Today a court ruled that a rugby player who killed another player is guilty of manslaughter.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
OK !!!
And????
And????
In a Brampton, Ont. courthouse packed with drug dealers, fraud artists and tattooed gang members, a star athlete slumps on the defence table of a first-floor courtroom, his promising future suddenly altered by a manslaughter conviction. He is 18, with short blonde hair and a crowd of supporters who look like he does – attractive teenagers whose biggest worry is getting the right date or a pro sports offer.
But the young man, who cannot be named under the terms of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, has bigger problems than that – he is at the centre of a high-profile case that is defining the limits of playing-field violence. On Thursday, he was convicted of killing an opponent in a 2007 high-school rugby game.
As the judge read the verdict, his mother burst into tears. So did his girlfriend, a slim blonde. The boy's friends were stunned. “This sucks,” said one.
The case, which may have far-reaching implications for competitive sports, began when 15-year-old Manny Castillo died after a rugby game between Lorne Park and Erindale High School in 2007. Manny was the captain of Lorne Park. The boy just convicted of killing him was a star player for Erindale. Both were 15 years old at the time.
As the game ended, there was a confrontation between the two, which ended with an act of violence that shocked onlookers: The Erindale player picked up Manny, flipped him upside down, and drove him into the ground in a manoeuvre that one witness described as a “pile-driver.” In his ruling, Ontario Justice Bruce Duncan called it a “sucker tackle.”
Manny died of head injuries a short time later. The event quickly became a cause célèbre when police charged the boy who tackled him with manslaughter. In his two-week trial, lawyers for the accused argued that Manny accepted the risks of the game when he stepped onto the playing field, and characterized the fatal tackle as an act of self-defence, carried out after Manny placed the boy in a headlock that nearly choked him.
But in his 28-page ruling, Judge Duncan rejected that argument, describing the tackle as an act of “retaliation” that cost Manny his life.
“The playing field is not a criminal law-free zone,” Judge Duncan said. “The laws of the land apply in the same way as they do elsewhere … There was no justification in self defence. Accordingly, the defendant committed an assault, an unlawful act. That unlawful act caused death.”
The judge rejected the idea that a player implicitly accepts risk by stepping onto a playing field. Instead, he stressed that players must obey the law, as well as established codes of athletic conduct.
“The force applied by the defendant was not within the rules of the game …” the judge said. “… dangerous play inside or outside of the rules is not acceptable ... The defendant intentionally applied force that was outside the rules of the game or any standard by which the game is played. Manny did not explicitly consent to that force, and I am satisfied beyond any doubt that no such consent can be implied.”
Legal experts say the case may have a long-term impact on the culture of competitive sports.
“This is a very significant case,” said Steven Skurka, a Toronto lawyer and legal pundit. “It says that the rule of law applies, whether you're on the sports field, or the street.'
Clayton Ruby, a lawyer known for his expertise in constitutional and criminal law, said some athletes have a “skewed perception” of acceptable behaviour. “Violence is part of sports, and these guys get away with it on a regular basis. A case like this serves notice.”
The young man convicted Thursday is a multi-sport athlete. He is a well-regarded player in the Ontario Hockey League , and some believe he might have had a shot at a pro career. Those hopes took a serious hit with Thursday's conviction. The young man is free on bail until his sentencing hearing on July 6.
Crown attorney John Raftery says he hasn't decided whether to ask that the convicted man be sentenced as a youth or as an adult. If he is sentenced as a youth, the maximum penalty is three years in prison. As an adult, he could face a life sentence.
Outside the courtroom, the Crown attorney hailed Thursday's decision: “The courts recognize that the law of the land extends to the playing field,” Mr. Raftery said.
Canadian rugby officials said they are concerned that the case could foster inaccurate impressions about the game's risks. Rugby Canada head coach Kieran Crowley said he had never heard of a death on the rugby field before. Rugby Canada spokesman Doug Crosse said the verdict is “going to confirm a lot of incorrect suspicions about the game.”
Mr. Crosse said Manny's death was a tragedy for all concerned: “ It's a moment in time I'm sure the accused would like to have back,” he said. “We don't want that to be the talisman of the sport.”
