[UK] Man with Asperger's killed with a single punch

Post Reply New Topic

I remember my school counselor telling me some black people beat you up if you call them the n word.

Intending to punch someone in the head is intent.

Intending to shoot someone in the head is intent.

There's no need for "intending to kill" if it's reasonably assumed that what you're doing can kill someone. If it does kill them, then there's your murder charge right there.

Of course they will. Lots of different kinds of people will beat you up if you call them horribly racist names.

That's not how it works, punching someone in the head does not automatically entail the intent to kill, it's not particularly likely to kill, which is why if it does the charge tends to be manslaughter. In this case, it wasn't actually the punch that killed him but hitting the pavement, so under your reasoning someone could be charged with murder for tripping someone who then fell badly; would you you also think the hypothetical tripper had enough 'intent' in the legal sense to charge murder?

I punched my husband once and I was not even thinking about killing him when I did it. I just did it because I was pregnant and we got into an argument about something and I had a meltdown because of it and I kept screaming and couldn't drive and then I finally punched him. If I had hit him hard enough and he got a head injury and died, I may have been charged with manslaughter but who knows what the charges would have been given that I was melting down and pregnant. I would not have been happy if my husband died. Then imagine my son being told when he is older "Your mother punched your father before you were born so he died and mommy went to jail for it." Imagine what he would think of that or how it must be for a child to know that about their father and mother.

No, just as shooting someone in the leg isn't intent to kill (which can be fatal). Falling after a strike isn't a secondary act, as hitting someone hard enough will equate to that (and often equate to losing consciousness before the fall, so reflex actions won't help); just as shooting someone in the leg and hitting an artery. But I didn't mean to hit the artery! Same argument.

If you tripped someone with the intent to actually trip them (and not by accident), and the individual died, then that probably satisfies murder, but no one would bother with that as falling over when conscious usually isn't lethal (though you can still be charged with assault/assault and battery). You need the guilty mind, which means you were aware of what you were doing (punching, pushing, shooting, tripping and whatnot), and the guilty act, which is doing it.

Death by being hit in the head isn't uncommon (not the face though, barring falling over; the forehead can't handle as much as the face. The sides and rear are very vulnerable).

I could kill any human living with a single strike to the side/rear of the head. And most able people could too.

That's not entirely correct. You can kill someone out of negligence even if it can be reasonably assumed that the negligent act can kill. Even if it's reasonably assumed that what you're doing can kill someone, if there's no intent, then the crime is actually called manslaughter (or culpable homicide in South Africa) not murder. Murder, by definition, requires there to be an intent to kill. To give an example, it can be reasonably assumed that drunk driving can kill someone but people are not charged with murder if they kill someone by driving while drunk.

With regards to your examples, obviously if you shoot someone in the head then there's an intent to kill. If you punch someone in the head, such as in this case, then there's at least an intent to cause injury. I agree that the guy should of gotten a longer sentence but if that was considered murder by the legal system, then he would of been charged with murder, which he obviously wasn't.