Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

 guardpiper wrote:
He made the choice to the attack the ref over a flag and now he has to face the consequences. He should not have attacked the referee, plain and simple.

He had a rush of blood to head for gawds sake. Are you trying to tell me that the dude woke up that morning and thought to himself 'I'm gonna kill me a ref today'?

As for my scenario being stupid. No. No it isn't because that exact same scenario happens a hundred times every Saturday night.

Firs off I have no idea what he was thinking, nor do I claim to.

Second Saad is an adult, he made a choice and now has to pay the consequences. Does it suck? Yes, but he should not have attacked another person over a game of soccer. A wife is waking up without her husband because of this man. As others have said he is getting off lightly to be honest. Even if you get a rush of blood to your head your are still responsible for your actions, that is apart of being an adult, even if he did not mean to kill the ref, the fact is he did and now the family of the ref and society at large deserves justice. He is not getting killed or getting life without the chance of parole, so he has ability to build back his life. The ref does not have that chance.
That is where I am coming from.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I think this guy should have gotten at least 30 jears for murder. Even better, he should get a life sentence. Imo, murder should always be punished with a life sentence. If you take someones life, you do not have a right to live either.

While i appreciate your attitude towards the preciousness of life, the fact is that not all homicides are equal.

There's a very good reason there are differences between Murder 1, 2, and Manslaughter 1, 2, and then (in some states), "Criminal Homicide" as an even lesser charge.

What Ted Bundy did, and what this Saad did have material differences, and a society has a vested interest in recognizing that.



That said... I think 8 years is a bit light. We also don't know what was said at trial: the judge might have shown pity because he was very very remorseful. That said, given the fact that with 8 years sentence, he'll likely be out in 3 and deported. That seems light for taking a mans life.


... its a shame that the battery that caused the death is a lesser included charge. It would have been nice to give him the 8 years in recognition for the remorse he might have displayed, but given him the max on the Assault and Battery charges, with the sentences imposed to run consequetively, not concurrently. This would add another 2-3 years to his sentence over all.

Man, that must have been a helluva punch. Did he strike the guy in the temple or something? I'm not trying to make light of it at all, but 99% of the time, a punch to the face isn't going to kill someone (unless it's like a 40yr old guy punching a 10 year old, or something like that). I'm sure the guy wasn't intending to kill him or even cause him long lasting harm. This was basically freak chance that ruined two peoples' lives. Sucks for everyone involved. Prayers for the family of the ref, and I hope the puncher finds penance and peace. The fact that he killed a man with his fist, if he has any heart, is going to weigh on his mind for the rest of his life. Sure, his jail time may be shorter than most would expect, but his suffering is going to continue on into forever.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Something similar happened in the Netherlands a while ago: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/dec/04/dutch-assistant-referee-dies-attack-teenagers
Football really can get violent, as many people seem to forget it is just a game. Especially when you look at hooligans etc.

Also, I think he got of really easy. Killing someone, accidentally or not, really should be punished more severely. And I would say that when you hit someone and that person dies, it was not an accident. Hitting someone hard enough can always be lethal. You should not hit someone hard unless you are willing to kill him. Too many people die in a fight with the murderer saying: "oops it was an accident" afterwards.
I think this guy should have gotten at least 30 jears for murder. Even better, he should get a life sentence. Imo, murder should always be punished with a life sentence. If you take someones life, you do not have a right to live either.

Yeah and those feyenoord supporters in Rome?
They left nothing standing of the city!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Man, that must have been a helluva punch. Did he strike the guy in the temple or something? I'm not trying to make light of it at all, but 99% of the time, a punch to the face isn't going to kill someone (unless it's like a 40yr old guy punching a 10 year old, or something like that). I'm sure the guy wasn't intending to kill him or even cause him long lasting harm. This was basically freak chance that ruined two peoples' lives. Sucks for everyone involved. Prayers for the family of the ref, and I hope the puncher finds penance and peace. The fact that he killed a man with his fist, if he has any heart, is going to weigh on his mind for the rest of his life. Sure, his jail time may be shorter than most would expect, but his suffering is going to continue on into forever.

