soccer ref struck in face by player dies

[hjmick]

Just because someone intends bodily harm, doesn't mean they intend murder.

Doesn't mean that murder wasn't committed.

When someone robs a bank, they may not intend to commit murder, but should someone get killed during the robbery, murder is none the less the result.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

An analogy: imagine a debate team, where one of the debate judges has a serious blood pressure condition that could be fatal if he gets too worked up. The results for the debate are delivered, and a member of the losing team gets so angry, he starts insulting one of the judges personally. Eventually the judge gets so worked up, his blood pressure spikes, he has a heart attack and dies. Is the one who threw the insults to be jailed for murder? For life?

The analogy isn't perfect, but its close.

No it isn't close. Not at all. You don't intend bodily harm to someone when you insult them. You definitely intend bodily harm if you punch someone.

Bodily harm is not the same as murder. Don't conflate the two.

I am not conflating the two. There is a pronounced difference between your example of hurling insults and hurling punches. In one you intend bodily harm. In the other you do not.

If you act in a way that is specifically intended to physically harm another and that act results in their death how can you reasonably expect not to be punished for that act?

I don't know what the just punishment is in this situation, but there has to be a punishment. And because his actions, which could have no reasonable result but injury, caused the death of another person the punishment must be fairly severe.

 

[Ernie S.]

It is outlooks such as yours this would ruin a kids life because he got heated during competition. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, but not for life. That Punishment doesn't fit the crime.

His damn life needs to be ruined, he ruined the ref's life, the ref's wife's life, and the ref's three daughters lives.. **** ya the punishment fits the crime.

So, if a victim has more relatives or significant others who would be saddened by his/her loss, the punishment should be increased? This is not how our trial system works. By this logic, it would less punishable to kill a homeless guy than a dad of a three.

He assaulted a man and caused his death. Do you think he should just walk away?

 

[Ernie S.]

To ruin a kids life over a fluke incident is idiotic.

A "fluke" incident? Really? Was it a "fluke" that the seventeen year old kid, who outweighed Mr. Portillo by the way, punched him in the side of the head? Doesn't sound like it. The kid was pissed and deliberately punched the referee. Nothing there that could be called a "fluke," just a crime.

Oh, and unless they charge the kid with a misdemeanor or as a juvenile, his life is already ruined.



Oh, so now it's the fault of the victim? A "condition he didn't know about?" Where do you come up with this shit? You do know that boxers have died from the same injuries, right? Punches to the head? andthey wear gloves. Here you have a bare knuckle punch to the head.

How is it "probable" that a person would be punched in the head refereeing a soccer game? Where the hell do you play soccer?



Gee, ya think?

...however it would have unreasonable for anyone to conclude that such an action would lead to a mans death, therefore, he shouldn't be punished as if it were.

Bullshit. You throw a punch, your intent is to do harm. Your intent is to do as much harm as possible. Your intent should be to make sure the person you punch doesn't get up and beat the shit out of you. If it isn't you're an idiot.

This kid killed a man. He committed a crime that resulted in the man's death. To suggest that "his life not be ruined" is an insult to Ricardo Portillo and his family.

Homicide by assault, as an adult. That's fair.

It was a fluke in the respect that a punch to the face does not typically result in murder. Boxing is a horrible analogy, since that is a sport where getting punched is part of the sport and every boxer knows this, therefore any boxer that had a neurophysiological condition whereby a small concussion could result in death would be irresponsible and reckless in engaging in such a sport, and should be faulted for his subsequent death, should it occur. It is understood that soccer is a physical game, and when refs take that job, they voluntarily accept a certain amount of risk. Getting hit in the face with a ball could have been another mode of injury that could have had the same result. The risk is there as a soccer ref. The kid should not be punished for the ref's indiscretion with regards to his personal safety. Again, the kid should be punished, but not for life. That is all I am saying. What he did was completely uncalled for in the game of soccer. I played HS varsity soccer. I know how heated it gets, and how rough it is. The ref was putting himself in harms way, as are all of the players. If he had a precondition that made him susceptible to severe head injury, he should not have been there.

That's like saying that if I get stabbed an bleed to death, it's my fault for having blood. What an ass!

 

[J.E.D]

It's not voluntary if you can't prove that he intended to kill him.

