SbisasCostlyTurnoverAdam Johnson: Arrest over ice hockey player's death - BBC News
girlfreddyThis should go nowhere, as experts will be able to prove that the player missed his first check, went off-balance and - when he tried to stay upright - accidentally cut Adam’s neck.
The only thing driving charges are the anti-intellectualists who can’t be bothered to find the video and go through it frame by frame … so facts get drown out by stupidity and conspiracy BS.
pbjammI dont think that anyone sane is arguing that it was an assassination or anything.
Watching the video though it looks more like he throws his leg out behind in an attempt to trip Johnson and overextends himself. Off balance his leg comes up and disaster occurs. Something akin to negligent homicide maybe. No intent but in doing something dumb and dangerous it caused someone’s death.
佐藤カズマEither that, or he hits a divot in the ice, which…different path to the same outcome (i.e., I’m not disagreeing). It will be interesting to see where this investigation goes. I can’t corroborate it personally, but I believe I saw that Petgrave had been kicked out of a league for unsporting behaviour prior to this (e.g., because of dirty hits, etc.).
Can’t believe they actually made an arrest over this. Wild.
Not terribly surprised he got charged. I don’t think he intended to hurt the guy, but I do believe he swung his leg more than just momentum to contact/impede him.
OminousOrangeIt’s always been a bit odd to me how actions that would be criminal anywhere else are permitted as long as you’re on a specifically sized sheet of ice with certain lines painted on it.
I can’t speak to this particular incident, but I officiated for a number of years the things some players did were just vicious. Deliberate cross checks or slashes to the head, checks from behind, all purely with the intent to injure…step off the ice, you’re probably facing time, but on the ice, it’s part of the game.
Part of it is just that there’s consent in playing the game. A check would be assault & battery if you weren’t playing hockey, but playingthe game meansyou’reok with getting hit. It’s pretty hard to draw a line between criminal action and physical play in most circumstances, so if no one gets seriously hurt there generally aren’t consequences.
Good point, but I don’t think egregious actions should fall under that umbrella. Yes you consent to a certain level of risk with play that’s under the general rules of the game, but a deliberate cross-check to the mouth with intent to injure, for example (happened in a local game last spring), is in no way part of the regular course of a hockey game. If we were to draw lines, I’d say a match penalty could constitute a potentially criminal act.
I think it’d be interesting to see such a case go to court today.