Bertuzzi pleads not guilty

[CG]

I know - and that's what drives me nuts too! The media took this sorry incident and ran with it like a dog with a bone in it's teeth!
Using hot words like 'pile drove', 'tackled', 'rammed' were used for one reason and one reason only and that was to sell newspapers and rile up a public that wouldn't know icing from elbowing!!
I've always felt that Bert needs to take responsibility for his actions during that game and he will, he is!
I don't for one second believe that Bert intended the outcome of that punch to be what it became and court proceedings will have to determine the issue of intent to injure which will be difficult to prove! I'm not looking forward to the mud slinging fest this may degenerate into.

[Mickey Martini]

Not on this board. I'm telling everyone to keep it mature and away from the bashing. We're all adults who can discuss this incident reasonably, no matter how we feel.

I hate how Bert was made out to be a heartless thug while Moore was the patron saint of hockey pucks. My favourite pile of crap involving a writer emphasized the fact Moore's mom and dad never watched their sons hockey games, but decided to tune in that night. Moores brother traveled on hour in a foot of snow to watch the game that night. And Moore's nephew, who's mother had died when he was three and Moore had raised the boy as his own was actually in attendance that night to watch "dad" play. What they all saw changed their lives forever.

I'm kidding you not, that was a word by word account from I think a paper from Florida. And the sad thing is people believed garbage like that

[Atl]

CG said:

I know - and that's what drives me nuts too! The media took this sorry incident and ran with it like a dog with a bone in it's teeth!
Using hot words like 'pile drove', 'tackled', 'rammed' were used for one reason and one reason only and that was to sell newspapers and rile up a public that wouldn't know icing from elbowing!!
I've always felt that Bert needs to take responsibility for his actions during that game and he will, he is!
I don't for one second believe that Bert intended the outcome of that punch to be what it became and court proceedings will have to determine the issue of intent to injure which will be difficult to prove! I'm not looking forward to the mud slinging fest this may degenerate into.

Again, the intention has no part in the charge. He intended to hit Moore as he skated up behind him, and he followed through. There's no denying his intent.

[CG]

Some interesting reading for you Atl - I pulled this off the Canucks site and as it said everything I wanted to, I've just quoted it (I can't find my copy of the Criminal Code of Canada and yes, I do own one!)!


--- FYI hockey fans: there are defences to an assault charge. I’m sure you have all heard of “Self-defence” - well this is actually a defence detailed in the Criminal Code which an accused can use if they can meet the tests of that defence. There is also a defence called “Accused’s belief as to consent” - this, I suspect is what Bertuzzi will use and why he plead “not guilty” today. Personally, I think he should be successful with it and here’s why:

Charge: Assault

s. 265 (1) - A person commits an assault when

a. without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to the other person, directly or indirectly; (there is a b. & c. but they don’t apply here).

So the key here is “without the consent of another person” - As has been detailed before, all NHL hockey players consent to a degree of physical force/contact by playing the sport. The simple fact that Moore was on the ice should be enough to prove his consent. Coupled with the arguments that a ridiculous amount of NHL players have been the recipients of hits similar to the one on Moore (ie: sucker punch to the head) and the fact that Moore has dished out some doozy hits of his own (ie: Naslund) should only strengthen the defence argument of Moore’s consent.

Defence: Accused’s belief as to consent:

s. 265 (2) - Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused’s belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

Its safe to say that Bertuzzi believed Moore consented to physical force/contact because all NHL players do by the simple fact of playing and because Moore had himself chosen to inflict physical force/contact in the course of playing the game. This defence should be available to Bertuzzi.

Given the above, I’d say Bertuzzi is not guilty of assault, let alone assault causing bodily harm... it would be reasonable for any NHL player to believe that all NHL players, when on the ice, consent to “assault”. You will notice that nowhere does the law consider that the degree of damage (ie: the result of the action) defines whether it is or is not an assault. No one will argue that Bertuzzi did not apply force to Moore (in fact “assault” him), clearly he did, what the Crown will have to argue is that Bertuzzi applied a degree of force in excess to the amount a player would reasonably consent to and that Bertuzzi knew this when he did it. This is the only way the Crown could negate the reasonable belief of consent defence, at least in my opinion.

