No charges over Adam Johnson death

[tarheelhockey]

Deliberate raising of the leg - maybe? Deliberate with the intent of slicing a players neck, no. Deliberate on a level needed to PROVE involuntary manslaughter, no. The burden of proof to prove involuntary manslaughter in court is very high. It's a very high bar to get over to get a conviction. This one would be a slam-dunk case for the defense. Prosecutors don't waste their time with cases they know they can't win.

"well I think this is what he did and why" posting on the internet doesn't mean shit in reality. No matter how "sure" you are.

I think we all (or most) understand that

- this was not an intentional act of murder
- this was a deliberate reckless act resulting in death
- the burden of proof is too high to ensure a conviction, thus charges will not be brought

A lot of what you’re experiencing here isn’t people being ignorant. It’s people observing that justice was not served.

 

[CaliSabresfan24]

I think we all (or most) understand that

- this was not an intentional act of murder
- this was a deliberate reckless act resulting in death
- the burden of proof is too high to ensure a conviction, thus charges will not be brought

A lot of what you’re experiencing here isn’t people being ignorant. It’s people observing that justice was not served.

 

[Beerz]

A lot of people's focus is too narrow here.

Even if you think there's any actual merit to a charge like Invol Man., and that the charges would hold up and stick, and then that a jury will convict after a trial ensues......

What are you ultimately hoping for or trying to resolve? I'm assuming Petgrave has no criminal history. He probably wouldn't even serve time if convicted of this. If so, you'd think it would be mimimal like months rather than years, if anything.

Doubt the Johnson's get any closure from that. And you aren't solving a problem or detering future behavior of players hockey.

Basically the case and argument is extremely light at best and punishing Petgrave criminally doesn't really solve or do anything for anybody.

I don't think he should be allowed to play in the EIHL again and if I was the commissioner of another pro/semi-pro league I don't think I would let him play either. Who knows if he even wants to play hockey anymore. There's a lot of dehumanizing comments involving him as if he isn't traumatized and struggling himself from this incident (even if you think he did something wrong).

Personally I would like to see him serve anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. But you are right..there is a good possibility he wouldn't serve any time. Doesn't matter.. he would get probation .. community service..fines ect. He should be punished for his reckless acts. A lot of murderers are no real threat to reoffend. We could just say don't let that cop be a cop anymore and he won't kill an innocent person again..but we shouldn't do that. They should be punished for their recklessness/negligence.

 

[Fatass]

You must be talking about a different video. The one I am speaking about is Petgrave in a Junior game years ago.

Video posted in this thread: post 32.

 

[SEALBound]

Your the one that thinks he had to have intent of slicing his neck... Everything you are spouting is absolute bullshit.

It's funny that you think this reply somehow makes you right. Again, you have no clue as to what is going on here legally.

There doesn't have to be SOME level of intent. In the UK it's either an "unlawful act" or "gross negligence". My initial post thoroughly explains why neither of those can or will be met. Unlawful act manslaughter does require an unlawful act that was dangerous and caused the death. The act must be intentional, and a reasonable person would recognize it as risky. You will never be able to prove, beyond a doubt, that Petgrave raised his leg with the sole intent on slicing his neck or causing great bodily harm. Gross negligence requires a "duty of care breach" where is only arises out of gross negligent conduct. Again, I explained in my large post why you would never get there.

Again - "well I just think that..." is not a foundation for manslaughter. You have literally NO CLUE what you are talking about.

 

[toddkaz]

Insane on a hockey forum there are so many people who think he should be charged.

I agree, how dare others have their own opinions.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

So it wasn't an accident? No need to be snippy, just asking and having civil discussion.

Nah, I can tell you're not interested in being "civil" or sincere (i.e 'So it wasn't an accident') so i don't care to continue going back and forth with you. Have a good night....

I would like to think that if there was a guy in my league who had a habit of deliberately mule-kicking people, and he ended up kicking me in the throat and killing me, that at least my government would dignify me in death by having my back instead of my murderer’s.

You obviously have strong views on this, and you have to remember there's ~50% of people who see it the other way. They certainly looked at the case a long time and obviously nothing came of it. If they had other clips from the EIHL of him doing this you'd think they'd have been unearthed and could have possibly been used to show a pattern and be a different case. etc.

