<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why haven&#8217;t Vancouver police charged Jesse Boulerice?</title>
	<link>http://hockeyadventure.com/2007/10/15/why-havent-vancouver-police-charged-jesse-boulerice/</link>
	<description>Where the world is one big hockey rink</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Michael S.</title>
		<link>http://hockeyadventure.com/2007/10/15/why-havent-vancouver-police-charged-jesse-boulerice/#comment-176</link>
		<author>Michael S.</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:36:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hockeyadventure.com/2007/10/15/why-havent-vancouver-police-charged-jesse-boulerice/#comment-176</guid>
		<description>Having practiced criminal law, I suspect that the following factors were involved in the Crown's decision not to lay charges:

1.  Boulerice's cross-check was a very sudden act, flowing out of a scuffle with Kesler.  You may recall that Marty McSorley followed Donald Brashear from behind, then swung his stick at his head.  This took a few seconds and showed a definite intention on McSorley's part to "get" Brashear.  Bertuzzi followed Moore from behind, then grabbed him before punching him.  Again, like he was out to "get" his victim.  Most importantly, both victims had their backs turned and were chasing the play when they were struck from behind.

In contrast, Boulerice's act might reasonably be seen as unplanned.  The fact that he was jostling with Kessler does not show premeditation in the legal sense.  If anything it might support an argument that it was a spontaneous response to provocation.  It would still constitute a criminal assault, but it is seen as less aggravating than the McSorley and Bertuzzi incidents, which "came out of nowhere" and involved victims taken by surprise.  You may recall that Alexander Perezhogin of the Hamilton Bulldogs was similarly charged after he swung his stick at another player's face and even knocked out some teeth.  A big mitigating factor in that case was that his swing came after the other player had taken a swing at him.  It was still an assault, but it happened in the heat of the moment.

2.  Another reason Boulerice's act was less aggravating is because it was a cross-check.  Cross-checking is penalized in hockey, but it is not uncommon.  McSorley swung his stick at Brashear's head.  Bertuzzi grabbed Moore from behind, sucker punched him, then pushed him onto the ice.  Dino Ciccarelli chopped repeatedly at Luke Richardson's head.  None of these acts are tolerable in any degree.  Boulerice's cross-check was worse than the norm, but it was still a relatively common act in hockey.

3.  It is worth remembering that McSorley and Bertuzzi were charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.  The lack of lasting injury would mean that the Crown would probably only pursue a common assault charge.  This probably didn't seem like it was worth their time.

Ultimately, don't assume too quickly that nothing will come of this.  The Crown has up to 6 months to charge Boulerice if they are proceeding summarily.  The police may still be investigating.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having practiced criminal law, I suspect that the following factors were involved in the Crown&#8217;s decision not to lay charges:</p>
<p>1.  Boulerice&#8217;s cross-check was a very sudden act, flowing out of a scuffle with Kesler.  You may recall that Marty McSorley followed Donald Brashear from behind, then swung his stick at his head.  This took a few seconds and showed a definite intention on McSorley&#8217;s part to &#8220;get&#8221; Brashear.  Bertuzzi followed Moore from behind, then grabbed him before punching him.  Again, like he was out to &#8220;get&#8221; his victim.  Most importantly, both victims had their backs turned and were chasing the play when they were struck from behind.</p>
<p>In contrast, Boulerice&#8217;s act might reasonably be seen as unplanned.  The fact that he was jostling with Kessler does not show premeditation in the legal sense.  If anything it might support an argument that it was a spontaneous response to provocation.  It would still constitute a criminal assault, but it is seen as less aggravating than the McSorley and Bertuzzi incidents, which &#8220;came out of nowhere&#8221; and involved victims taken by surprise.  You may recall that Alexander Perezhogin of the Hamilton Bulldogs was similarly charged after he swung his stick at another player&#8217;s face and even knocked out some teeth.  A big mitigating factor in that case was that his swing came after the other player had taken a swing at him.  It was still an assault, but it happened in the heat of the moment.</p>
<p>2.  Another reason Boulerice&#8217;s act was less aggravating is because it was a cross-check.  Cross-checking is penalized in hockey, but it is not uncommon.  McSorley swung his stick at Brashear&#8217;s head.  Bertuzzi grabbed Moore from behind, sucker punched him, then pushed him onto the ice.  Dino Ciccarelli chopped repeatedly at Luke Richardson&#8217;s head.  None of these acts are tolerable in any degree.  Boulerice&#8217;s cross-check was worse than the norm, but it was still a relatively common act in hockey.</p>
<p>3.  It is worth remembering that McSorley and Bertuzzi were charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.  The lack of lasting injury would mean that the Crown would probably only pursue a common assault charge.  This probably didn&#8217;t seem like it was worth their time.</p>
<p>Ultimately, don&#8217;t assume too quickly that nothing will come of this.  The Crown has up to 6 months to charge Boulerice if they are proceeding summarily.  The police may still be investigating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
