Arrest over Johnson death / released within 24 hours, investigation remains open

[theVladiator]

In order for the Crown to prove manslaughter, the Crown has to prove that the Accused person intended to commit the act - that is the Accused intended to kick or strike Johnson with his skate.
...
But that's going to be the question - did the Accused intend to kick Johnson with his skate? And in particular - can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kick Johnson with his skate?

Perhaps I am nitpicking, but this portion isn't quite the way I understand it, so I wanted to see if this is exactly how you meant to communicate portions quoted above.

From my point of view (and I am not a lawyer) intent to specifically kick Johnson would not be necessary for it to be manslaughter. For example, if he was trying to kick another player. Or if he was trying to demonstrate a ballet move. Or trying to swat a fly on Johnson's shoulder. Basically it's enough that the move itself was purposeful and intentional, regardless of what the intention and the purpose was, as it would have been reckless to try either of those things with a blade attached to your foot and others nearby. Am I not understanding the manslaughter correctly here?

 

[AHockeyFanatic]

Need more details, but on the surface, that's not a good thing, arresting people for sports accidents, unless there's video of the guy intentionally kicking at Johnson.......

You don’t need more details, watch the damn video.

 

[LTIR]

Killing a man was the accidental part. I don't believe kicking his leg out was an accident.

So, when you kick your leg out and someone dies accidentally from that, that''s manslaughter. Seems like an okay arrest to me.

So, any knee on knee, highstick , for slashing in NHL is manslaughter depending upon final outcome... Got it.

NHL fights should also be arrestable offense by this logic.

 

[AHockeyFanatic]

I'm in the UK. This isn't a conviction, the process will be he will be interviewed and if the police believe there has been a crime committed then the details will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service who will determine whether the police evidence is enough for a possible conviction.

If so, there would (highly likely) be a trip to court.

At this stage I would expect him to be bailed or released under investigation whilst everything is collated for reviewing. This is likely going to take a while to get to a court if they believe there is a crime committed, but I could he wrong as this is an unusual situation.

Only clear and obvious serious crimes get sent to court within days here.

Pretty clear and obvious, do you live in an alternate universe?

 

[snag]

I have watched that video over and over and over again frame by frame as well....and that whole incident just does not look fully accidental. I mean, physics just doesn't work that way. That wasn't merely being clipped. Hell.....just to look at you know that is not a natural movement as the result of being clipped.

Did he mean to slash his throat or kill him? I doubt it. But if he did anything intentional that was as beyond the scope of the game and deserves judicial penalty.

 

[Yukon Joe]

as much as it was obviously an accident, it did seem like a reckless hockey play that he CHOSE to take a chance on executing that had tragic results. So yes, that is manslaughter.

I dont believe his leg flung up because of an external force, as he was in control in my opinion.

I have not, and will not, form an opinion as to whether this person is guilty (since the UK authorities aren't using his name, I won't either).

But as a matter of language - if this was an accident, he's not guilty.

If he showed "wanton and reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others" it is maybe criminal negligence causing death.

If he intended to kick Johnson, it is manslaughter.

If he intended to kick Johnson, and meant to kill him, it is murder (and I don't think anyone is saying this is the case).

 

[Dessloch]

if this goes to trial either criminally or in civil court, will it be broadcasted live? I am very interested to see how this would be argued from both sides.

 

[KevinRedkey]

They wouldn't be doing this if it was obviously a pure accident. They must have something that leads them to believe it could be more than just that.

Doesn't mean he's guitly though. Time will tell I guess.

 

[snag]

So, any knee on knee, highstick , for slashing in NHL is manslaughter depending upon final outcome... Got it.

NHL fights should also be arrestable offense by this logic.

Fighting.....they are willing combatants. If not....see Bertuzzi and Moore.
For slashing etc, natural part of game. For when not, if common sense troubles you, see McSorely and Brashier.

Crashes happen all the time in racing.....but if you line a guy up an deliberately t-bone him...

I think it is obvious when lines are crossed and the competitive and physical nature of a sport cannot merely be a get out of jail free card.

 

[Siignal]

I just watched it and it looks like the player is trying to connect with two players at once. Accidental death but intentional contact to me.

Your inside leg doesn't just suddenly rise into the chest of another player. Your inside leg drops with your shoulder when you make the hit. Physically, how can you claim that the motion here isn't intentional?

