It should be 2nd degree murder. It was an opportunity strike meant to harm. No different than if he'd wildly knifed someone and got them in the heart, even if his intent was simply to get the blade into the other guy without caring where.
I don't doubt second degree is probably what this is but second degree is too hard to prove. I believe in UK Law (though I could be wrong) if they charge him with second degree, he can't then be found for manslaughter instead so they have to charge him with the most likely to be proven and that's manslaughter.
I played hockey growing up (Canada) and I can tell you he most definitely meant to hit the guy by sticking his leg out and bouncing off the incoming check. It's clear as day to anyone who has played hockey what he was attempting to do. Did he mean to clip him with his skate blade specifically though, that is up for debate. I personally think he meant to hit him with his blade because of the guy's race and history on the ice as well as his reaction after his blade connected. BUT I still think that's a stretch to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Manslaughter though I think is proven without a doubt.
Under UK law, second-degree murder is typically murder with malicious intent but not premeditated, which means they would need to prove that Petgrave intended to kill Johnson during the collision.
I think they would have a difficult time prosecuting this based on the video (link).
Unlawful act manslaughter seems like the right call here based on the current guidelines (link).
Note - in the UK, manslaughter can carry up to a life sentence, although usually averages between 2-10 years.
It should be 2nd degree murder. It was an opportunity strike meant to harm. No different than if he'd wildly knifed someone and got them in the heart, even if his intent was simply to get the blade into the other guy without caring where.
I don't doubt second degree is probably what this is but second degree is too hard to prove. I believe in UK Law (though I could be wrong) if they charge him with second degree, he can't then be found for manslaughter instead so they have to charge him with the most likely to be proven and that's manslaughter.
I played hockey growing up (Canada) and I can tell you he most definitely meant to hit the guy by sticking his leg out and bouncing off the incoming check. It's clear as day to anyone who has played hockey what he was attempting to do. Did he mean to clip him with his skate blade specifically though, that is up for debate. I personally think he meant to hit him with his blade because of the guy's race and history on the ice as well as his reaction after his blade connected. BUT I still think that's a stretch to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Manslaughter though I think is proven without a doubt.
The prosecution should try to stack the jury with hockey players.
Under UK law, second-degree murder is typically murder with malicious intent but not premeditated, which means they would need to prove that Petgrave intended to kill Johnson during the collision.
I think they would have a difficult time prosecuting this based on the video (link).
Unlawful act manslaughter seems like the right call here based on the current guidelines (link).
Note - in the UK, manslaughter can carry up to a life sentence, although usually averages between 2-10 years.