Adam Johnson Tragedy

[Wilbur]

We all know what happened, let's put our thoughts and prayers together for the Johnson family and Duluth.

A devastating shock to the hockey world.  Continued prayers throughout this time. 

[Wilbur]

https://www.doughertyofhibbing.com/obituaries/adam-johnson

 

[siouxfaninseattle]

Yikes

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nhl/manslaughter-arrest-in-death-of-hockey-player-whose-neck-was-cut-with-skate-blade-during-game/ar-AA1jV7lu?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=a224bcb4fefe47599de45a44b1a621a0&ei=11

 

 

[The Sicatoka]

Quote

 

Detective Chief Superintendent Becs Horsfall added that the police had made 'extensive enquiries' in the wake of the tragedy. 

'Our investigation launched immediately following this tragedy and we have been carrying out extensive enquiries ever since to piece together the events which led to the loss of Adam in these unprecedented circumstances. 

'We have been speaking to highly specialised experts in their field to assist in our enquiries and continue to work closely with the health and safety department at Sheffield City Council, which is supporting our ongoing investigation. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-12748581/Adam-Johnson-Police-arrest-man-suspicion-manslaughter-ice-hockey-players-death.html 

Will be interesting to see what additional evidence the British authorities bring forth to warrant a manslaughter charge under British law. 

[SIOUXFAN97]

4 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-12748581/Adam-Johnson-Police-arrest-man-suspicion-manslaughter-ice-hockey-players-death.html 

Will be interesting to see what additional evidence the British authorities bring forth to warrant a manslaughter charge. 

isn't it the "kick"?

[The Sicatoka]

1 minute ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

isn't it the "kick"?

One grainy camera angle where there may or may not be contact which may or may not cause imbalance and the skate to go up. Is that enough for a prosecutor to charge? 

I'd guess they have other video angles yet to be put to public. 

[BusinessSiouxt]

1 hour ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

isn't it the "kick"?

That was the first thing I saw in the video. It did not look to me like the kick was accidental nor driven by contact.

[SIOUXFAN97]

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

One grainy camera angle where there may or may not be contact which may or may not cause imbalance and the skate to go up. Is that enough for a prosecutor to charge? 

I'd guess they have other video angles yet to be put to public. 

even grainy you can see....the kick.

[The Sicatoka]

What a prosecutor can prove in court is a tougher standard. I’m standing by my assumption they have more video or data. 

[SIOUXFAN97]

will be interesting if and when it goes to court to see if using someone's stats (negatively) will be A.  allowed  B. sway a jury.

player x has x penalty minutes = goon

goon=guilty?

[burd]

28 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

will be interesting if and when it goes to court to see if using someone's stats (negatively) will be A.  allowed  B. sway a jury.

player x has x penalty minutes = goon

goon=guilty?

Rules of evidence typically bar evidence of prior conduct (bad acts) to show they acted in conformity at the time of the alleged offense.   

There are exceptions, but the answer is probably "no."

[shep]

Under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b)(2), evidence of a prior bad act may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, plan, or intent. "The rule excludes admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts unless the evidence is substantially relevant for some purpose other than to show a defendant's criminal character and that the defendant's acts conformed with that character." Shaw, 2016 ND 171, ¶7, 883 N.W.2d 889.

[SIOUXFAN97]

are you two above agreeing or disagreeing............i can't tell?

[burd]

38 minutes ago, shep said:

Under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b)(2), evidence of a prior bad act may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, plan, or intent. "The rule excludes admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts unless the evidence is substantially relevant for some purpose other than to show a defendant's criminal character and that the defendant's acts conformed with that character." Shaw, 2016 ND 171, ¶7, 883 N.W.2d 889.

Yup.   The exceptions.   They are narrowly applied, though.  

[St Patrick]

I couldn't get myself to watch the video after all the warnings...until tonight.  That was absolutely 100% intentional on the kick.  100%

That guy should be in jail, not suspended from hockey, in jail.  I am livid and completely sickened after seeing this.  

 

God Bless Adam Johnson and family.

