Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32
  1. #1
    Balls to Monty
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Posts
    12,010

    NSW to introduce 'one-punch' laws

    The New South Wales Government has confirmed it will introduce so-called "one-punch" laws to cover situations where an unlawful assault causes death.

    There has been outrage at the four-year sentence given to the killer of Thomas Kelly, who died after being king-hit while on a night out in Kings Cross last year.

    Attorney-General Greg Smith says he is drafting a bill based on similar legislation in Western Australia, which he hopes to introduce next year.
    But he says the New South Wales legislation will double the maximum penalty available.

    "The laws I'm proposing for NSW will carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment," he said.

    NSW to introduce 'one-punch' laws in wake of Thomas Kelly's death - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


    Seems like an improvement to the law if this is passed.

    There has often been a problem in deciding whether a crime is murder or manslaughter because murder generally implies lethally malicious intent and premeditation whereas manslaughter generally implies a non-malicious but culpably careless accident.

    What is needed is a crime that describes maliciously aggressive behaviour that results in death without premeditation

  2. #2
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:01 AM
    Posts
    60,462
    You mean aggravated manslaughter?

    Should apply equally to drunk drivers who cause death.

  3. #3
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    30,305
    US has this. Second degree murder. Punishment varies state to state.

  4. #4
    Member
    Bettyboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:05 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    30,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    king-hit
    Could an Aussie please explain this term. I've never heard it before.

  5. #5
    Lord of Swine
    Necron99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Nahkon Sawon
    Posts
    13,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettyboo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    king-hit
    Could an Aussie please explain this term. I've never heard it before.
    Clocking someone with a massive haymaker when they are not expecting it and not defending themselves.
    i.e from behind, or when they are looking away, or just don't realize they are in a fight.

  6. #6
    Balls to Monty
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Posts
    12,010
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
    Should apply equally to drunk drivers who cause death.
    I would class that as manslaughter as there is no malice or aggression.

    The case of causing unintentional death through malicious aggression could be classed as a special case of manslaughter as you suggest or a special case of murder as Norton suggests but I think it deserves a classification of its own.

  7. #7
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:01 AM
    Posts
    60,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
    Should apply equally to drunk drivers who cause death.
    I would class that as manslaughter as there is no malice or aggression.

    The case of causing unintentional death through malicious aggression could be classed as a special case of manslaughter as you suggest or a special case of murder as Norton suggests but I think it deserves a classification of its own.
    I don't agree. If you knowingly cause a death by breaking a law, it shouldn't matter if you intended to drive home carefully or give someone a black eye.

  8. #8
    Member
    Bettyboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:05 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    30,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99
    Clocking someone with a massive haymaker when they are not expecting it and not defending themselves.
    Thanks.

    Why would anybody do that? It's certainly a serious crime.

    Looper speaks like a lawyer, and to think I used to like his posts too...

  9. #9
    Lord of Swine
    Necron99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Nahkon Sawon
    Posts
    13,025
    Alcohol is the usual cause.
    Bit of a shit act, only something a shit bloke like Stuart Broad would do usually.

  10. #10
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:01 AM
    Posts
    60,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99 View Post
    Alcohol is the usual cause.
    Bit of a shit act, only something a shit bloke like Stuart Broad would do usually.
    My my aren't you the witty c u n t.

  11. #11
    Member
    Bettyboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:05 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    30,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99
    Bit of a shit act, only something a shit bloke like Stuart Broad would do usually.
    A bloke did it to me in a pub once, in London. He was over 7ft and 20 stone; came upto me from the side when I was ordering a drink and head butted me... I thought somebody had just fell into me or it was an accident, that was until I saw his face where it was clear he'd done it deliberately. I'd never even spoken to the fuker before... Lunatic he was...
    How do I post these pictures???

  12. #12
    I am in Jail
    leemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    07-10-2015 @ 02:27 PM
    Location
    pty
    Posts
    2,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettyboo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    king-hit
    Could an Aussie please explain this term. I've never heard it before.
    Clocking someone with a massive haymaker when they are not expecting it and not defending themselves.
    i.e from behind, or when they are looking away, or just don't realize they are in a fight.
    Sounds like murder to any reasonable person, but the bleeding hearts tend to claim the thug didn't actually intend to kill his victim. Fcuk 'em, when the revolution comes first to go under will be the halo polishing hand wringers.