Manslaughter makes perfect sense here to be honest.

 

[nvn]

Intentional kick, hope he gets jail time.

 

[Dessloch]

I have not, and will not, form an opinion as to whether this person is guilty (since the UK authorities aren't using his name, I won't either).

But as a matter of language - if this was an accident, he's not guilty.

If he showed "wanton and reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others" it is maybe criminal negligence causing death.

If he intended to kick Johnson, it is manslaughter.

If he intended to kick Johnson, and meant to kill him, it is murder (and I don't think anyone is saying this is the case).

What if he moved his leg in an irrational manner but never had any intent of hitting Johnson? Like just say he got mad when his hit did not go as planned and twisted his leg in anger with no correlation to Johnson? Would that count as guilty as he was reckless with his skate? Or do they 100% need to prove his body movement was made to hit the victim?

 

[Yukon Joe]

This doesn't sound right. If I throw a hammer at you did I intend to hit you in the head? Maybe, maybe not but the act caused harm. Isn't this case the same?

The question is "did you intend to throw the hammer at you". If you did, then you are responsible for the consequences of your action.

Even if you intended to throw the hammer 'in my general direction', but didn't intend to hit me in the head - if you intended to throw the hammer at me then you're still guilty.

The distinction is between "did you intend to throw the hammer" and "did the hammer slip out of your hand by accident". If it slipped out of your hand by accident, then no crime has been committed, even if it does hit me in the head.

 

[oldtimersask]

I have not, and will not, form an opinion as to whether this person is guilty (since the UK authorities aren't using his name, I won't either).

But as a matter of language - if this was an accident, he's not guilty.

If he showed "wanton and reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others" it is maybe criminal negligence causing death.

If he intended to kick Johnson, it is manslaughter.

If he intended to kick Johnson, and meant to kill him, it is murder (and I don't think anyone is saying this is the case).

You're missing a step here.

If he intended to kick Johnson, it's 2nd degree murder. If he intended to kill him, it's first degree murder. The manslaughter cases can always be a bit tricky, but from my understanding if he moved his leg towards the person with intentionality, it's manslaughter.

 

[Tanknation]

that standing ovation did not age well...

 

[Dicky113]

He didn’t mean to cut his throat, but he definitely lifted his leg to try and get a piece of him which would have been a penalty (Ie illegal play). He lost his balance in doing so and his foot went higher than he anticipated and tragedy ensued. Did he mean to kill him? no. Was it an illegal, reckless play that resulted in death? Yes. I can see the argument for manslaughter here. I can also see this being very hard to prove in court. Crappy situation all around.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I wish I could post a still frame from the video (a non-graphic part) to show just how awful the quality of the video is that people are so certain the guy kicked him intentionally and think he should be convicted of manslaughter.

After reading this thread good lord I hope my fate never lies in the hands of a jury.

 

[snag]

You're missing a step here.

If he intended to kick Johnson, it's 2nd degree murder. If he intended to kill him, it's first degree murder. The manslaughter cases can always be a bit tricky, but from my understanding if he moved his leg towards the person with intentionality, it's manslaughter.

First degree is premeditated and the difference between 1st and 2nd really has nothing to do with intent (intent is present in both)...it is the planning. Lack of intent is what makes it manslaughter. Unless they had a previous history you would a near impossible feat convincing anyone of a first degree charge in the midst of competitive sport.

 

[AHockeyFanatic]

Easy manslaughter conviction for that POS. Enjoy jail.

 

[Yukon Joe]

So, any knee on knee, highstick , for slashing in NHL is manslaughter depending upon final outcome... Got it.

NHL fights should also be arrestable offense by this logic.

The question is one of consent.

If two people agree to get into a fight (on or off the ice) then you've consented to what happens next. I mean, this covers the entire game of hockey if you think about it. Normally, if someone rams you into a wall that would be an assault by itself, but given that you're on a hockey rink and hitting is part of the rules of the game, then it's agreed you've consented to being hit in that fashion.

