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

[Yukon Joe]

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.

With lots of love and respect, you're just wrong.

If he intended to kick Johnson and that caused his death, that's manslaughter.

If he kicked Johnson and intended to kill him, that's second degree murder. That would ordinarily be hard to prove on these facts, but maybe he was yelling "Die die die!" as he kicked him, or he stomped on him repeatedly with his skate blade as Johnson was on the ground bleeding.

First degree murder has to combine both intent and be planned and pre-meditated. In this case - it would have to be something like he intended to kick Johnson, and police found that he posted online before the game about how he meant to kill Johnson during the game.

First degree murder is hard to prove.

 

[AndreRoy]

How about we ask this differently - you good with assault charges for every headshot that happens in the NHL, no matter how circumstantial?

There’s a difference between something violating the rules of a sport and it rising to the level of a criminal act.

To use your example, hitting is a part of hockey. Hitting someone in the head is against the rules and will lead to a penalty/suspension, but in a fast-paced sport where hitting is legal contact to the head is inevitable and represents an obvious risk that is accepted by those who chose to participate. So as long as that contact occurs during the normal course of play and via a reasonable hockey action it would be absurd to argue for criminal charges.

Now if it’s ten seconds after the whistle, everyone is skating around slowly, and it’s clear to any reasonable person that play has stopped, and a player suddenly skates up to another with speed and gives him a blindside forearm shiver to the head? That might well constitute assault.

Or for a different example that is more relevant to the case under discussion, high sticking is a penalty, but an accidental high stick that occurs during the course of play isn’t a criminal act. An intentional two-handed baseball swing into somebody’s head clearly is. Here the distinction is made not on timing but rather on the latter being an intentional action that is both grossly reckless and well outside the accepted bounds of sporting activity. It matters not if the swinger only intended to hit his opponent on the torso and never meant for his stick to go as high as it did.

So is intentionally kicking an opponent with one’s skate an accepted part of hockey? Clearly it is not. So the question then is did it happen accidentally or was the kick intentional, even if the location and outcome weren’t? If the latter then that would indeed be a criminal act.

 

[Chips]

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.

Boxers literally been punched to death.


It’s an inherent risk of playing a game with foot knives. Or racers getting into a crash because someone tried to recklessly (everything about that sport is reckless) overtake, etc.


It’s very much a shit happens incident, anyone facing some sort of liability should be the leagues for not having neck protection mandatory when it’s available. Players are thinking about so much so fast, nobody except in hindsight is thinking “oh yea his neck will get cut”


I hadn’t read the whole thread because this conversation always gets nasty, but it’s important to point out if someone missed it that being arrested in the UK legal system isn’t quite the same thing as in the US.


There’s still a distinct possibility he won’t be charged

 

[Yukon Joe]

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

The only thing worse than your fate being in the hands of 12 members of a jury, is having your fate in the hands of a single judge...

 

[nowhereman]

Why do you think Johnsons teammates have stood behind and supported the accused and it being a complete freak accident if it were so clear it was malicious? I assume they also play competitive hockey?

I do not believe Petgrave intended the result and so I'm not surprised that Johnson's teammates have chosen to support him, especially when he's likely devastated by what happened.

But, personally, I'm not going to put much stock into their position on the matter. His teammates aren't going to accuse Petgrave of malice (and I believe there's a difference between malice and being reckless) and human memory is fallible at the best of times, so them seeing the incident at full speed is largely inconsequential. The best record of this situation is the video, which can be slowed down frame-by-frame, and it shows a play so outside of the ordinary that it is completely rational to question what Petgrave was trying to do.

And several ex-NHLers have come out and questioned calling this a "freak accident" (again, stating that the result was not intentional).

 

[GindyDraws]

A mod warning is showing up for this innit?

 

[ThisIsMyAlibi]

About time. He didn’t intend to kill, but he intended to kick. Unintended consequences still lead to consequences.

 

[Yukon Joe]

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

Speaking as a lawyer, the only thing I would laugh about are the replies that say how the outcome is easy or obvious.

These issues are HARD. The law is not at all obvious. People can definitely see the same piece of video and come to different conclusions.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

This does not surprise me all that much. Note that if you merely intend to punch someone and they fall in a bad way and then die, it would also not be called an 'accident' even if there was no intent to kill, only intent to harm.

 

[amnesiac]

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.

Getting into a fight, giving a highstick, slash, knee etc is not risking anyones life to a high degree or else they would be outlawed immediately. Brining your skate up high is high risk, which is why we never see it.

because there is no evidence of an "external force" causing his skate to come up that high, it is argued that he did so on his own volition. He maybe didnt mean to bring it up THAT high, but it was high (and reckless/dangerous) regardless, and he shouldve known that there is a big risk involved in what he did or tied to do.