A punch given with full force can break ribs, crack the skull, cause internal bleeding, give a massive concussion which can result in a coma, etc...

Punches are far from harmless.

Then you have guys like this that should have been executed:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/15/convicted-cop-killer-cites-playing-flute-as-reason-should-be-freed/

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:


I'm not sure about the American legal system, but Eight years for what was clearly accidental Manslaughter does seem a mite steep. The guy is a mechanic playing soccer in an amateur league, not Clyde Barrow.

Accidental Manslaughter and 8 years in jail sounds about right.

I think he got off far too light for what was actually voluntary manslaughter in most jurisdictions and "felony murder" in Michigan. The facts in this case were so open-and-shut there should not have been a plea deal offered. Out in 4, and 9 lousy grand in costs? Who was his lawyer, Clarence Darrow?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Man, that must have been a helluva punch. Did he strike the guy in the temple or something? I'm not trying to make light of it at all, but 99% of the time, a punch to the face isn't going to kill someone

99% of the time, no, but the other 99 assaults didn't make the news, just the 1 that killed. A punch does not have to be that hard to kill, if it is very unlucky. This is why this guy got what he got. He killed, but he did not mean to kill, and probably had no way of knowing a single punch would kill, because most of the time it does not. TBH 8 years seems about right. 8 years is a long time. Yes, someone lost their life, but we got past an eye for an eye and blood feuds for a good reason.

 Steve steveson wrote:
[He killed, but he did not mean to kill

Well, it's not like the ref slipped and fell on his hand.

 Steve steveson wrote:
and probably had no way of knowing a single punch would kill, because most of the time it does not.

I think it's fairly common knowledge that people regularly die from punches, and "I was just planning to violently assault him, not kill him" seems like a poor defense to me.

The court system is so bloated and inefficient, a plea is always good.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The court system is so bloated and inefficient, a plea is always good.

Incorrect, in my opinion. The role of the courts is (ideally) to serve justice*. The role of the legislature is to ensure our legal system isn't bloated and inefficient by not pandering to voters as "being tough on crime" by passing mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug crimes and such*.

When you kill someone in front of dozens of witnesses in front of broad daylight, I don't see a reason for a plea other that exigency at the cost of justice. Out in 4 years and $9 grand is actually sort of an insult. What is the loss to this family of this guy's future earnings?


*yeah I'm pretty naive I know

Being Tough on Crime is actually a good thing.

Whats a bad thing is the Justice system having too many other inefficiencies. Like a slow as molasses plea system, a system which allows for too many pleas, and a prison system which is wasteful of money.

I'd prefer to be smart on crime instead of "tough on crime". Being tough on crime has led us to zero tolerance policies and mandatory minimums, which are generally lazy and poor policies and have mighty contributed to our out of control prison population.

While they don't work for all things, they definitely should be used on certain things. Applied smartly basically like you said.

Zero tolerance for driving under the influence. Zero tolerance for possession of illegal substances. Zero tolerance for violation of Parole.

What Zero tolerance means depends on the situation. DUI, lose your license. Posession, depends on how much. If its just a small amount, you get locked up in a rehab facility. If you reoffend afterwards, it gets steeper. If its enough to sell, then you get locked up for X years and get sent to rehab.

 Ouze wrote:
I think he got off far too light for what was actually voluntary manslaughter in most jurisdictions and "felony murder" in Michigan. The facts in this case were so open-and-shut there should not have been a plea deal offered. Out in 4, and 9 lousy grand in costs? Who was his lawyer, Clarence Darrow?

