I suggest everyone actually take the time to study the BBC writeup as an indication of how surreal "journalism" and "law enforcement" have become.
First, not only is Matt Petgrave not pictured in the article (which has become standard malpractice), he is not even mentioned. Instead, we get this vague construction:
The Nottingham Panthers player was hit in the neck by a skate....
For all we know, a white hetero Christian fascist threw it from the stands. Then we are told of the "investigation":
"We have been carrying out extensive inquiries to piece together the events which led to the loss of Adam..."
WTF? It was televised. There is, of course, no link to the video, and they talk like he was abducted by a flying saucer. And I'm sure this next bit information originally came in response to the police investigator asking, "Jeez, doc, what the hell do you think happened to him?":
A post-mortem examination confirmed he died as a result of a fatal neck injury, South Yorkshire Police said.
They do raise a final mystery, because I can't for the life of me figure out who "the real killer" might have been:
The force said detectives arrested the suspect on Tuesday....
I wouldn't necessarily expect to see any fan video. It's been a few years since I went to a live hockey game but hardly anyone bothered taking any pics or video besides selfies and if the mascot came by.
That seems counter-intuitive given today's habit of filming every f-ing thing, but fans attended in person not solely or even primarily because of the hoopla and energy, but because you really do get a different--and in many ways better--feel for the game when you can see the entire rink at once.
Then on top of that, everyone just records the game at home so that if something interesting occurs, they can rewatch it with slo-mo and all the angles and commentary.
Which makes me wonder how the actual broadcast went out. I suspect it was, "And now an extended word from our sponsor, followed by a featurette while officials clean up all the blood."
As to the video, I'd say it wasn't so much of a second kick as that he had his leg locked, was driving it right at the guy's head, and it bounced off his chest/shoulder pads.So again, evidence that he didn't just happen to be swinging his leg for some inexplicable reason.
Oh, that is interesting. Definitely games are more interesting in person.
But, I had thought it would be like Taylor swift concerts by now. Everyone recording instead of watching.
You always have really good insight and analysis. Thank you for sharing.
....
It's so annoying when people - even HUGE hockey fans - continual the narrative that (1) "he didn't mean to kill him" "he didn't intend to kill him" and (2) "he feels really bad right now".
Really?? Really???
Intent is a huge legal issue and argument. How do any of these Podcasters and commentators feel justified in stating his intentions at that time, alledging that they knew his mind, his mens rea.
And even worse, how can they presume to know his current feelings?!?! Has he made any statements? Polygraph tests? Made statements under oath? If anything, it would probably be closer to Aston Kutcher who panicked when he found his girlfriend dead and decided to cover up his association.
Petgrave, the black killer, may just be worried about any financial, legal or job implications for himself. Or he may be happy because he got away with it. His ego may be stroked that he can literally get away with murder and get a standing ovation. Check out The Boys/Homelander to show when he killed someone in a crowd and everyone cheered. He is a psychopath.
We can't know. I don't even know if the killer apologized as a normal Canadian would do.
How would a normal person with emotions act? Would he set up a charity donations for the family? Has he decided to quite hockey for a time to get grief and ptsd help? Many players said they would quit if they hurt a player.
This guy, Tim Peel, some commentator, https://youtu.be/u9FPFWW2WK4 says Petgrave didn't intend to kill him. Then he continues, saying that Petgrave might have meant to hit the victim's head (a/n with a blade with extreme force) but he didn't intend to kill him..
What kind of cognitive dissonance allows all these hockey fans and normies to admit. Yeah, he deliberately kicked him in the head/neck (with extreme force with a deadly weapon) but he didn't mean to kill him.
That's like.... I can't even think of a Jesus or Aesop type of parable that everyone can understand, that is so outrageous. Help me out here??? You creative writers lurking here?
I would argue that since the footage shows that he intensively kicked him in the neck, any athlete or hood rat would know that a sharp blade to the neck or head could and did severe an artery and lead to death.
That is the logical train of thought based on the video footage of events.