 

[dirtydanglez]

has it been confirmed that it's the hockey player who made the hit that is charged with manslaughter and it's not someone in a management role or health and safety role that was negligent in their duty?

 

[Dessloch]

Because he's their teammate? Again, I do not believe Petgrave intended the result and so I'm not surprised that his teammates have chosen to support him, especially when he's likely devastated by what happened.

But, personally, I'm not going to put much stock into their position on the matter. His teammates aren't going to accuse him of malice (and I believe there's a difference between malice and being reckless) and human memory is fallible at the best of times, so them seeing the incident at full speed is largely inconsequential. The best record of this situation is the video, which can be slowed down frame-by-frame, and it shows a play so outside of the ordinary that it is completely rational to question what Petgrave was trying to do.

And several ex-NHLers have come out and questioned calling this a "freak accident" (again, stating that the result was not intentional).

Its the killed Johnsons teammates that are defending the accused Petgrave, not the other way around.

How can we have 100s of people saying its CLEAR CUT that he was trying make a karate kick at him when Johnsons teammates thinks the opposite? What makes the HF-experts opinion more valid that Johnsons teammates?

Adam Johnson's teammates defend Matt Petgrave amid social media backlash: 'We stand behind him'

Members of the Nottingham Panthers are supporting Matt Petgrave in the wake of the Adam Johnson tragedy.

sports.yahoo.com

Adam Johnson’s teammates ‘wholeheartedly stand' with Matt Petgrave​

Victor Bjorkung, another member of the Panthers, echoed those sentiments in a Swedish interview with Expressen.

“What Matt has experienced is unimaginable,” Bjorkung said, via a Google translation. “I don't understand how some people can behave, it's inhuman. I have texted him and expressed how I feel about everything and I support him. No one in our team thinks it's his fault, quite the opposite. We stand behind him.”

Bjorkung said anyone who thinks Petgrave's actions were intentional "can go to hell."

"It's so insane that people think it's deliberate," Bjorkung said. "Check the video, then you will see that it is an accident. Two skates collide right before, it goes so damn fast. There is no chance it is deliberate.

"What I can say to those who believe otherwise is to listen to the people who were there and those who saw in real time. I was a couple of meters away, so if anyone experienced it as it really was, it was me."

 

[Northerner]

I am with the Johnson family so whatever they decide i'll agree with that. The guy is f***ed for the rest of his life over this so even if he doesn't go to jail but has to pay a huge fine to the family and they are fine with that then that's justice enough.

Although nothing is enough for the loss of a loved one.

The Johnson family want a full investigation so I have to believe they are glad he was arrested. Johnson's aunt said the family "have never seen a move like that" on ice before so they too believe it was a goon move and intentional

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Speaking as a lawyer, the only thing I would laugh about are the replies that say how the outcome is easy or obvious.

These issues are HARD. The law is not at all obvious. People can definitely see the same piece of video and come to different conclusions.

That’s more or less my point too. Lots of people saying it’s definitely this or that.. on top of using bad examples

 

[dirtydanglez]

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.

if it was done intentionally and not just a side effect of a hockey play yes.

 

[AndreRoy]

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?

Spot on, with one critical exception. The video I’ve seen (which thankfully stops before Petgrave’s skate makes contact with Johnson’s neck - I’ve no desire to watch that happen) is of poor quality, and it is unclear whether or not another player’s skate clips Petgrave’s as their paths cross. Based on Petgrave’s movement both before and after that point it does not look to me as though contact was made, but the video quality is poor enough that it would be difficult to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt the contention that contact did occur and that it was being thrown off-balance by said contact that caused Petgrave’s foot to rise. Again, I don’t buy it, but barring more conclusive footage it could easily suffice to induce reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury. So that’s one key fact that I do believe will be in question if this thing goes to trial.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Getting into a fight, giving a highstick, slash, knee etc is not risking anyones life to a high degree or they would be outlawed immediately. Brining your skate up high is high risk, which is why we never see it.

because there is no evidence of an "external force" causing his skate to come up that high, it is argued that he did so on his own volition. He maybe didnt mean to bring it up THAT high, but it was high regardless, and he shouldve known that there is a big risk involved in what he did or tied to do.

Your mistake is focusing on the action itself (again, with lots of respect and love). It's not the fact something is a slash, or a high stick, in and of itself that makes something illegal.

It's an issue of consent.

If you play the game of hockey, you're consenting to the fact that a certain level of physical force is going to be used. Even though a slash or a high stick is against the rules of hockey, it's part of the risk you assume, generally speaking.

