mancityscot
Well-Known Member
manslaughter is appropriate i think. Clear intent to cause serious harm
Difficult to prove he meant to do it, only he knows if he did.manslaughter is appropriate i think. Clear intent to cause serious harm
Similar to running someone over on purpose. You might not have meant to kill them...But he's not 'meant' to kill him, hence the manslaughter charge.
Obviously not...
Intent to cause serious harm ending in death = murder.manslaughter is appropriate i think. Clear intent to cause serious harm
How do you see it, GDM? If a sportsman goes “to do” an opponent that results in death, it seems a little more than manslaughter, but seems harsh or hard to prove intent and therefore murder?Intent to cause serious harm ending in death = murder.
The law around sport is quite nuanced tbf but there is a case called Brown that was to do with sadomasachism which found that you can consent to common assault and battery being committed upon your person (and possibly ABH, can’t quite remember it’s been that long) but not GBH - and I always assumed team sport fell broadly into that realm. Only an educated guess, but it makes sense. By playing ice hockey you must consent to being assaulted (as would be the case elsewhere) but that cannot be without limits. To suggest otherwise would be absurd. As with all assaults, the intent will be key (along with the injuries sustained).How do you see it, GDM? If a sportsman goes “to do” an opponent that results in death, it seems a little more than manslaughter, but seems harsh or hard to prove intent and therefore murder?