German Stabbed to Death in Phuket

[Dodger]

Originally Posted by Allybabba22

Yeah your right IJ, And it was also Paul and my mate John, And when I grabbed the Knife out of her hand during the struggle, Some other girl tried to take it off me.....

Ended up giving the Knife to Ead and she had to hide it.... It was a crazy situation and even though Kwan had the Knife, Moew was still coming at her with her Heel

Its always the quiet ones you need to look out for......

Knife or no knife that heel manouvre has got to be watched out for because they all seem to do that, and a 4 or 6 inch stilleto is a pretty handy weapon and not one I want to be on the end of. When they talk about it they do not seem to even care about the amount of damage that will cause, it seems as if they think that is totally reasonable to use on another bg.

[Heywood]

Originally Posted by stevem

As a bar owner you sell someone 20 shots he walks outside trips on the wood platform, falls splits his head open and dies.

Here in Oz the laws says the bar/barman is at fault because they kept on serving an obviously already drunk person.

Whats the law like in other countries.

Same here in the states steve....To me its just one more step downwards, making everyone and everything someone else's fault and responsibility....These days its harder and harder to be in business and make money if that's not enough troubles then you have to worry about some ahole blaming you for his own stupidity and taking your hard earned money...Damn lawyers!

Here they get the barman and the bar owner.

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by Heywood

Same here in the states steve....To me its just one more step downwards, making everyone and everything someone else's fault and responsibility....These days its harder and harder to be in business and make money if that's not enough troubles then you have to worry about some ahole blaming you for his own stupidity and taking your hard earned money...Damn lawyers!

Here they get the barman and the bar owner.

Not only is that true, but now in CA, if you are drunk, get in your car, get in an accident, and someone dies as a result of the accident, then, in many cases, you will be tried for murder, not manslaughter. Paticularly in cases, where there have been previous drunk accidents and/or drunk convictions, and where the blood alcohol content is very high. This is all the result of MADD(Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) lobbying effectively for stonger law enforcement against drunk driving.

The thinking behind this is that a car is a deadly weapon, and that it is malicious to drive it on the road when drunk, and you are aware or should be that your actions could result in the death of another, therefore it is de facto malice, sufficient for a charge of murder, even though, in fact, there was not any intent to harm anyone at all.

There is also the case where a person who doesn't kill anyone, but can be charged and convicted for murder. That is where you are involved in the commission of a felony, and someone gets killed, then even if you were not immediately present and did not do the killing then you can be convicted of murder. An example would be if you were the getaway car driver, dropped a couple of mates off at the bank, and drove around the block whilst they were robbing the bank. You could have been two blocks away when the murder is committed during the crime. And even if you had no more to do with it, because perhaps you heard police sirens, and fled, then by US law, you can be held responsible for the murder.

[marc26]

The thinking behind this is that a car is a deadly weapon, and that it is malicious to drive it on the road when drunk, and you are aware or should be that your actions could result in the death of another, therefore it is de facto malice, sufficient for a charge of murder, even though, in fact, there was not any intent to harm anyone at all.

as i have been plenty guilty of driving drunk many times, im not lecturing anyone, but i think this is warranted.
there has been not one time i drove drunk that i wasnt cognizant of the fact i was drunk when i was walking to my car. i always knew, and still drove my car, so if i did kill someone, i would say that it was maliciously

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by marc26

The thinking behind this is that a car is a deadly weapon, and that it is malicious to drive it on the road when drunk, and you are aware or should be that your actions could result in the death of another, therefore it is de facto malice, sufficient for a charge of murder, even though, in fact, there was not any intent to harm anyone at all.

as i have been plenty guilty of driving drunk many times, im not lecturing anyone, but i think this is warranted.
there has been not one time i drove drunk that i wasnt cognizant of the fact i was drunk when i was walking to my car. i always knew, and still drove my car, so if i did kill someone, i would say that it was maliciously

I don't agree. Although, in some circumstances(depending on how much you've had to drink), drunk driving is extremely negligent, and deserving of serious consequences when it results in a death of someone, I still think that that kind of a crime is manslaughter, not murder. Malice means you really intended to so harm to someone, not just that you were incredibly stupid , totally irresponsible, and out of your head.

[stevem]

Originally Posted by marc26

The thinking behind this is that a car is a deadly weapon, and that it is malicious to drive it on the road when drunk, and you are aware or should be that your actions could result in the death of another, therefore it is de facto malice, sufficient for a charge of murder, even though, in fact, there was not any intent to harm anyone at all.

as i have been plenty guilty of driving drunk many times, im not lecturing anyone, but i think this is warranted.
there has been not one time i drove drunk that i wasnt cognizant of the fact i was drunk when i was walking to my car. i always knew, and still drove my car, so if i did kill someone, i would say that it was maliciously

While we have all done it some stage, I totally agree with you Paul. Far too many people drive while drunk, kill someone and then get off too bloody lightly.

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by stevem

While we have all done it some stage, I totally agree with you Paul. Far too many people drive while drunk, kill someone and then get off too bloody lightly.

I agree that stiff sentences are appropriate in vehicular homicide cases, even though I think that it is really manslaughter, not murder. I don't know about Australia, but in the US the trend is towards very stiff sentencing in these cases. CA and North Carolina seems to be leading that charge, but one by one the other states are falling in behind them. People are not getting off so easily anymore.

Here are some example of tough sentences given out in CA and NC: 33 yrs., 60 yrs, and life imprisonment. In the life imprisonment case, the jury was given the option of giving the guy a death sentence!!

1) After less than two days of deliberation,the jury returned with a verdict that found John E. Newman guilty of all eight counts with which he had been charged, including two counts of second-degree murder. Two weeks later, Newman was sentenced to a minimum of 33 years in prison. A murder conviction in California requires that 85% of p rison time be served before parole considerat i o n . Newman will be 76 years old before he is eligible. Newman has since appealed to the California Supreme Court claiming his sentence was "cruel and unusual," and therefore unconstitutional. The Supreme Court denied the appeal.(This incident was in 1997).

2) there were many indications that judges were beginning to hand out stiffer sentences for those convicted of drunk driving. Probably the most widely publicized of these cases was the 60-year sentence handed down in January in a North Carolina DUI trial in which a 30-year-old repeat DUI offender was found guilty of killing four New Jersey teens.(This happened in 2000).

3)The case stems from a 1997 trial in which a Winston-Salem jury convicted Thomas Richard Jones of first-degree murder for killing two Wake Forest University students and injuring four others. Jurors rejected the death penalty, sentencing Jones to life in prison instead.