Fighting itself is slightly different, since it is technically against the rules of hockey. But given that it's only technically against the rules (if you think about it, 5 minutes for fighting is an incredibly light punishment for something that would get you in way more trouble in other circumstances), and that since both combatants have agreed to have the fight in hockey, the issue of consent is still engaged.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

OK, so I'm a Canadian lawyer - though obviously that means I'm qualified in Canada (Alberta) and not the UK. At this sort of level Canadian criminal law is very similar to UK criminal law (we inherited the same law).

So the grounds to arrest are that police must have "reasonable and probable grounds" to believe an offence was committed. So if UK police are arresting the person responsible (curious the OP's article doesn't mention the name, although it's even listed on Johnson's Wiki page) they have more than just a suspicion that a crime was committed.

So the allegation is manslaughter. In order for the Crown to prove manslaughter, the Crown has to prove that the Accused person intended to commit the act - that is the Accused intended to kick or strike Johnson with his skate. If it was a pure accident then no charge is warranted.

But what the Crown doesn't need to prove is an intent to kill. If there is an intent to kill that is murder, not manslaughter. It sadly happens way more often than you think - someone punches another person in the face, they fall down, hit their head, get a brain bleed (or whatever) and die. That's manslaughter.

There is definitely no exception or exclusion to things that happen on ice during a hockey game. There are certainly examples of charges being laid in the past for on-ice incidents - the Todd Bertuzzi - Steve Moore example is perhaps the most famous, but certainly not the only one.

That being said you have to remember the burden of proof. That is - the Crown must prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case the sequence is captured on video, so the facts themselves are not in question. In law, we call that the actus reus. The question for any judge however is one of mens rea - what was the Accused's intent or mindset? Did he have a "guilty mind"?

I haven't seen the video. Quite frankly, I don't want to see the video. I've seen enough shitty things in my job I don't need to seek out more. But that's going to be the question - did the Accused intend to kick Johnson with his skate? And in particular - can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kick Johnson with his skate?

Thank you for this. Intent here does matter. And the drunk driving examples people keep reciting are bad. Drunk driving is already criminal, so when you kill someone while doing it, it's manslaughter due to criminal negligence. There's no comparison to this situation.

My take is...it's likely that Petgrave intended to trip or impede Johnson with his leg and a horrific outcome ensued.. I think it's extremely unlikely he intended to kick him in the throat/neck/head area with a skate blade to do any kind of harm.


I can only imagine how hard most lawyers would be laughing reading some of the replies in here.

 

[Hank Plank]

The question is "did you intend to throw the hammer at you". If you did, then you are responsible for the consequences of your action.

Even if you intended to throw the hammer 'in my general direction', but didn't intend to hit me in the head - if you intended to throw the hammer at me then you're still guilty.

The distinction is between "did you intend to throw the hammer" and "did the hammer slip out of your hand by accident". If it slipped out of your hand by accident, then no crime has been committed, even if it does hit me in the head.

I fully understand what you're saying now, thanks (no sarcasm).

 

[ScottishCanuck]

Every time someone says nuh uh, they should just look at the footage if they can stomach it. It was clear even with the quality of the video that his skate came up in a chopping manner, not once but twice, to try to injure him. I'm sure they saw this and more and was the deciding factor. Also Petgrave receiving a standing ovation is unbelievable. What an outrage that is.

Bollocks. I’ve seen it frame by frame, and you can see 1) contact with the other player’s skate and 2) him completely losing an edge afterwards as he’s going into contact.

All at what? 20mph?

So no, it really isn’t “clear”.

 

[MotorHockey]

This is like running red lights all the time and then someone ends up dying because of it. I used to know a guy who would constantly run red lights, he would do it as safe as possible only doing it when he knew no one was coming or he would do it early in the mornings when it was not populated, but what if that one day came where a car came screaming through and you decided to go out in front of it and the guy ended up dying, we can apply the same logic here. Petgrave was rolling the dice with his hits until the planets lined up and he got someone killed, there is no mystery here. Someone else said this, but I might even believe the fact that he might have been a terrible skater which didn't help, but saying you're a terrible driver isn't an excuse either when you end up killing someone.

 

[JaegerDice]

Killing a man was the accidental part. I don't believe kicking his leg out was an accident.

So, when you kick your leg out and someone dies accidentally from that, that''s manslaughter. Seems like an okay arrest to me.

Sums it up nicely.

Im not sure they get a conviction, but its certainly worth the investigation. Playing sports should not and cannot grant immunity for killings.