[Atl]

That would be great and all, but it's not Moore pressing the charges. The (whatever the Canadian equivalent is) District Attorney is the one who is pressing this issue. Also, when the jury is selected, they won't be able to watch news programs, read newspaper articles, browse the internet, or have any contact with people on the outside. Another thing, when the jury process is taking place, anyone with any sort of following to Bertuzzi or the Canucks won't be sitting on the jury.

[Mickey Martini]

Atl said:

That would be great and all, but it's not Moore pressing the charges. The (whatever the Canadian equivalent is) District Attorney is the one who is pressing this issue. Also, when the jury is selected, they won't be able to watch news programs, read newspaper articles, browse the internet, or have any contact with people on the outside. Another thing, when the jury process is taking place, anyone with any sort of following to Bertuzzi or the Canucks won't be sitting on the jury.

That's where I don't agree. Someone who never watched hockey will automatically deem him guilty with no knowlege of the sport. And I do think you have to know something about hockey if you are to hold a stake in this case

[Atl]

Mickey said:

That's where I don't agree. Someone who never watched hockey will automatically deem him guilty with no knowlege of the sport. And I do think you have to know something about hockey if you are to hold a stake in this case

A lot of Canadians will have some sort of knowledge of hockey being a physical game. But all they'll see footage of is the attack Bertuzzi layed on Moore. In a lopsided game (I believe the score was 9-2 at that point, with not much time remaining), they were just playing out the rest of the time. The attack was not a hockey tactic...rather it was an assault. They weren't battling for possession of the puck. Avid hockey fans know that the attack was not just "part of the game".

I don't understand how you can think that Bertuzzi was playing or even thinking of hockey at that moment. The incident is no different from McSorley's stick-attack on Brashear a few years back. The only difference is that in this case, it was the Canuck player attacking another instead of the other way around.

Remember, you have to look at it from a legal standpoint. The same thing could happen at a youth game, and the attacker would be looking at the same consequences.

[Mickey Martini]

Atl said:

A lot of Canadians will have some sort of knowledge of hockey being a physical game. But all they'll see footage of is the attack Bertuzzi layed on Moore. In a lopsided game (I believe the score was 9-2 at that point, with not much time remaining), they were just playing out the rest of the time. The attack was not a hockey tactic...rather it was an assault. They weren't battling for possession of the puck. Avid hockey fans know that the attack was not just "part of the game".

I don't understand how you can think that Bertuzzi was playing or even thinking of hockey at that moment. The incident is no different from McSorley's stick-attack on Brashear a few years back. The only difference is that in this case, it was the Canuck player attacking another instead of the other way around.

Remember, you have to look at it from a legal standpoint. The same thing could happen at a youth game, and the attacker would be looking at the same consequences.

No I don't try to defend Bertuzzi's actions for a second. But, as extreme as this incident was, we've seen violence more and more in this game. Cheapshots are up tenfold. The diffrent is the result of this one. And the fact Bettman has given out weak suspensions hasn't help the situation at all. That's the point I'm trying to make. Bert is a product of todays NHL....Once again I'm not defending his actions, but trying to look at it objectively. I don't argue with his length of suspension for one second.....but find Bettmans lack of balls to go harsher on other infractions maddening....He's allowed the NHL to turn into this crap. And it all came to a head with Bertuzzi/Moore

[CG]

Mickey said:

Not on this board. I'm telling everyone to keep it mature and away from the bashing. We're all adults who can discuss this incident reasonably, no matter how we feel.

I hate how Bert was made out to be a heartless thug while Moore was the patron saint of hockey pucks. My favourite pile of crap involving a writer emphasized the fact Moore's mom and dad never watched their sons hockey games, but decided to tune in that night. Moores brother traveled on hour in a foot of snow to watch the game that night. And Moore's nephew, who's mother had died when he was three and Moore had raised the boy as his own was actually in attendance that night to watch "dad" play. What they all saw changed their lives forever.

I'm kidding you not, that was a word by word account from I think a paper from Florida. And the sad thing is people believed garbage like that

It's no wonder then that some people who don't know the game have a skewed vision of the whole thing! Did they leave out the part where Moore's brother was also in his pajamas on that trek through the snow (that old reference to a Timmy's commercial!) and how the reason his mother didn't watch the games was because she had fluctuating blindness in her left eye that switched to her right eye on alternate Thursdays?? Oh, puhleeze <insert a large rolling eye emoticon here!> - my drivel sounds just as plausible as the article you mention !

It will be interesting to see how the court case unfolds - I think for every argument brought up in this thread tonight, the lawyers appearing in court will have a legal version of it to present.