But let's say I slash you way after the play is over - so there's no doubt it's no longer part of the game itself. Let's further say that you fall down, hit your head, get a hematoma and die. I'm now guilty of manslaughter, because you certainly didn't consent to getting slashed outside of the game of hockey. But if the same thing happened during the course of the game itself I doubt there would be charges.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

That’s more or less my point too. Lots of people saying it’s definitely this or that.. on top of using bad examples

It's worth a detailed investigation. And that's what's happening. Public statements of support made by teammates, fans etc. are meaningless. The facts need to be established based on the evidence and testimony.

 

[Barnum]

I watched the video 10 times and he was reckless - the reason for manslaughter and not murder. There was no intent to hit him with his skate.

UK law is simple in this regard.

Murder = with intent or premeditation
Manslaughter = with no intent

That’s it.

It’s not like the US or certain states with different degrees of murder or classifications for murder/manslaughter.

 

[66-30-33]

The Johnson family want a full investigation so I have to believe they are glad he was arrested. Johnson's aunt said the family "have never seen a move like that" on ice before so they too believe it was a goon move and intentional

Well, I am with Johnsons family in whatever they decide for their justice. I think a person even if it was an accident (although he meant to hit him in some type of way) should be responcible for their actions and face the consequences. So whatever Johnsons family wants I'll support. I don't support Petgrave, I know he didn't mean to end AJ's life but it happened and he will have to live with that for the rest of his life.

 

[Maninthebox87]

An unfortunate situation all around. I know alot of people are saying that the player in question “kicked his leg out”. I wonder what the talent level is of guys playing in that league. Not sure if he wasn’t a good skater or knew what to do with his skates when he fell. I would assume this is something they would have learned in pee wee hockey similar to closing your hand when you fall so no fingers are vulnerable.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Spot on, with one critical exception. The video I’ve seen (which thankfully stops before Petgrave’s skate makes contact with Johnson’s neck - I’ve no desire to watch that happen) is of poor quality, and it is unclear whether or not another player’s skate clips Petgrave’s as their paths cross. Based on Petgrave’s movement both before and after that point it does not look to me as though contact was made, but the video quality is poor enough that it would be difficult to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt the contention that contact did occur and that it was being thrown off-balance by said contact that caused Petgrave’s foot to rise. Again, I don’t buy it, but barring more conclusive footage it could easily suffice to induce reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury. So that’s one key fact that I do believe will be in question if this thing goes to trial.

The quality of the footage is quite poor, hopefully that is due to the quality of the stream, not the actual footage of the incident. I imagine police and CPS have access to the 'raw footage' taken, so hopefully they have a better view of it than the international public.

 

[HTFN]

I finally had to stomach up and watch the video: it's really, really bad, but I don't see intent to do anything there. He's going fast and gets stopped by contact with another guy and eats shit, I don't see a deliberate kick anywhere in there.

 

[Gillings]

I haven't, and won't, watch it the clip. I'd heard the other player was perhaps somewhat careless, but that it was a completely accidental play. To charge this player with manslaughter would be akin Chris Therien having been charged if the slap shot he took that struck Trent McCleary in the throat had killed him (granted it would have had Dr. Mulder not been so proactive and performed the tracheostomy in the tunnel to the locker room). This seems like an overreach to me.

Just no, a guy going down to block a shot and getting the shot in the throat is not even remotely manslaughter. There are risks on the ice that are covered by lawyers and insurance.

The case of Johnson.. petgrave was not hipped checked resulting in his skates going in the air and clipping someone, he wasn’t even checked, he left his skates with the intention to kick Johnson and both of his skates made contact directly in the neck just like you’d see in wrestling.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Spot on, with one critical exception. The video I’ve seen (which thankfully stops before Petgrave’s skate makes contact with Johnson’s neck - I’ve no desire to watch that happen) is of poor quality, and it is unclear whether or not another player’s skate clips Petgrave’s as their paths cross. Based on Petgrave’s movement both before and after that point it does not look to me as though contact was made, but the video quality is poor enough that it would be difficult to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt the contention that contact did occur and that it was being thrown off-balance by said contact that caused Petgrave’s foot to rise. Again, I don’t buy it, but barring more conclusive footage it could easily suffice to induce reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury. So that’s one key fact that I do believe will be in question if this thing goes to trial.

So like you I have not seen the video - I have chosen not to see any of it.

There is always a huge distinction between what the law is, and what can be proven in court. I've focused on what the law is, but I have stayed away from trying to draw conclusions about what happened based on a video I haven't seen.