Incorrect. Under Utah statutes there is no stipulation for 'intent'..
read
How a Sentence is Determined
The judge determines the sentence of a person convicted of a crime using the Utah Sentence and Release Guidelines. These are published as Appendix D of the Utah Court Rules Annotated and available on the Utah Sentencing Commission's website (sentencing.state.ut.us).

The Guidelines also provide aggravating and mitigating factors which can be considered in sentencing:

Aggravating factors
Things that can make the punishment more severe, including:

whether the victim suffered substantial bodily injury;
whether the offense was extremely cruel or depraved;
whether the offender was in a position of authority over the victim;
whether the victim was unusually vulnerable.
A penalty can also be enhanced if:

the person committed the crime with two or more other people;
the person used a dangerous weapon on or near a school;
the person committed the crime in the presence of a child;
the person is determined to have committed a hate crime;
the person is determined to be a habitual offender;
the offense was committed while in prison.
Mitigating factors
Things that can make the punishment less severe, including:

whether the offender was exceptionally cooperative with law enforcement;
is a good candidate for treatment;
has developmental disabilities.
Utah State Courts - Criminal Penalties

This offender can have his sentence enhanced under "serious bodily harm"...As well as "depraved indifference"...
The book will be thrown at this monster.
The sentence range is one to 15 years imprisonment.
Hopefully he gets the whole truckload.
I'd even throw in a hate crime charge.

The judge determines the SENTENCE, not the charge. He can be sentenced for involuntary manslaughter and have the book thrown at him, but that doesn't mean he can be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution that he intended on kiling him. In law it's called mens rea:

Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act," accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault.

 

[Ernie S.]

An analogy: imagine a debate team, where one of the debate judges has a serious blood pressure condition that could be fatal if he gets too worked up. The results for the debate are delivered, and a member of the losing team gets so angry, he starts insulting one of the judges personally. Eventually the judge gets so worked up, his blood pressure spikes, he has a heart attack and dies. Is the one who threw the insults to be jailed for murder? For life?

The analogy isn't perfect, but its close.

Not even a little close, idiot. Insults do not cause physical harm. A punch to the side of the head is assault and a criminal offense.

 

[Ernie S.]

An analogy: imagine a debate team, where one of the debate judges has a serious blood pressure condition that could be fatal if he gets too worked up. The results for the debate are delivered, and a member of the losing team gets so angry, he starts insulting one of the judges personally. Eventually the judge gets so worked up, his blood pressure spikes, he has a heart attack and dies. Is the one who threw the insults to be jailed for murder? For life?

The analogy isn't perfect, but its close.

No it isn't close. Not at all. You don't intend bodily harm to someone when you insult them. You definitely intend bodily harm if you punch someone.

Bodily harm is not the same as murder. Don't conflate the two.

If you're going to show off your vocabulary, at least know the meanings. Perhaps you meant "equate"? At any rate, expect to hear from me in a couple hours.

 

[J.E.D]

That would be murder.

He intended to perform the act which resulted in an unintended death. Manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter.

Key word 'unintended'. Involuntary.

Utah law defines "murder" as:

1.(a) the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another;
(b) intending to cause serious bodily injury to another, the actor commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of another;
(c) acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another;

And manslaughter as:

Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter if the actor:
2. (a) recklessly causes the death of another;
(b) commits a homicide which would be murder, but the offense is reduced pursuant to Subsection 76-5-203(3); or
(c) commits murder, but special mitigation is established under Section 76-5-205.5

And negligent homicide as:

3. Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide if the actor, acting with criminal negligence, causes the death of another.

I see no mention of voluntary on involuntary.

A prosecutor could argue murder under 1. (b) or homicide under 2. (a)

Under murder 1. (b), it states, " the actor commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of another"

Most people don't view a punch as being "clearly dangerous to human life". A prosecutor would have a hard time with that one.

Under manslaughter (not homicide) 2. (a), it states, "recklessly causes the death of another"

So, under that definition of manslaughter, yes, I suppose a prosecutor would have a chance. But, the prosecution would have a hard time establishing mens rea.

 

[newpolitics]

No it isn't close. Not at all. You don't intend bodily harm to someone when you insult them. You definitely intend bodily harm if you punch someone.

Bodily harm is not the same as murder. Don't conflate the two.