With a report from James Christie
How would this effect the sport of baseball which is technically a non-contact sport, unlike the contact sport of rugby?
But the young man, who cannot be named under the terms of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, has bigger problems than that – he is at the centre of a high-profile case that is defining the limits of playing-field violence. On Thursday, he was convicted of killing an opponent in a 2007 high-school rugby game.
As the judge read the verdict, his mother burst into tears. So did his girlfriend, a slim blonde. The boy's friends were stunned. “This sucks,” said one.
The case, which may have far-reaching implications for competitive sports, began when 15-year-old Manny Castillo died after a rugby game between Lorne Park and Erindale High School in 2007. Manny was the captain of Lorne Park. The boy just convicted of killing him was a star player for Erindale. Both were 15 years old at the time.
As the game ended, there was a confrontation between the two, which ended with an act of violence that shocked onlookers: The Erindale player picked up Manny, flipped him upside down, and drove him into the ground in a manoeuvre that one witness described as a “pile-driver.” In his ruling, Ontario Justice Bruce Duncan called it a “sucker tackle.”
Manny died of head injuries a short time later. The event quickly became a cause célèbre when police charged the boy who tackled him with manslaughter. In his two-week trial, lawyers for the accused argued that Manny accepted the risks of the game when he stepped onto the playing field, and characterized the fatal tackle as an act of self-defence, carried out after Manny placed the boy in a headlock that nearly choked him.
But in his 28-page ruling, Judge Duncan rejected that argument, describing the tackle as an act of “retaliation” that cost Manny his life.
“The playing field is not a criminal law-free zone,” Judge Duncan said. “The laws of the land apply in the same way as they do elsewhere … There was no justification in self defence. Accordingly, the defendant committed an assault, an unlawful act. That unlawful act caused death.”
The judge rejected the idea that a player implicitly accepts risk by stepping onto a playing field. Instead, he stressed that players must obey the law, as well as established codes of athletic conduct.
“The force applied by the defendant was not within the rules of the game …” the judge said. “… dangerous play inside or outside of the rules is not acceptable ... The defendant intentionally applied force that was outside the rules of the game or any standard by which the game is played. Manny did not explicitly consent to that force, and I am satisfied beyond any doubt that no such consent can be implied.”
Legal experts say the case may have a long-term impact on the culture of competitive sports.
“This is a very significant case,” said Steven Skurka, a Toronto lawyer and legal pundit. “It says that the rule of law applies, whether you're on the sports field, or the street.'
Clayton Ruby, a lawyer known for his expertise in constitutional and criminal law, said some athletes have a “skewed perception” of acceptable behaviour. “Violence is part of sports, and these guys get away with it on a regular basis. A case like this serves notice.”
The young man convicted Thursday is a multi-sport athlete. He is a well-regarded player in the Ontario Hockey League , and some believe he might have had a shot at a pro career. Those hopes took a serious hit with Thursday's conviction. The young man is free on bail until his sentencing hearing on July 6.
Crown attorney John Raftery says he hasn't decided whether to ask that the convicted man be sentenced as a youth or as an adult. If he is sentenced as a youth, the maximum penalty is three years in prison. As an adult, he could face a life sentence.
Outside the courtroom, the Crown attorney hailed Thursday's decision: “The courts recognize that the law of the land extends to the playing field,” Mr. Raftery said.
Canadian rugby officials said they are concerned that the case could foster inaccurate impressions about the game's risks. Rugby Canada head coach Kieran Crowley said he had never heard of a death on the rugby field before. Rugby Canada spokesman Doug Crosse said the verdict is “going to confirm a lot of incorrect suspicions about the game.”
Mr. Crosse said Manny's death was a tragedy for all concerned: “ It's a moment in time I'm sure the accused would like to have back,” he said. “We don't want that to be the talisman of the sport.”
With a report from James Christie
How would this effect the sport of baseball which is technically a non-contact sport, unlike the contact sport of rugby?
I personally don't think this will have any effect on sports at all. The crime has nothing to do with the sport at all. It was a fight that could have happened anywhere. They are trying to make it look like before this ruling that you could break any law as long as it was on a playing field but that is not true.
