assuming that he did have reasonable grounds to believe there was an intruder then that is potentially the situation you described.
If he did have reasonable grounds, yes. But in this case I feel like he didn't have any grounds
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7056
Report 4 years ago
#7056
(Original post by adam9317)
If he did have reasonable grounds, yes. But in this case I feel like he didn't have any grounds
I agree. While i do believe the insecure aspect i reckon he lost it and shot her in a crime of passion.
0
meenu89
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7057
Report 4 years ago
#7057
(Original post by adam9317)
If a house was being burgled and the intruder had a gun and was threatening to use it, I think any self defence, including the use of a firearm back is justified
Indeed. One simply hasn't the time to question the motive or the intentions of the burglar. You enter my house without my permission you are in for it.
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7058
Report 4 years ago
#7058
(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Sad news for Donegal, considering how much they have progressed
Definitely, not at all sure if we'll cope without him at the helm
0
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7059
Report 4 years ago
#7059
(Original post by meenu89)
Indeed. One simply hasn't the time to question the motive or the intentions of the burglar. You come into my house without my permission you are in for it.
Same with my house. You pose a threat, even if minor, your in for it.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7060
Report 4 years ago
#7060
(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?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a role model?

Yes - I know them personally (295)
26.04%
Yes - they're famous (288)
25.42%
No I don't (550)
48.54%

Watched Threads

View All