If you're going to show off your vocabulary, at least know the meanings. Perhaps you meant "equate"? At any rate, expect to hear from me in a couple hours.

I meant conflate, smart guy, which means to combine two or more separate categories into one.

If you're going to try and stick it to someone for using the wrong word, try and actually know what that word means.

 

[Ernie S.]

People are convicted of vehicular homicide all the time if speeding, reckless driving or DWI results in death. Does a guy that gets shit faced at a bar and kills someone on his way home set out to kill?

 

[newpolitics]

An analogy: imagine a debate team, where one of the debate judges has a serious blood pressure condition that could be fatal if he gets too worked up. The results for the debate are delivered, and a member of the losing team gets so angry, he starts insulting one of the judges personally. Eventually the judge gets so worked up, his blood pressure spikes, he has a heart attack and dies. Is the one who threw the insults to be jailed for murder? For life?

The analogy isn't perfect, but its close.

Not even a little close, idiot. Insults do not cause physical harm. A punch to the side of the head is assault and a criminal offense.

Which is why I said the analogy is not perfect. However, the way in which the analogy does work, sums up my argument. Someone with a lethal medical condition should not put themselves in a vocation that might set it off. Someone with a high sensitivity to head injuries should not be involved in contact sports.

 

[newpolitics]

People are convicted of vehicular homicide all the time if speeding, reckless driving or DWI results in death. Does a guy that gets shit faced at a bar and kills someone on his way home set out to kill?

Cars are lethal. Fists are typically not, unless you are a black belt in some martial art.

 

[newpolitics]

A "fluke" incident? Really? Was it a "fluke" that the seventeen year old kid, who outweighed Mr. Portillo by the way, punched him in the side of the head? Doesn't sound like it. The kid was pissed and deliberately punched the referee. Nothing there that could be called a "fluke," just a crime.

Oh, and unless they charge the kid with a misdemeanor or as a juvenile, his life is already ruined.



Oh, so now it's the fault of the victim? A "condition he didn't know about?" Where do you come up with this shit? You do know that boxers have died from the same injuries, right? Punches to the head? andthey wear gloves. Here you have a bare knuckle punch to the head.

How is it "probable" that a person would be punched in the head refereeing a soccer game? Where the hell do you play soccer?



Gee, ya think?



Bullshit. You throw a punch, your intent is to do harm. Your intent is to do as much harm as possible. Your intent should be to make sure the person you punch doesn't get up and beat the shit out of you. If it isn't you're an idiot.

This kid killed a man. He committed a crime that resulted in the man's death. To suggest that "his life not be ruined" is an insult to Ricardo Portillo and his family.

Homicide by assault, as an adult. That's fair.

It was a fluke in the respect that a punch to the face does not typically result in murder. Boxing is a horrible analogy, since that is a sport where getting punched is part of the sport and every boxer knows this, therefore any boxer that had a neurophysiological condition whereby a small concussion could result in death would be irresponsible and reckless in engaging in such a sport, and should be faulted for his subsequent death, should it occur. It is understood that soccer is a physical game, and when refs take that job, they voluntarily accept a certain amount of risk. Getting hit in the face with a ball could have been another mode of injury that could have had the same result. The risk is there as a soccer ref. The kid should not be punished for the ref's indiscretion with regards to his personal safety. Again, the kid should be punished, but not for life. That is all I am saying. What he did was completely uncalled for in the game of soccer. I played HS varsity soccer. I know how heated it gets, and how rough it is. The ref was putting himself in harms way, as are all of the players. If he had a precondition that made him susceptible to severe head injury, he should not have been there.

That's like saying that if I get stabbed an bleed to death, it's my fault for having blood. What an ass!

Just stop...

 

[Ernie S.]

Bodily harm is not the same as murder. Don't conflate the two.

If you're going to show off your vocabulary, at least know the meanings. Perhaps you meant "equate"? At any rate, expect to hear from me in a couple hours.

I meant conflate, smart guy, which means to combine two or more separate categories into one.

You think he was combining bodily harm and murder? Sorry He was saying punching someone in the head causes bodily harm and in this case, it caused death. Hardly combining.

No one has said punching someone in the head always causes death, only that in this case, it did.

Yeah, I shot him in the head, Your Honor, but I didn't mean to kill him.