Eh, this would have been misdemeanor assault and battery, not felonious battery. He threw a single punch, he didn't punch him repeatedly, then get on top of him and slam his head into the ground. I know it sounds like i'm being pedantic, but i guarantee that when he was arraigned and indicted, a LOT Of discussion had been had on whether the original battery was misdemeanor battery or felony. Because felony murder attaching isn't a choice ; if you commit a felony and someone dies in the comission of that felony, it's felony murder (fun fact: the person dying doesn't even have to be from your actions for you to be culpable for felony murder!). Felony murder rule would not attach if a felony was not being committed. As they probably (correctly) decided that this was misdemeanor assault and battery, it was wise not to try him for felony murder.

Which I actually agree with. I have no doubt this guy intended to punch his lights out. I also have no doubt there was not a shred of intent to kill him. That is an important factor - the intent. Intent of actions (or words... but that's a whole other thread) or words is very important.

And this case was in Michigan, and they didn't attach the felony murder for this reason (not clear if you were saying it would have been felony murder in Michigan or not... if not, apologies, i misunderstood).

And out in 3-4, 9k in funeral costs is not that much.... but he's got the civil suit lined up against him too for wrongful death if the family sues. At best when this guy gets out, his pay is going to be attached for the rest of his natural life. You usually cannot discharge civil judgements via bankruptcy.

Yeah, criminal charges rarely have the big payouts. Thats civil charges.

They don't take half measures killing soccer refs in Brazil:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/referee-player-killed-brazil-soccer-fans_n_3555436.html

Relapse wrote:
They don't take half measures killing soccer refs in Brazil:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/referee-player-killed-brazil-soccer-fans_n_3555436.html

Now, see, that one sounds like mob justice to me. Well, okay, murder is wrong, but the ref, like most officials, is supposed to be a respectable individual. He escalated, then others escalated further. Next in line, I suppose, is his family nuking the homes of the people who killed him with homemade explosives; like napalm filled tennis balls.

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

 guardpiper wrote:
He made the choice to the attack the ref over a flag and now he has to face the consequences. He should not have attacked the referee, plain and simple.

He had a rush of blood to head for gawds sake.

He flew into a rage as he thought he was above the rules of the game. It was entirely about ego and lack of self control. No different to a driver deliberately running someone over in anger or shunting another vehicle off the road that upset them.

On the other hand it was Detroit so the only difference here was that it involved sports rather than people out walking the dog getting killed.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
They don't take half measures killing soccer refs in Brazil:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/referee-player-killed-brazil-soccer-fans_n_3555436.html

Now, see, that one sounds like mob justice to me. Well, okay, murder is wrong, but the ref, like most officials, is supposed to be a respectable individual. He escalated, then others escalated further. Next in line, I suppose, is his family nuking the homes of the people who killed him with homemade explosives; like napalm filled tennis balls.

I think it went far beyond mob justice when they quartered the dude on the field and planted his head on a stake. That's one of those holy crap, where are the stadium exits kind of times.

Relapse wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
They don't take half measures killing soccer refs in Brazil:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/referee-player-killed-brazil-soccer-fans_n_3555436.html

Now, see, that one sounds like mob justice to me. Well, okay, murder is wrong, but the ref, like most officials, is supposed to be a respectable individual. He escalated, then others escalated further. Next in line, I suppose, is his family nuking the homes of the people who killed him with homemade explosives; like napalm filled tennis balls.

I think it went far beyond mob justice when they quartered the dude on the field and planted his head on a stake. That's one of those holy crap, where are the stadium exits kind of times.

Thats Brazil's very of polite dinner conversation. Samba!

Relapse wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
They don't take half measures killing soccer refs in Brazil:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/referee-player-killed-brazil-soccer-fans_n_3555436.html

Now, see, that one sounds like mob justice to me. Well, okay, murder is wrong, but the ref, like most officials, is supposed to be a respectable individual. He escalated, then others escalated further. Next in line, I suppose, is his family nuking the homes of the people who killed him with homemade explosives; like napalm filled tennis balls.

I think it went far beyond mob justice when they quartered the dude on the field and planted his head on a stake. That's one of those holy crap, where are the stadium exits kind of times.

Are you sure this was not a Blood Bowl game?