 

[Green Banner]

1 hour ago, shep said:

Under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b)(2), evidence of a prior bad act may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, plan, or intent. "The rule excludes admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts unless the evidence is substantially relevant for some purpose other than to show a defendant's criminal character and that the defendant's acts conformed with that character." Shaw, 2016 ND 171, ¶7, 883 N.W.2d 889.

US law and England law probably differ 

[burd]

3 minutes ago, Green Banner said:

US law and England law probably differ 

Probably, though the concept is a basic one:   A conviction (or finding of liability) should be based on the facts of the present case, not character as evidenced by prior acts.  

[brianvf]

9 minutes ago, St Patrick said:

I couldn't get myself to watch the video after all the warnings...until tonight.  That was absolutely 100% intentional on the kick.  100%

That guy should be in jail, not suspended from hockey, in jail.  I am livid and completely sickened after seeing this. 

There's a ton of people and hockey players that are commenting that it was an accident and not intentional.
But I just don't see how his leg would move like that and get that high...it certainly looks like a "kicking motion" to me.  Unless there is another angle that shows otherwise.  But something tells me if there is another angle...then he wouldn't be charged with manslaughter right now.

Tough situation all around. 

[St Patrick]

Maybe, if he was trying to do a backflip.  

Nope, he meant to inflict pain.

[brianvf]

26 minutes ago, St Patrick said:

Maybe, if he was trying to do a backflip.  

Nope, he meant to inflict pain.

Agreed.

[The Sicatoka]

10 hours ago, brianvf said:

But something tells me if there is another angle...then he wouldn't be charged with manslaughter right now.

Or there is another angle and that's why he is charged.

I'll wait to see the total of the prosecutor's evidence. 

[dustnyou]

There could also be motive that lead to the charges. For example: interviewing players, officials, etc that were in the game. What was said? Chirped? Threats that you might hear throughout a game like we hear all the time. “You’re gonna get it”, “your dead” could be said referring to lay someone out but didn’t mean literally.. .  those that watched, it was a very short video of the incident. Perhaps watching the whole game there could’ve been a prior incident? Payback for something earlier in the game / get you back type of scenario… I know nothing of this other than it is a horrific deal that’s been hard to get off my mind. I’m not even speculating with my comments above, just thinking about possibilities that could come from an in depth investigation to lead to the charges rather than just the act itself. 

[Wilbur]

14 hours ago, St Patrick said:

Maybe, if he was trying to do a backflip.  

Nope, he meant to inflict pain.

Just a reckless play.  Mark Parrish was on KFAN this morning talking about it.  Your stick can be a weapon....it stays on the ice.....you have swords attached to your feet, they need to stay on the ice.  Every hockey player has that responsibility, regardless of level. 

 

[Walsh Hall]

From a legal standpoint this will be an interesting case.  I'm curious to see the essential elements of the charge, and I'd love to see the jury instructions if the case got to that point.  With the assumption of risk/consent, or whatever doctrine is applicable to sporting events in this case, it will be pretty complicated to sort out.

Some incidents have been clearly outside the scope of the sporting event, but that's a tough line to draw as far as what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't know how the "reckless" or "negligent" culpability levels are applied to sports.  I believe most in-competition criminal charges are based on intentional acts clearly outside the scope of play, ala Todd Bertuzzi. A ton of incidents in sporting events could be deemed reckless or "dirty" and result in injury. I suspect the prosecutors will have to be on their game for this one.

[burd]

8 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said:

From a legal standpoint this will be an interesting case.  I'm curious to see the essential elements of the charge, and I'd love to see the jury instructions if the case got to that point.  With the assumption of risk/consent, or whatever doctrine is applicable to sporting events in this case, it will be pretty complicated to sort out.

Some incidents have been clearly outside the scope of the sporting event, but that's a tough line to draw as far as what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't know how the "reckless" or "negligent" culpability levels are applied to sports.  I believe most in-competition criminal charges are based on intentional acts clearly outside the scope of play, ala Todd Bertuzzi. A ton of incidents in sporting events could be deemed reckless or "dirty" and result in injury. I suspect the prosecutors will have to be on their game for this one.

A little mixing of criminal and tort concepts there.   Assumption of risk is a tort concept.   But your observations are good ones, since there could be both civil and criminal cases--civil more likely than criminal, I would guess, though I know zero about UK tort law.