"Killed" would be a proper term to use in a pugilistic death. "Murder", on the other hand, would be debatable. There are numerous laws, both state & federal, in the USA that effect whether or not a sports related death is held as an accident, or as a "homicide", be it intentional or non-intentional. "Killed" & "Murdered" are not the same. Well, not always.
2006-11-12 18:46:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by FilmCollector 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i would say yes,the other boxer did kill him but did not murder him......they know the risk going into it and to say the boxer has the control that the ref has to stop the fight he doesn't ,hes in the ring to do his or hers job....and to be charged with murder they would have had to cheat or try to cheap shot and pro long a fight just for the ***** of it........
2006-11-12 18:39:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by bigtime 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes he was killed as a result of the other boxer punching him in the head.
This isn't murder but it does mean he was killed by his opponent.
It's one of the risks of boxing.
2006-11-12 18:33:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by laredokid22 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No because it was a sport and therefore not intentional. Plus he knew the risks involved when he entered the ring.
2006-11-12 18:26:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mille_D-Gurl08 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with Destiny
he died from his injuries sustained in the ring.
2006-11-12 18:29:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by tom4bucs 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with Destiny
2006-11-12 18:33:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by sugarsweeteegrl 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
HE WAS KILLED non-intentionally?
lols he was killed but not murdered. it was a game it is correct to say he was killed.
2006-11-13 01:08:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, that is why they are pronounced dead at the hospital and not in the ring. Stupid
2006-11-12 18:34:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