In Latin American soccer games, its the same thing.

 Haight wrote:
Eh, this would have been misdemeanor assault and battery, not felonious battery. He threw a single punch, he didn't punch him repeatedly, then get on top of him and slam his head into the ground. I know it sounds like i'm being pedantic, but i guarantee that when he was arraigned and indicted, a LOT Of discussion had been had on whether the original battery was misdemeanor battery or felony. Because felony murder attaching isn't a choice ; if you commit a felony and someone dies in the comission of that felony, it's felony murder (fun fact: the person dying doesn't even have to be from your actions for you to be culpable for felony murder!). Felony murder rule would not attach if a felony was not being committed. As they probably (correctly) decided that this was misdemeanor assault and battery, it was wise not to try him for felony murder.

Which I actually agree with. I have no doubt this guy intended to punch his lights out. I also have no doubt there was not a shred of intent to kill him. That is an important factor - the intent. Intent of actions (or words... but that's a whole other thread) or words is very important.

And this case was in Michigan, and they didn't attach the felony murder for this reason (not clear if you were saying it would have been felony murder in Michigan or not... if not, apologies, i misunderstood).

And out in 3-4, 9k in funeral costs is not that much.... but he's got the civil suit lined up against him too for wrongful death if the family sues. At best when this guy gets out, his pay is going to be attached for the rest of his natural life. You usually cannot discharge civil judgements via bankruptcy.

Sure, and I bet they won't have any problems collecting after he's deported, because he's a foreign national. And he's going to be deported back to Lebanon, because he has a previous assault conviction for - this might blow your mind - attacking another player at a soccer game, hitting him repeatedly in the head.

Tell me more about how this was a reasonable plea.

 Ouze wrote:
I'd prefer to be smart on crime instead of "tough on crime". Being tough on crime has led us to zero tolerance policies and mandatory minimums, which are generally lazy and poor policies and have mighty contributed to our out of control prison population.

And this isn't? As you posted already, this man is a repeat offender, and now he's killed someone. Putting him away for several years, removing him as a threat from the rest of society for that time, isn't smart?

You tell me. Had this happened to you, would you feel like justice had been done with this guy being out in 4 or so years and a generous $9,000 payment to your family?

 Ouze wrote:
You tell me. Had this happened to you, would you feel like justice had been done with this guy being out in 4 or so years and a generous $9,000 payment to your family?

Of course not. Justice and revenge are not the same thing though.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
You tell me. Had this happened to you, would you feel like justice had been done with this guy being out in 4 or so years and a generous $9,000 payment to your family?

Of course not. Justice and revenge are not the same thing though.

They are not all that far apart all the time, either. It is in society's interests for victims to have closure and a sense that 'justice was served'. If total strangers feel like the guy got off too light, then the family's desire for a longer sentence is probably as much a need for justice as vengeance.

Of course, I don't subscribe to the notion that revenge is always a negative thing.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


They are not all that far apart all the time, either. It is in society's interests for victims to have closure and a sense that 'justice was served'. If total strangers feel like the guy got off too light, then the family's desire for a longer sentence is probably as much a need for justice as vengeance.

Of course, I don't subscribe to the notion that revenge is always a negative thing.

Agreed.... When I was in high school, in "Civics" class, we had to read one of a selection of SC cases, and argue whether you agreed or not. The one that I got handed was a case (I don't remember the name it was like 12 years ago now) that happened in Hawaii. Basically the story goes like this.... BF finds out GF is cheating on him, so he kills her, GFs family kills BF, BFs family and GFs family meet up and both mutually agree that justice has been served.

US law on the other hand put the living killer(s) of the BF in prison for murder.

Obviously, on the one hand you have US law which "needs" to be satisfied, however, on the other hand you have a fairly insular culture who took matters into their own hands, and settled their dispute. I distinctly recall that BOTH families were fighting against the US Gov't on this case, because from their own point of view, justice had been served.



I know it's not really relevant to the OP, but I think it's relevant to the comment I quoted