Manslaughter?

Silverbullet · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: Manslaughter?

Ok I was watching the news and it was reported that a 55 year old man had confronted another man who was causing damage to his neighbours car. Upon being confronted the guy immediately turned tail and ran without doing any further damage to the car or the other man.

The first man gave chase but had a heart attack and died. The criminal escaped but a suspect is to be charged with criminal damage and manslaughter.

He definetly should be punished charged for criminal damage but is it right for him to be charged with manslaughter? After all he ran away from the man who died thus seeking to avoid confrontation and therefore injury to his confronter. It was not his fault the man decided to give chase.

While I do not condone the criminal damage carried out by this person and think he should be punished I do not think he is guilty of manslaughter. What does everyone else think?

FFfanaticx · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:35 am Post subject:

well your right he shouldnt imo he didnt cause the bloke to die

Holymonkey · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject:

The whole manslaughter area is kind of grey. Whos to say the guy wasn't going to have a heart attack? But then again maybe the guy would still be alive if the other guy had never did anything. Sometimes it all comes down to how the judge and jury interpret it.

Hockeydude121 · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject:

O come on FFS, the dude had a natural occurence inside of his own frickin body, it was brought on by the fact that he was running, but did he HAVE to chase him?

FFfanaticx · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:34 pm Post subject:

my point exactly i would have phoned the cops or something

Hockeydude121 · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject:

If you've got half a brain, that trial wouldnt go to jury.

FFfanaticx · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject:

well for the damage yes but not for the manslaughter

rickjames · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject:

The only reason why he should be convicted for manslaughter if he should at all is because he didn't let him get the heart attak while doing somethign enjoyable, like sex.

FFfanaticx · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject:

lol i dont think that the way it works they can only charge him for it if it can be proved that he killed the man un-intentionally through something he did

rickjames · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject:

Let's look at the definition of manslaughter, shall we?

Manslaughter-The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.

But he didn't kill the guy unintentionally.. he was killed naturally through a heart attak.

Pyth · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject:

Exactly. I agree with RJ.

He runs, the old guy chases, old guy dies. The criminal needs t obe punished, but not for what he did't do. And he didn't kil lthe man-- a heart attack did, a natural occurence.

Hockeydude121 · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject:

FFfanaticx · Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:15 am Post subject:

yes i agree only one would hold up in court and understand they are 2 seperate charges as well