Search results

They should take some of the blame, but to label them murders 25 years later is a bit much.

I'm turning it around because things like this happened before without that many casualties. The Liverpool fans were not charging thinking they'd kill Juventus fans.

You're comparing THAT to Heysel?

That is a lie. Imagine the Pool fans doing the same in our Stadio Olimpico today. There is enough police present. NOTHING would happen.

Ow right, my bad. There were three seperate causes. It was also unlucky. Yes, the Liverpool fans carry some of the blame, but so do the Belgian police forces and so do the UEFA for having the final in that stadium. It's simply not as onedimensional as you want it to be.

Come on. All research so far indicates the stadium was possibly the biggest issue. The Juventus ultrà were there. How could they not be?

If you mean that, if the Liverpool fans had done nothing, no one would have died, you're correct. If the stadium had been okay, no one would have died either. Had the police done their job, nothing would have happened. You see where I'm going with this? There's a reason they called it...

Well, I hope it's an extreme example. IMO it's not the same as in a crowded room. They also didn't exactly squish them. It's because the stadium was in such a poor condition that there were fatalities. Let's say you push someone through a wall, but the wall gives and suddenly the guy falls...

To be honest I think your principle wouldn't be fair at all. You have to keep in mind that not all manslaughter charges are the result of violence. I mean, okay, if you're negligent, you should be punished, but to call it murder? Sometimes small things can have huge consequences and I think we...

Oddly enough they don't hate Belgium or the Belgian police forces. Far bigger culprits than the Liverpool fans. If something like this would happen in this day and age, you'd have dozens of lawsuits against Belgium.

But they were convicted because of the outcome, IZ. That's what manslaughter means. The consequences were far worse than the intended ones, but they were there, thus you get convicted for manslaughter. I don't understand what more you could possibly want? I mean, manslaughter is really...

Culpable homocide is indeed a more appropriate name. What's your job exactly by the way? Or are you still studying law?

I'm now wondering if the convictions have fueled the fire even more. Perhaps there more like jbf who look at them and think there was a murder conviction. If one actually knows what manslaughter is and reads that it's unclear how many served their sentences, you get a very different image of...

It's called that way, because someone is dead. But now you know, the Liverpool fans were not murderers.

How else would it work?

It's unclear how many served their sentences the article says. Could it be, hypothetically speaking, that they were used as scapegoats? Once "justice had seen to be done" they could go on and live their lives.

That's pretty funny dude. Not only does that verdict say there was no intention to kill those people, it also talks about involuntary manslaughter. It completely disagrees with you.

Maybe. Criminally negligent manslaughter I suppose. But still. Would the same behaviour in a normal stadium have had the same effect? Were the Liverpool fans really supposed to know that THIS would be the result of their actions? I mean, it's not the first time there was hooliganism inside a...

My book is the book people use when they study criminal law. What's yours? Sometimes it's not easy to qualify something as murder, but it's pretty damn obvious that we're not talking about murder here. Look. If someone hits a guy with a rock (actus rea) with the intention of killing him (mens...

But I'm not saying the Liverpool fans were innocent. I'm saying they're not murderers. You claim there was a murder. Actus rea? Mens rea?