Personally I would like to see him serve anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. But you are right..there is a good possibility he wouldn't serve any time. Doesn't matter.. he would get probation .. community service..fines ect. He should be punished for his reckless acts. A lot of murderers are no real threat to reoffend. We could just say don't let that cop be a cop anymore and he won't kill an innocent person again..but we shouldn't do that. They should be punished for their recklessness/negligence.

I don't agree but I don't see it as unreasonable to have that view. I don't think he should play professional hockey ever again. But I also don't think he should have a manslaughter conviction on his record either. That would severely impact his ability to work in non-hockey professions and get things like housing and other basic services etc.

And again, the whole narrowing viewpoint on criminality has really dehumanized this whole incident. Unless you think this guy is a flatout psychopath, he's absolutely traumatized and somewhat of a victim himself in this (I know it sounds weird but it's true) There's stress and damage done simply by being arrested and having potential criminal charges linger over your head for a couple years.

 

[Beerz]

It's funny that you think this reply somehow makes you right. Again, you have no clue as to what is going on here legally.

There doesn't have to be SOME level of intent. In the UK it's either an "unlawful act" or "gross negligence". My initial post thoroughly explains why neither of those can or will be met. Unlawful act manslaughter does require an unlawful act that was dangerous and caused the death. The act must be intentional, and a reasonable person would recognize it as risky. You will never be able to prove, beyond a doubt, that Petgrave raised his leg with the sole intent on slicing his neck or causing great bodily harm. Gross negligence requires a "duty of care breach" where is only arises out of gross negligent conduct. Again, I explained in my large post why you would never get there.

Again - "well I just think that..." is not a foundation for manslaughter. You have literally NO CLUE what you are talking about.

Brother you do not have to prove Petgrave raised his leg with the sole purpose of slicing Johnsons neck.

With the past video of Petgraves actions it would be easy to prove that this is an intentional act of swinging his leg out and high in order to impede a player..and it could be easily shown that this is not an accepted norm in the game because I have literally never seen any other player do this type of move except Petgrave himself.


The written words are "An unlawful act OR a dangerous act" not "AND".

 

[SEALBound]

I think we all (or most) understand that

- this was not an intentional act of murder
- this was a deliberate reckless act resulting in death
- the burden of proof is too high to ensure a conviction, thus charges will not be brought

A lot of what you’re experiencing here isn’t people being ignorant. It’s people observing that justice was not served.

Actually - okay. I am willing to meet you in the middle here and agree with that.

The "justice not served" part is tough though because WAY too frequently online, people want to see the "eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth" style of justice because there is zero impact to their lives if it occurs/does not occur outside of a moment of sadness or a fleeting moment of "hehehe, got him!"

But I do get that frustration of “justice wasn’t served”. At the same time, convicting Petgrave and imprisoning him (as some have suggested) may not deliver true justice either, or least a level of "justice" that is free from unintended consequences. Given hockey’s inherent risks and the accidental nature of the incident, punishing Petgrave could unfairly penalize him for a tragic outcome. It would also set a dangerous precedent, potentially criminalizing high-risk plays inherent to the sport, which could stifle and deter players from engaging fully in a fast-paced, physical style of play, which ultimately leads to a worse on-ice product. Again, I view this through the lens of the fact that this was such a rare, unlikely event with a terrible outcome, making rooting for him to go to jail the best overall form of justice. You lose two lives instead of one.

I would suggest that justice might better lie in safety reforms like mandatory neck guards, community healing, or hell even a civil case against Petgrave where he can be held accountable - just not criminally.

 

[Beerz]

Nah, I can tell you're not interested in being "civil" or sincere (i.e 'So it wasn't an accident') so i don't care to continue going back and forth with you. Have a good night....



You obviously have strong views on this, and you have to remember there's ~50% of people who see it the other way. They certainly looked at the case a long time and obviously nothing came of it. If they had other clips from the EIHL of him doing this you'd think they'd have been unearthed and could have possibly been used to show a pattern and be a different case. etc.