  13. #13
    Balls to Monty
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Posts
    12,010
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
    Should apply equally to drunk drivers who cause death.
    I would class that as manslaughter as there is no malice or aggression.

    The case of causing unintentional death through malicious aggression could be classed as a special case of manslaughter as you suggest or a special case of murder as Norton suggests but I think it deserves a classification of its own.
    I don't agree. If you knowingly cause a death by breaking a law, it shouldn't matter if you intended to drive home carefully or give someone a black eye.
    'Knowingly' is the key to a manslaughter charge.

    You must have been reasonably able to foresee that your actions could result in death.

    The distinction I think that the law is currently lacking is the aspect of malice.

    Did the defendant intend malice towards the deceased in their action resulting in death? To my mind if the answer is yes then that is a different category of offence. I would not say a a drunk driver accidentally hitting a pedestrian intends malice although it is a very serious crime and there would likely be situations where a manslaughter charge would bring a higher sentence than a 'Malicious Killing' charge.

    For the charge of murder to be applied I think on top of malice you need substantial premeditation. i.e. it has to have been an act which had been planned to result in death.

  14. #14
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:01 AM
    Posts
    60,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
    Should apply equally to drunk drivers who cause death.
    I would class that as manslaughter as there is no malice or aggression.

    The case of causing unintentional death through malicious aggression could be classed as a special case of manslaughter as you suggest or a special case of murder as Norton suggests but I think it deserves a classification of its own.
    I don't agree. If you knowingly cause a death by breaking a law, it shouldn't matter if you intended to drive home carefully or give someone a black eye.
    'Knowingly' is the key to a manslaughter charge.

    You must have been reasonably able to foresee that your actions could result in death.

    The distinction I think that the law is currently lacking is the aspect of malice.

    Did the defendant intend malice towards the deceased in their action resulting in death? To my mind if the answer is yes then that is a different category of offence. I would not say a a drunk driver accidentally hitting a pedestrian intends malice although it is a very serious crime and there would likely be situations where a manslaughter charge would bring a higher sentence than a 'Malicious Killing' charge.

    For the charge of murder to be applied I think on top of malice you need substantial premeditation. i.e. it has to have been an act which had been planned to result in death.
    Whether you're intending to punch someone or intending to drive intoxicated, there is an inherent risk that your actions could lead to someone's death. I don't really see why one is any different to the other, perhaps an actuary would.

    Blindsiding someone is particularly dangerous. Take this example.



    "'Ooo wants it eh? 'Ooo wants it?"


  15. #15
    Member
    Bettyboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:05 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    30,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    For the charge of murder to be applied I think on top of malice you need substantial premeditation. i.e. it has to have been an act which had been planned to result in death.
    How about the situation where a thug regularly attacks people with a king-hit? Anybody knows that such attacks can cause serious harm and even death. The thug knows what he is doing, his behaviour is consistent and premeditated insomuchas he acts this way regularly, it's habit. The victim is completely innocent. What charge then?

  16. #16
    Balls to Monty
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Posts
    12,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettyboo
    How about the situation where a thug regularly attacks people with a king-hit? Anybody knows that such attacks can cause serious harm and even death. The thug knows what he is doing, his behaviour is consistent and premeditated insomuchas he acts this way regularly, it's habit. The victim is completely innocent. What charge then?
    The law is not black and white. It is an arbitrary set of rules devised by concensus to arbitrate crime. There will always be cases where you have to choose the best charge from various options.

    I would say even a repeat offender king-hit thug could get away with 'Malicious Killing' if the prosecution service thinks the resulting death was not intended.


    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
    Whether you're intending to punch someone or intending to drive intoxicated, there is an inherent risk that your actions could lead to someone's death. I don't really see why one is any different to the other, perhaps an actuary would.
    With drunk driving the death is incidental to an act of gross carelessness and selfishness. It is reprehensible but it is likely that no malicious harm was intended to the victim prior to the death. I am saying that the malicious intent against the victim by the perpetrator of an unintentional killing by direct physical assault is a distinction worth making.

  17. #17
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:01 AM
    Posts
    60,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettyboo
    How about the situation where a thug regularly attacks people with a king-hit? Anybody knows that such attacks can cause serious harm and even death. The thug knows what he is doing, his behaviour is consistent and premeditated insomuchas he acts this way regularly, it's habit. The victim is completely innocent. What charge then?
    The law is not black and white. It is an arbitrary set of rules devised by concensus to arbitrate crime. There will always be cases where you have to choose the best charge from various options.

