THAT b*stard CHARGED ONLY WITH MANSLAUGHTER

Why only Manslaughter ? surely it was Murder ! or it should be. the tw*t

Can you prove the guy - assuming he did it - intended to kill?

Using your logic, everybody throwing a punch at a football game should be charged with attempted murder.

sorry it should mean Manslaughter

I very much doubt he set out to kill Mike in terms of murder, he'll get what's due to him if justice is served.

If you hit someone and that one hit happens to kill him , that is Manslaughter ! But if you hit someone and he lets say goes to ground and you follow it up with other punches or say stamps on the head and that kills them , cos you had time as little as it maybe to consider your next action ,then that's Murder

be lucky if he does 5 years

i got my brief with me he reckons it should be murder until proved otherwise . how can cctv prove it otherwise?

Should be murder to start. let the c**t prove otherwise.

be lucky if he does 5 years

Dont need 5years it only takes a second to have your eye sight taken from you inside and be scared for life.

Why only Manslaughter ? surely it was Murder ! or it should be. the tw*t

You clearly don't know the legal definitions of murder and manslaughter otherwise you would have expected that unfortunately he was always going to be facing a manslaughter charge. Sadly that's the law.

i got my brief with me he reckons it should be murder until proved otherwise . how can cctv prove it otherwise?

Should be murder to start. let the c**t prove otherwise.

I actually agree with that....

Its not the charge thats wrong, manslaughter is the right charge as im sure he didnt set out to kill Mike......the sentence for manslaughter is a maximum of life.....now lets see if the judges come down hard as it was football violence, and we know what judges are like when its football.

i do feel somme of you might be letting your emotions get to you here. as stated above it was always going to be manslaughter.

lets hope they do come down on him hard, because he was obviously looking for trouble being by the wales turnstile.

however he dident go out wanting to kill anyone, many of you on here have proberly thrown a punch at a football game, and have friends who might have been sent down for throwing a punch at chelsea. And were very critical of there sentances - now any any of those people could have hit someone who landed and banged ther head triggering a heart attack or brain hemridge. it is a horrible thing to happen granted.

anyway a poster said above manslaughter can still carry life inside, so there is still a possibility he can get a severe sentance.

i do feel somme of you might be letting your emotions get to you here. as stated above it was always going to be manslaughter.

lets hope they do come down on him hard, because he was obviously looking for trouble being by the wales turnstile.

however he dident go out wanting to kill anyone, many of you on here have proberly thrown a punch at a football game, and have friends who might have been sent down for throwing a punch at chelsea. And were very critical of there sentances - now any any of those people could have hit someone who landed and banged ther head triggering a heart attack or brain hemridge. it is a horrible thing to happen granted.

anyway a poster said above manslaughter can still carry life inside, so there is still a possibility he can get a severe sentance.

Like you said if he was by the Wales Turnstile ,then he was looking for trouble, that in its self is intent ,and if he has intent then it that intent results in a action of violence , that in turn results in the death of a human ,then that is Murder.

i got my brief with me he reckons it should be murder until proved otherwise . how can cctv prove it otherwise?

Should be murder to start. let the c**t prove otherwise.

sadly it doesn't work like that Daya. its up to the prosecution to prove guilt on the charge that is laid before the court. a murder charge is unlikely as it will need to be proven the perpetrator set out to kill. a manslaughter charge will more likely be proven in that the perpetrators actions resulted in the death of dio.

sometimes the law doesn't seem right.

the fact that (i) it was a cowardly attack from behind (ii) the cause of death was blunt trauma to the back of the head meaning it wasn't the fall that killed him and (iii) it was at the football will mean that a guilty verdict should lead to a lengthy stay at HM pleasure.

All I will say is the group of English fans went out of their way and deliberately went to the Wales turnstile looking for a fight, it was not an accident that the fight happened.

Did the accused stand by the turnstile and say to himself "im going to kill someone" i highly doubt it, therefore it cannot be murder. Should he get the maximum sentence for manslaughter, yes, which is life. Welshcitydragon i know you dont lack intelligence, so stop acting like you do

All I will say is the group of English fans went out of their way and deliberately went to the Wales turnstile looking for a fight, it was not an accident that the fight happened.

which means the violence was premeditated but not the outcome. i think a lot of factors will result in a lengthy sentence if proven guilty.

He meant to hurt him clearly, did he mean to kill him? I doubt it.

Poster above makes an excellent point that if it's murder then every punch is attempted murder.

I just hope he gets the max sentence for man slaughter.