I don't agree but I don't see it as unreasonable to have that view. I don't think he should play professional hockey ever again. But I also don't think he should have a manslaughter conviction on his record either. That would severely impact his ability to work in non-hockey professions and get things like housing and other basic services etc.

And again, the whole narrowing viewpoint on criminality has really dehumanized this whole incident. Unless you think this guy is a flatout psychopath, he's absolutely traumatized and somewhat of a victim himself in this (I know it sounds weird but it's true) There's stress and damage done simply by being arrested and having potential criminal charges linger over your head for a couple years.

I absolutely do not think he intended to harm Johnson with his skate at all. I believe he intended to stop Johnsons progress by any means necessary. I also believe a man that has played the game his entire life knows for a fact how dangerous it is when a skate comes up off the ice wildly whether intentional or unintentional..and to do it intentionally is reckless. I do not see him as a victim..I think that is preposterous. I don't care how hard it would be for him to gain employment or housing. His recklessness caused the death of someone.

His actions on the ice make him a scumbag ..but it isn't anything he can't come back from.

He deserves to be punished.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Am I the only not-blind person who sees Petgrave get clipped by the other opposing player right before he hits Johnson

 

[Jared Grayden]

I absolutely do not think he intended to harm Johnson with his skate at all. I believe he intended to stop Johnsons progress by any means necessary. I also believe a man that has played the game his entire life knows for a fact how dangerous it is when a skate comes up off the ice wildly whether intentional or unintentional..and to do it intentionally is reckless. I do not see him as a victim..I think that is preposterous. I don't care how hard it would be for him to gain employment or housing. His recklessness caused the death of someone.

His actions on the ice make him a scumbag ..but it isn't anything he can't come back from.

He deserves to be punished.

How do you think this would go down if Petgrave did this to a Russian in the KHL?

 

[Beerz]

How do you think this would go down if Petgrave did this to a Russian in the KHL?

Gulags for life

 

[Jared Grayden]

Gulags for life

I think that's the outcome if he did it to a non-Russian. If it were a Russian it would be "fatal food poisoning" while awaiting trial.

 

[SEALBound]

Brother you do not have to prove Petgrave raised his leg with the sole purpose of slicing Johnsons neck.

With the past video of Petgraves actions it would be easy to prove that this is an intentional act of swinging his leg out and high in order to impede a player..and it could be easily shown that this is not an accepted norm in the game because I have literally never seen any other player do this type of move except Petgrave himself.


The written words are "An unlawful act OR a dangerous act" not "AND".

Dude...no. You are wrong on this or at the very least and most polite..."confused". You’re way off base claiming it’s “easy” to prove Petgrave’s high skate swing was intentional. "Well I just think that..." is not "well this should be easy to prove legally".

Your “unlawful act OR dangerous act” argument is flat-out wrong. The UK law requires both for unlawful act manslaughter, not one or the other, so you’re misreading the legal standard. Sure, if videos show Petgrave consistently swinging his leg high in a way no other player does, that might help a civil negligence lawsuit, where the bar’s lower. But you’re assuming members of a jury who likely do not play hockey will see the same thing you do. It would be just as easy to defend and show his actions are within accepted hockey norms. The ultimate consequence of the action was not, the act itself is - or at the very, very least, it's ambiguous. Claiming Petgrave’s move is somehow "uniquely dangerous" without proof is a stretch, and your overconfidence ignores how courts view sports risks. A civil suit might be a viable path, but it’s not the slam-dunk you think.

Again, "well I just think that..." is not grounds for a manslaughter charge.

 

[Beerz]

Dude...no. You are wrong on this or at the very least and most polite..."confused". You’re way off base claiming it’s “easy” to prove Petgrave’s high skate swing was intentional. "Well I just think that..." is not "well this should be easy to prove legally".

Your “unlawful act OR dangerous act” argument is flat-out wrong. The UK law requires both for unlawful act manslaughter, not one or the other, so you’re misreading the legal standard. Sure, if videos show Petgrave consistently swinging his leg high in a way no other player does, that might help a civil negligence lawsuit, where the bar’s lower. But you’re assuming members of a jury who likely do not play hockey will see the same thing you do. It would be just as easy to defend and show his actions are within accepted hockey norms. The ultimate consequence of the action was not, the act itself is - or at the very, very least, it's ambiguous. Claiming Petgrave’s move is somehow "uniquely dangerous" without proof is a stretch, and your overconfidence ignores how courts view sports risks. A civil suit might be a viable path, but it’s not the slam-dunk you think.