Somehow I don't think they'll be sequestering the jury for this case, Atl - it's not a murder case! And there will be the odd person who makes it on to the jury who is pro Canucks or anti Canucks. The Crown and the Defense only have a certain number of challenges for cause they can use against prospective jurors!

[Atl]

CG said:

It's no wonder then that some people who don't know the game have a skewed vision of the whole thing! Did they leave out the part where Moore's brother was also in his pajamas on that trek through the snow (that old reference to a Timmy's commercial!) and how the reason his mother didn't watch the games was because she had fluctuating blindness in her left eye that switched to her right eye on alternate Thursdays?? Oh, puhleeze <insert a large rolling eye emoticon here!> - my drivel sounds just as plausible as the article you mention !

It will be interesting to see how the court case unfolds - I think for every argument brought up in this thread tonight, the lawyers appearing in court will have a legal version of it to present.

Somehow I don't think they'll be sequestering the jury for this case, Atl - it's not a murder case! And there will be the odd person who makes it on to the jury who is pro Canucks or anti Canucks. The Crown and the Defense only have a certain number of challenges for cause they can use against prospective jurors!

They sequester any jury, whether it is a minor traffic charge to murder. People, when asked to perform jury duty, will have no idea which case they'll be entering. They put you in this room, ask random questions (either orally or through a questionnaire), then decide on who gets called to sit in the juror's booth. I've been rejected from jury duty because.......I listen to talk radio.

[CG]

In Canada they don't automatically sequester every jury, Atl!! My Mom sat on a murder case and a rape case and wasn't sequestered either time! I have known many people who sat on juries and were not sequestered!

[FreakyMe]

IMO, because of the charge, Bert will be found guilty. Moore did not consent, regardless of the fact that he's playing hockey... hockey type 'assaults' are consented to when you play the sport certainly, but not a sucker punch.

IMO also, the assault was the sucker punch, which knocked Moore out. That's bodily harm. The rest is beside the point.

As a side note, again, IMO, Bert could have let go of the sweater and skated away... He did not HAVE to go down with Moore, he choose to because he wasn't done kicking the crap out of him. The broken neck was not a product of the assault itself, but a by product. I don't consider them falling part of the assault. The continued hitting, was a continuation of the assault, and perhaps some further injuries were sustained at that point in time to the already broken neck.

Bert intended to injure, though not to the extent he did, and he did cause bodily harm. He'll not go to jail though, but IMO, he should have so that if he does get sentenced, he would have had time already served. That way, if he's allowed to play again, he would have been able to sooner.


If he does get convicted, he won't be able to play in the U.S., will he? Food for thought. Even if all he gets is community service time, assault is still a federal offense, isn't it?

[CG]

FreakyMe said:

As a side note, again, IMO, Bert could have let go of the sweater and skated away... He did not HAVE to go down with Moore, he choose to because he wasn't done kicking the crap out of him. The broken neck was not a product of the assault itself, but a by product. I don't consider them falling part of the assault. The continued hitting, was a continuation of the assault, and perhaps some further injuries were sustained at that point in time to the already broken neck.

True, he could have let go of the jersey before the punch but once Moore was unconcious, simple physics will tell you that Bert was already falling forward because Moore's body weight was pulling him down due to the fact that their feet had stopped moving! In that fraction of a millisecond timing do you honestly believe that anyone had time to make a choice about anything? You contradict yourself when you said that the broken vertebrae were not a part of the assault itself but a by-product but yet go on to say that Moore's vertebrae were already broken when he landed on the ice??

Continued hitting? I've watched that video at least a hundred times since March and I don't see Bert hitting Moore again after the initial punch or when he was on the ice!!

[Atl]

www.skepticalworld.com/sports0001.htm

There's the clip of the attack.

I was wrong. Bertuzzi didn't tackle Moore. He grabbed both hands on Moore's jersey and drove him to the ice. They were not falling. Bertuzzi would have killed the guy if the other players weren't so close to him. Then, Bertuzzi was about to take another swing at him before the Colorado players intervened.

[CG]

That is ONE video of the incident and a bad one at that!
The ones I had (gone in a computer crash but will try to find it again) are different camera angles from the other side of the ice which shows a much clearer view of what happened. I've watched the videos frame by frame and believe me you get a much different interpretation of the sequence of events than this 15 second long, poor quality, travesty of a video provides!