We can empty out a shit load of cells with that. Will you feel safe?

I don't want a 17 year old that will punch a soccer ref in the head for giving him a yellow card, to be free to walk the same streets as my kids.

 

[Ernie S.]

An analogy: imagine a debate team, where one of the debate judges has a serious blood pressure condition that could be fatal if he gets too worked up. The results for the debate are delivered, and a member of the losing team gets so angry, he starts insulting one of the judges personally. Eventually the judge gets so worked up, his blood pressure spikes, he has a heart attack and dies. Is the one who threw the insults to be jailed for murder? For life?

The analogy isn't perfect, but its close.

Not even a little close, idiot. Insults do not cause physical harm. A punch to the side of the head is assault and a criminal offense.

Which is why I said the analogy is not perfect. However, the way in which the analogy does work, sums up my argument. Someone with a lethal medical condition should not put themselves in a vocation that might set it off. Someone with a high sensitivity to head injuries should not be involved in contact sports.

Even if he knew he could die from a punch in the head, your argument is still childish and Utopian. The kid caused the ref's death by his actions. That, according to Utah law, is manslaughter at the very minimum.

 

[J.E.D]

If you're going to show off your vocabulary, at least know the meanings. Perhaps you meant "equate"? At any rate, expect to hear from me in a couple hours.

I meant conflate, smart guy, which means to combine two or more separate categories into one.

You think he was combining bodily harm and murder? Sorry He was saying punching someone in the head causes bodily harm and in this case, it caused death. Hardly combining.

No one has said punching someone in the head always causes death, only that in this case, it did.

Yeah, I shot him in the head, Your Honor, but I didn't mean to kill him.

We can empty out a shit load of cells with that. Will you feel safe?

I don't want a 17 year old that will punch a soccer ref in the head for giving him a yellow card, to be free to walk the same streets as my kids.

So, if you were drinking at a bar, watching the game, and you got into an argument with another guy, punched him in a fit a of rage, and he ended up dying -- even though you did not intend on killing him -- you feel that you should be put in prison for years, perhaps life?

 

[J.E.D]

Mens rea:

Criminal intent. The state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994). However, for strict liability crimes, state of mind as to at least one element of the crime is irrelevant.

DEFINITION FROM NOLO’S PLAIN-ENGLISH LAW DICTIONARY

(menz-ray-ah) The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

 

[newpolitics]

Not even a little close, idiot. Insults do not cause physical harm. A punch to the side of the head is assault and a criminal offense.

Which is why I said the analogy is not perfect. However, the way in which the analogy does work, sums up my argument. Someone with a lethal medical condition should not put themselves in a vocation that might set it off. Someone with a high sensitivity to head injuries should not be involved in contact sports.

Even if he knew he could die from a punch in the head, your argument is still childish and Utopian. The kid caused the ref's death by his actions. That, according to Utah law, is manslaughter at the very minimum.

I have no problem with him getting manslaughter. I would agree. From what I understand of manslaughter penalties, they are only a few years... NOT LIFE, as others here seem to want to happen. They want this kid to burn, and I don't understand this mentality. It is unfortunate what has happened, but ruining one more persons life isn't going to help anything. That isn't justice.

 

[newpolitics]

his damn life needs to be ruined, he ruined the ref's life, the ref's wife's life, and the ref's three daughters lives.. **** ya the punishment fits the crime.

so, if a victim has more relatives or significant others who would be saddened by his/her loss, the punishment should be increased? This is not how our trial system works. By this logic, it would less punishable to kill a homeless guy than a dad of a three.

he assaulted a man and caused his death. Do you think he should just walk away?

Did I say anything about him walking away?

 

[WillowTree]

It is outlooks such as yours this would ruin a kids life because he got heated during competition. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, but not for life. That Punishment doesn't fit the crime.

His damn life needs to be ruined, he ruined the ref's life, the ref's wife's life, and the ref's three daughters lives.. **** ya the punishment fits the crime.

So, if a victim has more relatives or significant others who would be saddened by his/her loss, the punishment should be increased? This is not how our trial system works. By this logic, it would less punishable to kill a homeless guy than a dad of a three.

well yer so damned worried about ruining the kids life and care not a shit about all the lives he's ruined then you had the ******* audacity to blame the victim. You're something shot right outta a pigs ass.