The Crown Prosecution Service would have looked at the case before this person was charged and advised the police on what to charge him with based on what they fell they will be able to prosecute him with. They could have charged him with murder as the charges can be dropped to manslaughter later but realistically its a manslaughter case so thats what hes been charged with. Its down to a jury now to find him guilty and a judge to sentence him justly. Factors that will help his case and drop his sentence are if he had handed himself in or not and shows genuine remorse, other than that its life in prison should see him out in 10

Did the accused stand by the turnstile and say to himself "im going to kill someone" i highly doubt it, therefore it cannot be murder. Should he get the maximum sentence for manslaughter, yes, which is life. Welshcitydragon i know you dont lack intelligence, so stop acting like you do

You do not have to say Im going to kill some one for it to be murder for god sake, its the action its self. As I have said , if you hit a man had he falls and hits his head on the floor and dies , yes that is Manslaughter, But if you hit a person and he falls to the floor and you then follow it up with more kicks or punches that Results in his or her death , then that is Murder , by its own definition , as the first punch has unable him, and he now course not threat to you , and you follow it up with the killer blow that is premeditated as you had time to think about it while he is unable on the floor . If there is anyone that shows a lack of Intelligence its you for not understanding the difference between M & M .

Did the accused stand by the turnstile and say to himself "im going to kill someone" i highly doubt it, therefore it cannot be murder. Should he get the maximum sentence for manslaughter, yes, which is life. Welshcitydragon i know you dont lack intelligence, so stop acting like you do

You do not have to say Im going to kill some one for it to be murder for god sake, its the action its self. As I have said , if you hit a man had he falls and hits his head on the floor and dies , yes that is Manslaughter, But if you hit a person and he falls to the floor and you then follow it up with more kicks or punches that Results in his or her death , then that is Murder , by its own definition , as the first punch has unable him, and he now course not threat to you , and you follow it up with the killer blow that is premeditated as you had time to think about it while he is unable on the floor . If there is anyone that shows a lack of Intelligence its you for not understanding the difference between M & M .

yes i see your point but take away all emotion in this case and look at it as a business the CPS will look for a result and how much risk it entails to get a prosecution if there is more chance of securing a prosecution with manslaughter than murder they will go with manslaughter. The CPS will not want to fail if they charge him with murder and he gets convicted of manslaughter it will go to the government as a failed prosecution. Right or wrong thats how our justice system works its a results driven industry.

Did he get kicked an punched on the floor? First I've heard of that. Is only read it was a single blow to the back of the head.

Did the accused stand by the turnstile and say to himself "im going to kill someone" i highly doubt it, therefore it cannot be murder. Should he get the maximum sentence for manslaughter, yes, which is life. Welshcitydragon i know you dont lack intelligence, so stop acting like you do

You do not have to say Im going to kill some one for it to be murder for god sake, its the action its self. As I have said , if you hit a man had he falls and hits his head on the floor and dies , yes that is Manslaughter, But if you hit a person and he falls to the floor and you then follow it up with more kicks or punches that Results in his or her death , then that is Murder , by its own definition , as the first punch has unable him, and he now course not threat to you , and you follow it up with the killer blow that is premeditated as you had time to think about it while he is unable on the floor . If there is anyone that shows a lack of Intelligence its you for not understanding the difference between M & M .

Manslaughter: Voluntary manslaughter when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm.

murder: Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)

its obvious which applies in this case. I have also said, manslaughter carries a life sentence, so i hope that that is what is served.

Did he get kicked an punched on the floor? First I've heard of that. Is only read it was a single blow to the back of the head.

post mortom said "blunt force trauma to the back of the head, caused by a single blow"

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-open-mi ... 25641.html

Did he get kicked an punched on the floor? First I've heard of that. Is only read it was a single blow to the back of the head.

post mortom said "blunt force trauma to the back of the head, caused by a single blow"

SO was that the only blow ? or was there blows before that killer blow .

Did he get kicked an punched on the floor? First I've heard of that. Is only read it was a single blow to the back of the head.

post mortom said "blunt force trauma to the back of the head, caused by a single blow"

SO was that the only blow ? or was there blows before that killer blow .

no idea, i didnt perform the post mortom? either way, its manslaughter......as i posted the definitions above

Did he get kicked an punched on the floor? First I've heard of that. Is only read it was a single blow to the back of the head.

post mortom said "blunt force trauma to the back of the head, caused by a single blow"

SO was that the only blow ? or was there blows before that killer blow .

no idea, i didnt perform the post mortom? either way, its manslaughter......as i posted the definitions above

There are a lot of barrack room lawyers on here tonight.
You do not have to intend to kill someone to be guilty of murder as many of you mistakenly believe.
In short, if the prosecution can prove that you intended to cause really serious bodily harm and the victim dies, then you are guilty of murder. If the accounts which are on here are true, namely that Mike Dye was hit over the back of the head with a blunt instrument, and that the injury inflicted ultimately caused his death, then murder is the correct charge.
Manslaughter can be a "fallback" so if the prosecution believe that they have any chance at all of proving murder then they will charge the accused with murder. I suspect that all the evidence has been very carefully considered and that the Crown Prosecution Service are satisfied that the evidence is simply not there to prove murder.

Anyone with any kind of a brain would say ,if you are going to hit someone , with or without, a blunt instrument you must be aware that a blow to the head could or would or may result in death . which again is Murder .