InterestingFrom a NHL game last night
I’m surprised. clearly not deliberate but the action feels a bit mamslaughtery
He killed his mum too?I’m surprised. clearly not deliberate but the action feels a bit mamslaughtery
Someone at a game the other night commented who first stepped on the ice and thought attaching sharp blades to your feet was a good idea.I’m surprised. clearly not deliberate but the action feels a bit mamslaughtery
Realy good point aswellSomeone at a game the other night commented who first stepped on the ice and thought attaching sharp blades to your feet was a good idea.
I guess there’s a point where if you’re taking part in an inherently dangerous activity you’re accepting the risk. Although I think this tragedy made a lot of players consider a potential outcome they’d never thought possible.
I’m surprised. clearly not deliberate but the action feels a bit mamslaughtery
If you took a blade to someone’s neck and inadvertently sliced their throat open, how would that be seen?It’s a contact sport and this an inherent risk unfortunately. They can wear neck guards but don’t tend to.
If you took a blade to someone’s neck and inadvertently sliced their throat open, how would that be seen?
Manslaughter is nothing to do with intent.You’d have to consider what the intent for starters. In the scenario you describe, it’s difficult to imagine how you’d ’inadvertently’ slice someone’s throat open.
I’ve partaken in contact sports like rugby and judo so know a thing or two about the forces involved in these types of sport… I couldn’t imagine what that would be like doing that on ice skates in an ice rink.
Unless you can prove that someone went out with the intention to kill someone on the ice rink, you can’t convict someone and have to accept that this is a tragic accident that is an inherent risk unfortunately.
Manslaughter is nothing to do with intent.
This is where there should be a change. Still not mandatory in many leagues. But we’re talking about a sport where visors have only been in use a few years.It’s a contact sport and this an inherent risk unfortunately. They can wear neck guards but don’t tend to.
Great pointThis is where there should be a change. Still not mandatory in many leagues. But we’re talking about a sport where visors have only been in use a few years.
Think about footballers and their laughably small shin guards, the reality is a lot of professional athletes choose not to wear all the available protection because they believe it impedes their performance.
Manslaughter is nothing to do with intent.
I genuinely don’t know where I stand on it. It’s in a grey area for me a bit beyond the incident where Phil Hughes died from a freak bouncer in cricket. If you intend just to hurt someone as this chap did, but end up killing them, it looks more like manslaughter than not.Two questions:
1) Do you think the man should be sent to prison for a freak accident?
2) Why do you think the CPS decided against pressing charges?
It is an inherent risk of the game that you can get lacerated with the ice skates that is a fundamental requirement to play the game.
I genuinely don’t know where I stand on it. It’s in a grey area for me a bit beyond the incident where Phil Hughes died from a freak bouncer in cricket. If you intend just to hurt someone as this chap did, but end up killing them, it looks more like manslaughter than not.
Perhaps the CPS thought so too but didn’t feel secure enough in getting a conviction.
I feel this lies in a grey area based on what he did to inflict the injury. If an Australian batsman had been killed in the Bodyline series it’d be in a similar category for me.you can kill someone by accident
I feel this lies in a grey area based on what he did to inflict the injury. If an Australian batsman had been killed in the Bodyline series it’d be in a similar category for me.
That’s a sport where one of the main features is punching your opponent in the head. If you know there’s a razor sharp blade on your skate and you aim it at someone’s head…as I say, I can see strong arguments for it which don’t necessarily apply to other sports.What about deaths in boxing then?
That’s a sport where one of the main features is punching your opponent in the head. If you know there’s a razor sharp blade on your skate and you aim it at someone’s head…as I say, I can see strong arguments for it which don’t necessarily apply to other sports.
This is where there should be a change. Still not mandatory in many leagues. But we’re talking about a sport where visors have only been in use a few years.
Think about footballers and their laughably small shin guards, the reality is a lot of professional athletes choose not to wear all the available protection because they believe it impedes their performance.
Does it look like he's lost control of his body or that he's tried to kung fu kick his opponent?The sport involves you checking people going at quick speeds and throwing your body at people. There be situations where you lose control of your body.
People who have never played a contact sport like rugby, American football, ice hockey or martial arts may not understand what that’s like.
Exactly, if individuals want to risk their lives by not wearing the protective equipment available, let them. They know the risks.
Does it look like he's lost control of his body or that he's tried to kung fu kick his opponent?
From a NHL game last night
Manslaughter is nothing to do with intent.
What about MMA where you tone your whole body to be a fighting machine, and then deliberately kick someone in the head?That’s a sport where one of the main features is punching your opponent in the head. If you know there’s a razor sharp blade on your skate and you aim it at someone’s head…as I say, I can see strong arguments for it which don’t necessarily apply to other sports.
Using your own logic against you then, to bowl a bouncer in cricket is to purposefully bounce it short so the ball ends up around head height. Resulting (usually) in the batter ducking out of the way giving the bowler a dot ball. You could argue that bowling a bouncer is intentionally intended to hit a batter in the head and therefore classes as manslaughter and not in fact, as you put it, a "freak bouncer".I genuinely don’t know where I stand on it. It’s in a grey area for me a bit beyond the incident where Phil Hughes died from a freak bouncer in cricket. If you intend just to hurt someone as this chap did, but end up killing them, it looks more like manslaughter than not.
Perhaps the CPS thought so too but didn’t feel secure enough in getting a conviction.
In the Bodyline series of the 1930s, at least one Australian batsman got a fractured skull from the tactic of deliberately aiming at the body in an era where nobody wore helmets or much protection full stop. If someone had been killed then, I’d argue that’s manslaughter also.Using your own logic against you then, to bowl a bouncer in cricket is to purposefully bounce it short so the ball ends up around head height. Resulting (usually) in the batter ducking out of the way giving the bowler a dot ball. You could argue that bowling a bouncer is intentionally intended to hit a batter in the head and therefore classes as manslaughter and not in fact, as you put it, a "freak bouncer".
Sent from my SM-S711B using Tapatalk
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?