Again, "well I just think that..." is not grounds for a manslaughter charge.

You just keep repeating the same wrong shit.

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[TheImpatientBoomer]

Nah, I can tell you're not interested in being "civil" or sincere (i.e 'So it wasn't an accident') so i don't care to continue going back and forth with you. Have a good night....



You obviously have strong views on this, and you have to remember there's ~50% of people who see it the other way. They certainly looked at the case a long time and obviously nothing came of it. If they had other clips from the EIHL of him doing this you'd think they'd have been unearthed and could have possibly been used to show a pattern and be a different case. etc.




I don't agree but I don't see it as unreasonable to have that view. I don't think he should play professional hockey ever again. But I also don't think he should have a manslaughter conviction on his record either. That would severely impact his ability to work in non-hockey professions and get things like housing and other basic services etc.

And again, the whole narrowing viewpoint on criminality has really dehumanized this whole incident. Unless you think this guy is a flatout psychopath, he's absolutely traumatized and somewhat of a victim himself in this (I know it sounds weird but it's true) There's stress and damage done simply by being arrested and having potential criminal charges linger over your head for a couple years.

Weak but your choice. You too.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You obviously have strong views on this, and you have to remember there's ~50% of people who see it the other way. They certainly looked at the case a long time and obviously nothing came of it. If they had other clips from the EIHL of him doing this you'd think they'd have been unearthed and could have possibly been used to show a pattern and be a different case. etc.

To the bolded: have you seen this video yet?



Especially at 0:20.

 

[SEALBound]

You just keep repeating the same wrong shit.

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

You cannot possibly be this dense. You are reading it wrong.

Here let me get the crayons out. For it to be a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, you need "peanut butter" AND "jelly". NOT "peanut or butter". You need both ingredients to make the sandwich. You need peanut butter. Not peanut or butter.

 

[Beerz]

You cannot possibly be this dense. You are reading it wrong.

Here let me get the crayons out. For it to be a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, you need "peanut butter" AND "jelly". NOT "peanut or butter". You need both ingredients to make the sandwich. You need peanut butter. Not peanut or butter.

Jesus Christ.

 

[Beerz]

You

keep saying that my reasoning is because "i think it" ..yet I am the only one showing receipts..lol

 

[MXD]

You just keep repeating the same wrong shit.


View attachment 1025939

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

... And it can't be either type in this case, according to what little I know of the British and/or English Law (whichever the f*** applies here), as Petgrave had absolutely no duty of care whatsoever towards Johnson, and because, again, from what I know about British Law which is very little, what Petgrave did doesn't amount to anything unlawful and dangerous (AS PER British Law, not as per dictionnary or common sense or feelings).

Now, if you want my two cents, this criteria is quite restrictive, but, well, British do British.

 

[ACLEVERNAME]

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

I absolutely do not think he intended to harm Johnson with his skate at all. I believe he intended to stop Johnsons progress by any means necessary. I also believe a man that has played the game his entire life knows for a fact how dangerous it is when a skate comes up off the ice wildly whether intentional or unintentional..and to do it intentionally is reckless. I do not see him as a victim..I think that is preposterous. I don't care how hard it would be for him to gain employment or housing. His recklessness caused the death of someone.

His actions on the ice make him a scumbag ..but it isn't anything he can't come back from.

He deserves to be punished.

And yet Lehkonen was allowed to do the same thing in the NHL playoffs and score a goal that way.

 

[Beerz]

... And it can't be either type in this case, according to what little I know of the British and/or English Law (whichever the f*** applies here), as Petgrave had absolutely no duty of care whatsoever towards Johnson, and because, again, from what I know about British Law which is very little, what Petgrave did doesn't amount to anything unlawful and dangerous (AS PER British Law, not as per dictionnary or common sense or feelings).

Now, if you want my two cents, this criteria is quite restrictive, but, well, British do British.

This is British law.. straight from the Government wwebsite.

Unlawful OR Dangerous.