It's a sad situation and this kid needs to be punished but I don't see how it will affect any sport at all. I think the 3 years would be enough but then again my opinion doesn't matter - I wonder what the family of the boy killed wants?
It's a sad situation and this kid needs to be punished but I don't see how it will affect any sport at all. I think the 3 years would be enough but then again my opinion doesn't matter - I wonder what the family of the boy killed wants?
Elbow thrown with intent to injure, running a catcher, cleats up when sliding into a base, throwing at a batter and many other scenarios.
It will be appealed but the concept is put in motion and this doesn't take into consideration the civil implications to the player and their guardians.
It was only a matter of time.
It will be appealed but the concept is put in motion and this doesn't take into consideration the civil implications to the player and their guardians.
It was only a matter of time.
The victims family didn't want charges to be pressed. Unfortunately they have no say.
The legal implications could be huge.
The legal implications could be huge.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Elbow thrown with intent to injure, running a catcher, cleats up when sliding into a base, throwing at a batter
I don't think anyone of those you mentioned warrants a criminal charge, cause you would have to prove the intent on the player wanting to actually injure the other player.
I can maybe see the throwing at the batter, but then again, you would have to prove he intentionally threw at him, which would be hard to prove in my opinion.
quote:“The playing field is not a criminal law-free zone,” Judge Duncan said. “The laws of the land apply in the same way as they do elsewhere …
One of the key phrases in the decision.
No you don't have to show intent but a only careless disregard.
I saw the video and it was obvious the guy deserved the conviction.
I saw the video and it was obvious the guy deserved the conviction.
Where can I see this video?
This was a dispute after the game was over. It has nothing to do with "criminalizing" the game of rugby or any other sport. The best analogy would be if a high school baseball player did the same thing to an opponent after the game ended.
Of course it is a criminal act and the young man is lucky it is just manslaughter. The attorney's defense that it was "part of the game" is laughable, if it wasn't such a sad event.
Of course it is a criminal act and the young man is lucky it is just manslaughter. The attorney's defense that it was "part of the game" is laughable, if it wasn't such a sad event.
No the game was not over but nearly over. Those Lawyers quoted are some of the most outstanding legal minds in the world.
The video was on a news cast but I am sure it will appear on the INTERNET soon. The players were still on the field.
The video was on a news cast but I am sure it will appear on the INTERNET soon. The players were still on the field.
The inference as being part of the game was that the victim accepted the risk by playing a violent sport.
Another key point is that that wasn't true.
The key points are what may allow this ruling to affect all sports
Another key point is that that wasn't true.
The key points are what may allow this ruling to affect all sports
quote:Originally posted by Rock-N-Fire:
As the game ended, there was a confrontation between the two, which ended with an act of violence that shocked onlookers: The Erindale player picked up Manny, flipped him upside down, and drove him into the ground in a manoeuvre that one witness described as a “pile-driver.” In his ruling, Ontario Justice Bruce Duncan called it a “sucker tackle.”
[/b]
This was not part of the game. I don't see how this should affect the future of sports when it had absolutely nothing to do with the actual playing of the game.
It's like the Chicago media which, at the end of 2008, declared that dozens of Chicago Public School children had been murdered during the year.
A close examination of the victims shows most of them were killed away from school property, many at early hours of the morning and several committing illegal acts.
Most of the murders had absolutely nothing to do with Chicago Public Schools. Much like this act of violence has absolutely nothing to do with rugby.
A piledriver is a serious wrestling manuever. Quite different than a tackle or a body-slam. If someone did that to another person - it doesn't matter whether it is during or after a game - then they are guilty of wanting to do serious harm or injury, imho.
If the video even remotely shows this description to be true then the kid, unfortunately, is guilty. An unfortunate moment of rage results in ruining the lives of two kids and their families. Very sad.
And I agree with others who say that it should not have any affect on sports. This is clearly outside the range of expected behavior for any sport (except for possibly MMA. That may be where this ruling has some impact)
If a kid is guilty of intentionally trying to bean a batter and it results in a serious injury then the same rules should apply. I'd think it might be much more difficult to show intent, but depending on the events leading up to the beaning, maybe not.
