I'd have thought that the one that floored BJ Mather was a more appropriate comparison. That was a one punch KO of the highest order, an a bloke much bigger than KS. Actually come to think of it, KS has a bit of a history of ting people...

.... and if you dont go round bashing every div who runs his mouth off you wont be in the dock for manslaughter. Sounds like he had a very good barrister in his corner, and it could have gone either way. Did he genuinely think he was going to be attacked and acted in self defence, or did he go to give him a good smack to prove he's a big man.... i guess only he will really know.

Indeed (though I am not sure how many of this target audience will recall it given how long back it occured and given Keith wasn't a Leeds player at the time.



Any punch to the head can lead to very disastrous circumstances.



All I can do is echo Mclaren Field's comments that if you don't go looking for a fight, generally speaking, you don't find one. That is the sad lesson to be learned from this. Too late for the chap who lost his life and a shame he didn't learn that lesson sooner, sadly.



However, as BurleyBurleyBurley says it's a lesson that will be lost on many individuals in Leeds city Centre this very weekend.

He convinced a jury it was the former. That is all that matters and so it should be. They looked into his eyes. They heard the evidence. They saw him cross examined by the prosecution Barrister. They weighed up all the evidence.



Far better to judge a man on that basis than what is written in a tabloid or discussed over a tap room bar, IMO.

True,... who'd wanted to be a jurer eh?



Oh another matter, the deceased's family could take up civil proceeding, which could have entirely different evidence and outcome.

Never done it and I don't think I can. Nor would I want to.

I am with G1 and McF here, the 12 people of the jury were in the court room for the duration of the trial and they found him not guilty of Manslaughter, the offence that the CPS decided to pursue against him in court. The Jury came back in under two hours which at least sounds to me like they did some deliberation but that they probably all went into the jury the room thinking the same thing... not guilty!

I'm with Gareth here - who I understand once had a similar altercation during a 7's tournament

- the jury have heard all the evidence and gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt - whilst we may not always agreed with the jury I would not want to replace the current system.

Indeed McField.



Gareth opined that Justice has been done, and perhaps he's right. Certainly there was the theatre of the Trial, and the anxious wait before a Verdict is read out, but Justice? The guy took his chance in Court, as is his right, and got the result he must have prayed for. That was his good fortune in this Courthouse, but perhaps there would have been a different, and to the layman at least, an understandable conclusion with a different Judge and Jury.



What I think is troubling most people in this particular case, is the apparent definition of "self defence" not the act itself, or any possible consequences arising from it. I suspect that the Prosecuting Barrister is as perplexed as us over this Jury's decision.

What I think is causing some people a problem is the notion that you don't go looking for your self defence, rather that "self defence" should be something that you do while you are backing away from your assailant and indeed that your assailant should be already on the offensive...



In which case I'd refer you to G1's scenario at the top of the previous page and ask you to consider that the accused had crossed the road for an entirely peaceable reason.









I suspect that alcohol had a great deal to do with this and many other similar altercations on every weekend in every city and I also suspect that the purveyors of the alcohol sit on their hands and whistle at the ceiling whenever cases like this are read out.

Interesting peice in the local rag, paints maybe a fuller picture of events. And once again, how many times will you have seen similar incidents like this occur in Leeds/ Headingley etc. Sounds like thugs looking for trouble and a tragic outcome from extremely foolish behaviour on both sides: www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 6688850.jp This sounds like the bit that the jury bought - Quote -He said they were then followed out of the beer garden by Mr Wilson who said to him: "Come on big man, me and you right now. I will smash your head in. If you think you are bad I will smash your head in." Perry said Mr Wilson came up to him and started moving like a boxer.

Interesting peice in the local rag, paints maybe a fuller picture of events. And once again, how many times will you have seen similar incidents like this occur in Leeds/ Headingley etc. Sounds like thugs looking for trouble and a tragic outcome from extremely foolish behaviour on both sides: www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 6688850.jp This sounds like the bit that the jury bought - Quote -He said they were then followed out of the beer garden by Mr Wilson who said to him: "Come on big man, me and you right now. I will smash your head in. If you think you are bad I will smash your head in." Perry said Mr Wilson came up to him and started moving like a boxer.

Was this the one where Keith was behind a bunch of players when he hit BJM ? If it was, pretty sure Mather never saw it coming.

Sounds to me like the guy deserved a slap,



Just unfortunate that he was that p**sed that he fell and hit his head

My memory of it is a little hazy, but wasn't it pretty much a king hit from the side through a crowd of players, rather than a one-on-one, Fielden-Mason style confrontation?