Quote:
Originally Posted by the 'stache
One of our attorneys could better answer this, but this, to me, comes down to intent. Garrett's intent was clearly to commit bodily harm beyond the purview of the game. I don't know how you couldn't seriously consider bring criminal charges.
|
I'm not sure about the US, but in Canadian criminal law we have a fairly well laid out bit of case law thanks to the Marty McSorley case in the NHL.
Basically a lot of things that happen in pro sports (one person tackling another in the NFL, one player checking another in the NHL, boxers punching each other, etc etc ) would constitute the crime of assault if they occurred under normal (ie not in a game) circumstances.
To get around that, the law allows that when a player voluntarily plays a game in doing so they are consenting to having those things done to them, which effectively means that those acts are no longer considered assaults.
The main issue therefore is defining what the scope of things you are consenting to is when you voluntarily play a game. In the McSorley case it was made clear that you are consenting not only to whatever the formal rules of the sport allow, but also to any "unwritten" codes of conduct or understanding among the players themselves as to what they consider acceptable or not. The latter may include a broader range of things than the former, so merely violating a formal rule of the sport isn't enough on its own.
The McSorley case involved a play in which McSorley hit Donald Brashear in the head from behind with his stick, causing a fairly serious injury (concussion).
The Court in that case heard evidence not only that McSorley's actions constituted a violation of the NHL rulebook, but also about the generally accepted codes of conduct among players.
McSorley's action was found to violate both. With the latter in particular the Court noted that while slashing was deemed acceptable by players in certain circumstances, this did not extend to blows directed at the head. Also players have certain understandings about etiquette in hockey fights, like when they start and when they finish, and McSorley's blow also occurred in a situation when a fight was not on (he basically snuck up on Brashear and whacked him from behind).
Intent is relevant (and was an issue in the McSorley case too) only if you are arguing that you didn't intend to do the physical act you did (ie it was an accident). McSorley raised this defence, arguing that he had only intended to tap Brashear in the shoulder, but accidentally hit him in the head instead. The Court rejected that based on the video evidence - it was very hard to believe he wasn't going for the head by looking at it.
Looking at the video of Garret, its pretty obvious he was intending to do exactly what he did. Also I'm pretty sure hitting a guy with a helmet is a violation both of the written rules of the NFL and what the players themselves think is acceptable. He probably should be charged.