If the video even remotely shows this description to be true then the kid, unfortunately, is guilty. An unfortunate moment of rage results in ruining the lives of two kids and their families. Very sad.
And I agree with others who say that it should not have any affect on sports. This is clearly outside the range of expected behavior for any sport (except for possibly MMA. That may be where this ruling has some impact)
If a kid is guilty of intentionally trying to bean a batter and it results in a serious injury then the same rules should apply. I'd think it might be much more difficult to show intent, but depending on the events leading up to the beaning, maybe not.
i think any over zealous police officer, COULD arrest a player for assault. as i understand the term, unwanted contact.
i think it would be a stretch, but it could happen.
this is a very unfortunate situation for all involved, it should make the kids think about what can happen.
i think it would be a stretch, but it could happen.
this is a very unfortunate situation for all involved, it should make the kids think about what can happen.
This was basically a fight outside of the play and flow of the game. Done on purpose with some sort of violent intent.
IMO no impact on other sports. Control your temper. This, to me is more like road rage than playing a sport.
Guilty as charged!!
IMO no impact on other sports. Control your temper. This, to me is more like road rage than playing a sport.
Guilty as charged!!
quote:Clayton Ruby, a lawyer known for his expertise in constitutional and criminal law, said some athletes have a “skewed perception” of acceptable behavior. “Violence is part of sports, and these guys get away with it on a regular basis. A case like this serves notice.”
Clayton Ruby is one of the top legal mind's in the world and sees a possible impact on all sports.
Again, for manslaughter you don't have to show intent like fraud or murder. Manslaughter you have to show a disregard to the possible serious results. This is more like drunks killing someone by driving drunk. They didn't intend to kill but chose to drive knowing they could end up killing someone. They even have diminished ability to avoid driving due to being drunk.
The Judge is very clear on his ruling and this case could have far reaching impact on sports and not just contact sports. This ruling has ruling has been coming for years. There have been some lesser impact cases that have established similar results.
I was watching a game with 2 Umps last night. The 1 Ump told me he was bumped from behind by an angry coach and suffer a back injury that affected him on his real job which required lifting. He said he should have charged the guy and sued him in civil court.
If you want to have some sleepless nights read on on the law of TORTS.
If you want to have some sleepless nights read on on the law of TORTS.
After Barcelona and Man battled for the s****r title the other day they had an incident on a bus where some guy was ticked off because Man U lost----is this the fault of the team?
Bobblehead,
How will this impact hockey in Canada since skimishes like this have had fatalities recently in junior games?
How will this impact hockey in Canada since skimishes like this have had fatalities recently in junior games?
TR I am sure there is a Lawyer out there who would argue that it is.
S****r fans are the worst. I used to live on a street in London England which was the main route to a s****r field. They were hooligans who turned cars over and anything else they could get their hands on.
S****r fans are the worst. I used to live on a street in London England which was the main route to a s****r field. They were hooligans who turned cars over and anything else they could get their hands on.
Sports you are right. Hockey has had some law suits recently that support this ruling. One guy hit his head after being hit in a fight and he died. The focus seemed more on the fact his helmet fell off and correcting the helmet design. I don't believe that they player who hit him had a legal problem criminally because they were all fighting and there was no disregard to the severity of the result. If the guy who hit him sucker punched him when he was skating away it might have been a different story. When you enter into an activity like a fight there is still some acceptance of a bad outcome. The lines between what is expected in a sport have been blurred and will be subject to further court challenges.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Elbow thrown with intent to injure, running a catcher, cleats up when sliding into a base, throwing at a batter
Originally posted by Rock-n-Fire:
I don't think anyone of those you mentioned warrants a criminal charge, cause you would have to prove the intent on the player wanting to actually injure the other player.
I can maybe see the throwing at the batter, but then again, you would have to prove he intentionally threw at him, which would be hard to prove in my opinion.
Not necessarily.
On May 12, Baylor University defeated Stephen F Austin 12-2. The head coach of Stephen F Austin is Johnny Cardenas. Check out Baylor head coach Steve Smith's comments following the game:
On Johnny Cardenas instructing his pitcher to throw at Gregg Glime
“Their coach (Johnny Cardenas) admitted to both me and the home plate umpire that he has instructed his pitcher to throw at our hitter two or three innings prior (to the eighth inning) and that is why he jerked the pitcher and the catcher out of the game after that happened. The new guy out there (Chris Court) throws at Gregg (Glime). The guy they wanted to hit, by instruction of the coach, by his own admission, was because Raynor (Campbell) was swinging wood tonight. How someone finds that offensive, I don’t know. Maybe if our entire team came out here swinging wood, maybe that would show you up.”
On Raynor Campbell using a wooden bat:
“For one guy who is hitting .240 with a metal bat to come out here and swing wood, he is just trying to figure it out. The guy hit .320 last year in the Cape swinging wood. He was going to give it a try to see if he can find a feel for it, that’s not showing anybody up. Obviously it set me off to hear him articulate that so clearly. End of story. (Stephen F. Austin) will not be coming back here as long as (Johnny Cardenas) is there….
On the reason for the ejection:
“We were ejected for charging each other. He was not ejected for admitting the he instructed his pitcher to throw at a batter. That is a serious offense and one that should bring some pretty serious consequences in my opinion.”
Smith's comments can be found at http://www.baylorbears.com/spo...ecaps/051209aad.html
That is one dumb coach. He should lose his job.
To ask a pitcher to throw at a college player who has his whole life ahead of him is just plain stupid. Admitting it takes it to a whole new level.
What if he permanently injured the batter ? I think that is what the Clayton was referring to when he said sports have been put on notice. Things that may have been acceptable in the past are now under the microscope.
To ask a pitcher to throw at a college player who has his whole life ahead of him is just plain stupid. Admitting it takes it to a whole new level.
What if he permanently injured the batter ? I think that is what the Clayton was referring to when he said sports have been put on notice. Things that may have been acceptable in the past are now under the microscope.
bobblehead
And why is that?
And why is that?
quote:Those Lawyers quoted are some of the most outstanding legal minds in the world.
How'd you know that? Were they pinheads?
This isn't the first lawsuit that could affect sports. Did you forget about this one?
1999 - Warming up on the mound for the home team that day was Wichita State’s Ben Christensen, widely regarded as the best pitcher in college baseball. Christensen was 21-1 in his college career and seemed destined to be one of the first players selected in the June amateur draft.
He thought Molina was trying to time his pitches, so he directed a 92-mph warm-up throw at Molina, who was standing 24 feet from home plate. Molina looked up just as the ball arrived, crushing his left eye, destroying his vision, breaking three bones and opening a cut that required 23 stitches.
That set off a string of events that made national headlines.
Christensen was suspended for the remainder of the season along with Wichita State pitching coach Brent Kemnitz, who allegedly instructed his pitchers to throw at batters who stood too near the plate and tried to time their warm-up pitches. (Kemnitz was reinstated the following season and remains a member of the Wichita State staff today.)
Christensen was lambasted from coast to coast, although that didn’t keep the Chicago Cubs from making him the 26th selection in the June draft.
It was the start of legal wrangling that went on for 3 1/2 years and culminated with Christensen paying a cash settlement to Molina. The amount was supposed to be confidential but was widely reported as being $400,000.
1999 - Warming up on the mound for the home team that day was Wichita State’s Ben Christensen, widely regarded as the best pitcher in college baseball. Christensen was 21-1 in his college career and seemed destined to be one of the first players selected in the June amateur draft.
He thought Molina was trying to time his pitches, so he directed a 92-mph warm-up throw at Molina, who was standing 24 feet from home plate. Molina looked up just as the ball arrived, crushing his left eye, destroying his vision, breaking three bones and opening a cut that required 23 stitches.
That set off a string of events that made national headlines.
Christensen was suspended for the remainder of the season along with Wichita State pitching coach Brent Kemnitz, who allegedly instructed his pitchers to throw at batters who stood too near the plate and tried to time their warm-up pitches. (Kemnitz was reinstated the following season and remains a member of the Wichita State staff today.)
Christensen was lambasted from coast to coast, although that didn’t keep the Chicago Cubs from making him the 26th selection in the June draft.
It was the start of legal wrangling that went on for 3 1/2 years and culminated with Christensen paying a cash settlement to Molina. The amount was supposed to be confidential but was widely reported as being $400,000.
TR if a player was seriously injured which many have been. The college is liable under the legal principle of Vicarious liability. The college could be sued for the acts of its employs that result in harm and he is found liable. That of course is while that employee is doing his duties for the college.
I am getting dizzy with all this "legal BS"
Let games be played---
Let games be played---
In the past the law has been reluctant to prosecute sports figures. The significance of this ruling is that there is now a successful prosecution and a setting of legal guidelines.
Civil suits like RJM's example have gone on for years.
The college is ultimately liable and the suit would follow the money and ability to pay.
Civil suits like RJM's example have gone on for years.
The college is ultimately liable and the suit would follow the money and ability to pay.
If you want legal BS read the law of TORTS. You won't leaves your house and make sure you muzzle that vicious dog you are harboring.
Therefump
Clayton Ruby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Clayton Charles Ruby, CM, QC is a Canadian lawyer, specializing in constitutional and criminal law and civil rights. He is one of the most famous lawyers in Canada at present, having served as a defence lawyer in a number of high-profile cases.
Ruby received a Bachelor of Arts degree from York University in 1963. He earned an Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Toronto in 1969, and was called to the bar in 1969. In 1973 he earned an Master of Laws from the University of California, Berkeley.
Since 1973, he has been a partner with the law firm of Ruby & Edwardh (with senior partner Marlys Edwardh) in Toronto, Ontario.
In 2006, he was made a Member of the Order of Canada.
In late 2005, Clayton Ruby became the acting Treasurer, or elected head, of the Law Society of Upper Canada, the body responsible for regulating the Province of Ontario. On February 23, 2006, however, Ruby was defeated in a special election and ceased to be Treasurer.
Clayton Ruby has won support across the political spectrum. Right wing tabloid journalist Judi McLeod wrote in Our Toronto (now The Canada Free Press), "In the courtroom Clayton Ruby is recognized as one of this country's most brilliant criminal lawyers. Other lawyers have told me that internationally he is recognized as a leading theorist and a man of strong principle. Not many know that outside the courtroom, Clayton Ruby is lead crusader in a cause that is no less than vital to keeping Canada a democracy, by enshrining Freedom of the Press. Thank you, Clayton Ruby, for your noble efforts in guarding Freedom of the Press."[citation needed]
Clayton Ruby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Clayton Charles Ruby, CM, QC is a Canadian lawyer, specializing in constitutional and criminal law and civil rights. He is one of the most famous lawyers in Canada at present, having served as a defence lawyer in a number of high-profile cases.
Ruby received a Bachelor of Arts degree from York University in 1963. He earned an Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Toronto in 1969, and was called to the bar in 1969. In 1973 he earned an Master of Laws from the University of California, Berkeley.
Since 1973, he has been a partner with the law firm of Ruby & Edwardh (with senior partner Marlys Edwardh) in Toronto, Ontario.
In 2006, he was made a Member of the Order of Canada.
In late 2005, Clayton Ruby became the acting Treasurer, or elected head, of the Law Society of Upper Canada, the body responsible for regulating the Province of Ontario. On February 23, 2006, however, Ruby was defeated in a special election and ceased to be Treasurer.
Clayton Ruby has won support across the political spectrum. Right wing tabloid journalist Judi McLeod wrote in Our Toronto (now The Canada Free Press), "In the courtroom Clayton Ruby is recognized as one of this country's most brilliant criminal lawyers. Other lawyers have told me that internationally he is recognized as a leading theorist and a man of strong principle. Not many know that outside the courtroom, Clayton Ruby is lead crusader in a cause that is no less than vital to keeping Canada a democracy, by enshrining Freedom of the Press. Thank you, Clayton Ruby, for your noble efforts in guarding Freedom of the Press."[citation needed]