    I would say even a repeat offender king-hit thug could get away with 'Malicious Killing' if the prosecution service thinks the resulting death was not intended.


    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
    Whether you're intending to punch someone or intending to drive intoxicated, there is an inherent risk that your actions could lead to someone's death. I don't really see why one is any different to the other, perhaps an actuary would.
    With drunk driving the death is incidental to an act of gross carelessness and selfishness. It is reprehensible but it is likely that no malicious harm was intended to the victim prior to the death. I am saying that the malicious intent against the victim by the perpetrator of an unintentional killing by direct physical assault is a distinction worth making.
    Well we'll have to agree to differ. They're both the result of the offender deliberately flouting a law which is there to protect the innocent.

  18. #18
    Thailand Expat
    sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    04-09-2019 @ 05:06 AM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    30,807
    I've never quite understood what this 'king hit' thing is either looper. Whenever explained, it just seems to be a cowardly hit from behind.

    What new rule need apply to that? If someone dies as a result it's homicide, but you can't prove intent, so they'll get done for what we call manslaughter.
    probes Aliens

  19. #19
    Thailand Expat
    Eliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:59 AM
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    3,792
    Quote Originally Posted by leemo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettyboo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    king-hit
    Could an Aussie please explain this term. I've never heard it before.
    Clocking someone with a massive haymaker when they are not expecting it and not defending themselves.
    i.e from behind, or when they are looking away, or just don't realize they are in a fight.
    Sounds like murder to any reasonable person, but the bleeding hearts tend to claim the thug didn't actually intend to kill his victim. Fcuk 'em, when the revolution comes first to go under will be the halo polishing hand wringers.
    Gotta agree there, too many ways to kill someone with one punch. Just do a search: https://www.google.co.th/?gws_rd=cr&...with+one+punch

    A single punch to the throat can close it off, you will die.
    Eliminator
    1986 Kawasaki 900

  20. #20
    Member
    Bettyboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:05 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    30,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    I would say even a repeat offender king-hit thug could get away with 'Malicious Killing' if the prosecution service thinks the resulting death was not intended.
    That's a good analysis, but seems unfair. To follow Árry's example, a repeat drink driver would probably face more serious charges?

    The consistency is a problem for me. Never mid the fact of who the offender is and how the judge/jury decide to view them... It is all contextual, I agree, but I don't think the law is best set up. Perhaps this new law will help.

  21. #21
    Lord of Swine
    Necron99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Nahkon Sawon
    Posts
    13,025
    ^ Not likely as the perpetrators are usually in a state where knowledge of the penalty is inconsequential, or totally unknown.
    Most of these one punch deaths are by totally pissed meatheads.
    Might make the families feel a bit better, but wont stop the action.

  22. #22
    Balls to Monty
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Posts
    12,010
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    I've never quite understood what this 'king hit' thing is either looper. Whenever explained, it just seems to be a cowardly hit from behind.

    What new rule need apply to that? If someone dies as a result it's homicide, but you can't prove intent, so they'll get done for what we call manslaughter.
    I think the 'king-hit law' is just a tag-line inspired by this particular crime. I think the law would apply to any incident involving a malicious act against an individual resulting in their unintended death.

    I think someone who intends to inflict serious harm on a victim and then kills them should be subject to a specific crime that is neither manslaughter nor murder.

    Manslaughter should be reserved for crimes where the death was due to carelessness or neglect and no malice was intended.

    Murder should be for crimes where death was substantially premeditated or dangerous weapons were used such as knives or guns so that potential death was an easily foreseeable outcome. I don't think punching somebody qualifies under this category.

    It does not do justice to the victims when a charge like this case gets downgraded from murder to manslaughter since the term is not generally associated with a malicious act and I think intent is a substantial part of a crime.

  23. #23
    Member
    Bettyboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:05 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    30,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99
    Most of these one punch deaths are by totally pissed meatheads.
    Might make the families feel a bit better, but wont stop the action.
    Probably true for these examples. But the law is there to protect society too - longer sentences for such crimes help in that respect.

  24. #24
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99 View Post
    Alcohol is the usual cause.
    Bit of a shit act, only something a shit bloke like Stuart Broad would do usually.
    That's an shamefully awful thing to write,,,well OTT!

  25. #25
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:01 AM
    Posts
    60,462
    I think what we're talking about is what is generally known as a sucker punch.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •