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

[ITM]

What's your point? How are any of the incidents you listed comparable to this one?

The intent and recklessness in the ones you listed are simply much more evident....

Oof. I don’t know man. I’ve never seen a play like this. It boggles the mind that there’s a question as to intent.

Edited to say: To injure.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Nobody who says there was intent has shown what in the video proves it. "I've never seen this before" means nothing.

 

[JadedLeaf]

There are three levels of decisoin making.

1. It's up to police whether to lay a charge.
2. It's up to the Prosecutors (in this case the UK's Crown Prosecution Service) whether to prosecute the charge; and
3. It's up the judge or jury whether to convict or not

I totally agree these are not easy questions to answer.



So first of all you just have to take my word I'm a lawyer. Other than the fact I hope I'm making sense I'm offering no other proof of that.

But second of all - it's a message board. Have at it.

Oh I wasn't being sarcastic at all. I thought it was kind of funny someone was arguing the definition of something like that with you is all. I mean, i guess you could be fooling us but you're doing a hell of a job if you are hah.

 

[jmwc95]

A lot more nuance to this than that. Can't compare hockey to driving a car.

If a guy crosschecks a guys head into the ice while down and he suffers a freak accident and dies, is the guy who cross checked deserve to get arrested?

It was a freak accident.

Yes, of course he does.

 

[Hank Plank]

The wheels of justice turning. People saying this guy Petgrave the victim, why? He killed someone directly, whether it was an accident or not who knows but we don't feel sorry for people who stab people in the throat with knives and kill people

Why? Because crying victim works. I'm being attacked therefore what I did doesn't matter why do you think people fake crimes against themselves.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Oof. I don’t know man. I’ve never seen a play like this. It boggles the mind that there’s a question as to intent.

Edited to say: To injure.

If you think that grainy video clearly shows that Petgrave kicking him in the throat area was anywhere close to as willful and intended as Bertuzzi sucker punching Moore or Brashear swinging his stick like a weapon toward Brashear, you might as well not reply back honestly....it's not worth engaging at that point.

 

[Atoyot]

Man, a lot of people don't understand what manslaughter is.

 

[Hank Plank]

If you think that grainy video clearly shows that Petgrave kicking him in the throat area was anywhere close to as willful and intended as Bertuzzi sucker punching Moore or Brashear swinging his stick like a weapon toward Brashear, you might as well not reply back honestly....it's not worth engaging at that point.

How can you determined intent from a grainy video? Seems like you're making assumptions.

 

[Albatros]

Not strictly true. For a start there isn’t UK law, it’s English Law (Scotland has its own distinct legal system).

Though unlike Scotland, England does not have its own independent legislature.

 

[AndreRoy]

The difficult part is determining whether he "attempted to kick" or "attempted to trip". Sticking out your leg to get a piece of someone trying to get past you doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to kick them.

Now obviously "tripping" is going to be a hard sell considering the height where Petgrave's skate ended up, but there's where the argument of whether or not there was contact with that other player comes in, and how much that affected the trajectory of where the leg was originally aimed versus where it ended up going.

That’s a valid point as well. If Petgrave intended to make contact with his blade then it would be criminal even if he didn’t mean to kill Johnson, but a trip or even a knee-to-knee would fall within the range of contact that hockey players consent to when they play the sport, and attempting such a play would not usually be considered criminal even if it turns out badly. And it’s yet another reason why getting a conviction may be difficult.

That said, it also gets into a key distinction that many people don’t think about. The level of proof required to convict in criminal cases (in America, though in Canada and the UK the phrasing is similar) is “beyond a reasonable doubt” - it is not “beyond any possible doubt.” The jury could well conclude that the idea that Petgrave was trying to trip Johnson rather than kick him is not a reasonable one based on how Petgrave was moving, where his skate ended up, etc.

IMO it again comes back to the possibility of contact throwing Petgrave off-balance: if that can’t be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt then it’s also likely reasonable that a leg extended with the intention of tripping Johnson may have risen higher than intended. On the other hand if Petgrave’s skating was unimpeded then the argument that he was going for a trip probably becomes unreasonable.

 

[ITM]

If you think that grainy video clearly shows that Petgrave kicking him in the throat area was anywhere close to as willful and intended as Bertuzzi sucker punching Moore or Brashear swinging his stick like a weapon toward Brashear, you might as well not reply back honestly....it's not worth engaging at that point.

Where did I make the comparison to any other hit?

My comment is isolated to Petgrave’s action alone. And it stands, I have never seen an action like that ever. That observation in isolation says nothing about degrees of intent compared to other incidents.
After you’ve made the appropriate adjustments in your reply to me, you can then address the topic of distinguishing between worthy and unworthy replies.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Where did I make the comparison to any other hit?

My comment is isolated to Petgrave’s action alone. And it stands, I have never seen an action like that ever. That observation in isolation says nothing about degrees of intent compared to other incidents.
After you’ve made the appropriate adjustments in your reply to me, you can then address the topic of distinguishing between worthy and unworthy replies.

You quoted me after I quoted another poster who did.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

The wheels of justice turning. People saying this guy Petgrave the victim, why?

If you think it was an accident, then charging/trying/potentially incarcerating him does nothing- it is unjust.

 

[ORRFForever]

As I said earlier, he was trying to do a "Double Dion" and (hopefully) get famous. He never thought about the consequences. He was reckless. A man is dead.

Manslaughter is the correct charge.

 

[WhataKnight]

I’m not going to make a “who’s actually played hockey” post half-cocked.

That said, the Murphy’s Law of consequence is more intimately known to those who have gone over 20mph/32kph on skates, a bike, skis, etc. To say that flailing - even haphazardly - to find balance doesn’t happen is disingenuous. A number of “skates up & out” instances have already been posted.

As much as a manslaughter charge may fit here, the amounts of “kill Matt Petgrave” in this thread make me think of the first Naked Gun movie.


Not that THAT has been said……dude has to explain where the impetus to go hips-high was when he did it.

 

[TK 421]

This guy should never play pro hockey again and he should have repercussions beyond feeling bad about it so I'm glad they arrested him even if it doesn't end in jail time.

I think there's a real disconnect between the people who have actually watched the clip and those who haven't. I held off watching the clip for the same reason many did, it was sure to be extremely hard to watch and I believe many of us simply didn't want to associate such a terrible thing with the sport we love. I've noticed some of those who claim to have not seen the footage are just assuming it was an accident because why the heck would it be intentional. Then you have those of us who have watched it and are pissed that idiot was so reckless. He also has a history of suspensions and fines for egregious acts so we're talking about a guy who would be considered a repeat offender and thus is entitled to a hell of a lot less leeway.

Did he intend to kill Johnson? I seriously doubt it but his idiocy caused a death and he should have consequences for it. One of those is that he should never again be allowed to play professionally.

 

[Statto]

Search for the Leveson report (around 2012). It’s in there…

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.

Worth noting Roger Hunt was charged in the early 90’s for coming off the bench after the whistle and blindside Lee Odelein (bother of Lyle) in a UK game (I was there). He appeared to be out as he hit the ice, Hunt climbed onto him and threw more punches. Odelein was badly hurt, spending significant time in hospital. The worst thing I ever saw at a game. Hunt left the country before trial but eventually returned (some years later) and I believe pled the charges down. Inexplicably his life uk ban was rescinded. He avoided a jury seeing the video, which I have access to, if it’d gone to trial I think he’d have seen time in jail.

Anyway, my point being that UK law doesn’t care if it’s sport. A crime is a crime. There are examples of professional footballers being prosecuted for on field violence also.

 

[jmwc95]

"Except your leg would not be moving in a kung-fu motion when you lose balance. At best your leg would reach hip level before going down."

View attachment 768093

According to you, Olli Jokinen is an attempted murderer, or at least a manslaughterer.

His leg didn’t swing with enough force to murder a guy, so no.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

I don't know why we keep equating this to these driving analogies.

As for the tripping point, let's use common sense. Anyone attempting to trip an opponent isn't trying to kick them. That's like saying trying to stick lift someone and the stick rides up and smashes them in the eye is also the equivalent of attempting to spear someone in the eye.

We see players stick out their leg all the time to try and impede an opponent. It's a common hockey play, even if against the rules. Those aren't all attempts to kick an opponent. So why would we automatically label what Petgrave did as attempting to kick rather than attempting to trip (if it's believe that he was just trying to get a piece of Johnson but him making contact with the other player caused the leg to go up way higher).

I guarantee if someone trips someone into the boards and that person dies there will be charges. That's the difference and that's why the driving analogy is relevant. I'm guessing you've done a thousand things while driving that *could* have killed someone and hopefully you're lucky enough it's never happened (same with me BTW). Once you do kill someone for those same reasons it becomes criminal. That's the way it works. You take your chances being careless or reckless in life and 99.999% of the time you get lucky. Once in awhile someone gets unlucky and there are criminal charges every single time.

What's your point? How are any of the incidents you listed comparable to this one?

The intent and recklessness in the ones you listed are simply much more evident....

People were talking about tripping and stuff that's just part of the game. I didn't even mention the topic of this thread in that post. I was pondering when sports cross the line into criminality.

 

[Lou Sassole]

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.

If you haven't watched the video, you really can't make an informed judgment. There's plenty of videos that only show the incident, no aftermath. I believed the same thing you did, and a friend asked me to watch just the incident because it didn't look right. It completely changed my opinion. He clearly threw his leg out and up, in a way I've never seen in 30+ years of watching hockey. It was unbelievably reckless, and not some "freak accident".

 

[Cremebrulee]

There is clearer footage of the incident that hasn’t been released to the public. Obviously the police have to carry out an investigation and arresting him his part of that.

 

[ecemleafs]

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.

those situations arent even close. i just watched the video. id be a little uncomfortable convicting someone of manslaughter for an ice play, but ive never seen someone kick their skate out like that in a hockey game before. a slapshot happens dozens of times every night.

 

[eramosat]

Man. I think we were all so much better off when we didn't have this anonymous and impersonal way of interacting with everyone, and every opinion, in the entire world, whenever we liked, and however we liked. With zero consequences and in full view of everyone and anyone that cared to listen in.

Gonna take some time to adjust to this way of being. Generational time.

 

[Volica]

I’m sort of torn on this.

I think his intention was to impede Johnson, interfere with his movement. His skate coming up and essentially slicing him like an 80’s slasher film was of course not what he was trying to accomplish.

That said, with him trying to interfere, and it killing him; it sort of does mean manslaughter… like by definition.

Petegrave is also a psychopath on the ice. It’d be like if Matt Cooke killed someone.

 

[WhataKnight]

Man. I think we were all so much better off when we didn't have this anonymous and impersonal way of interacting with everyone, and every opinion, in the entire world, whenever we liked, and however we liked. With zero consequences and in full view of everyone and anyone that cared to listen in.

Gonna take some time to adjust to this way of being. Generational time.

Too much noise, any way you look at it.

I’m not looking to rush to Petgrave’s defense, but others sound as though they’ve found interesting reasons to suggest burying him under a prison is the only way to proceed.

The play is sus as hell, but pulling deliberate malice out of that when one can find 10 instances of high-skates images in this thread alone doesn’t sit right.