The other extremely annoying statement I see a lot, mostly by people who think he deliberately kicked, is when they say "he didn't plan to kill him the day or week before"..... like... so what? Depending on which legal system and what he is charged with, it doesn't matter how long, as long as he INTENDED to preform an action that woukd led to death.
That's like a commentor saying:
people of the world! the killer had no intention to kill that black guy on the road. He just saw him and when his presence annoyed him, the killer decided to shoot him in the heart at a point blank range. But he had no intent the day/week before. And he didn't mean to kill him. The killer just meant to hit him with a bullet directly in the neck. Why yes, the killer has had many years of constantly training on how to operate a gun, and gun safety and is a professional athete with precise control of his body. And yes, he has done this sort of behavior before, but as far as we know, his previous attempts to hit people with bullets failed to permanently injure or kill.
Even this hormonal young girl was treated horrendously by the media and we can't really know her thoughts. She was definitely suicidal and mentally ill as she could not have expected to survive the crash. It was definitely a very emotional moment that led to her boyfriend's death.
Compare her media treatment and court sentencing to diversity hire Petgrave.
19-year-old Mackenzie Shirilla was called ‘hell on wheels’ - after she drove her car at 100mph into a brick wall.
Failing to brake, the crash killed her boyfriend Dominic Russo and his friend Davion Flanagan last year.
She denied purposefully killing both men – sobbing in court and said she didn’t remember the crash.
The judge sentencted her on 12 charges including murder and felon-ious assault - she'll serve 15 years to life in prison.
Just as a point of comparison (and to keep the history alive), even though ice hockey has the reputation as a violent sport, this is the most violent incident I ever knew of (although I'm sure there are others):
It took place 2/21/2000, so you can already see how far back we have to go. Interestingly as relative to the current incident, the attacker McSorley was white and the victim Brashear was black.
I think the NHL has ever had at most four black players. But you can see in the article (and I bet in any other writeup you find on the incident), that no one even mentions race.
We never appreciated how good things were without the constant and intense racial division.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-67419951
Also just got arrested. Video of the incident if you have not seen it.
https://twitter.com/MrSilversmith/status/1718764771044929879
I suggest everyone actually take the time to study the BBC writeup as an indication of how surreal "journalism" and "law enforcement" have become.
First, not only is Matt Petgrave not pictured in the article (which has become standard malpractice), he is not even mentioned. Instead, we get this vague construction:
For all we know, a white hetero Christian fascist threw it from the stands. Then we are told of the "investigation":
WTF? It was televised. There is, of course, no link to the video, and they talk like he was abducted by a flying saucer. And I'm sure this next bit information originally came in response to the police investigator asking, "Jeez, doc, what the hell do you think happened to him?":
They do raise a final mystery, because I can't for the life of me figure out who "the real killer" might have been:
It's all really a new low.
The news coverage is a story all on its own ..
It's too fast for me to see, I'm not used to watching hockey. https://x.com/Iwontsubmit/status/1719738491280466285?s=09 But hockey followers are suspecting there was a second kick.
Very bad video. And NO video from the audience?!?! Is it being purged?
I wouldn't necessarily expect to see any fan video. It's been a few years since I went to a live hockey game but hardly anyone bothered taking any pics or video besides selfies and if the mascot came by.
That seems counter-intuitive given today's habit of filming every f-ing thing, but fans attended in person not solely or even primarily because of the hoopla and energy, but because you really do get a different--and in many ways better--feel for the game when you can see the entire rink at once.
Then on top of that, everyone just records the game at home so that if something interesting occurs, they can rewatch it with slo-mo and all the angles and commentary.
Which makes me wonder how the actual broadcast went out. I suspect it was, "And now an extended word from our sponsor, followed by a featurette while officials clean up all the blood."
As to the video, I'd say it wasn't so much of a second kick as that he had his leg locked, was driving it right at the guy's head, and it bounced off his chest/shoulder pads.So again, evidence that he didn't just happen to be swinging his leg for some inexplicable reason.
Oh, that is interesting. Definitely games are more interesting in person. But, I had thought it would be like Taylor swift concerts by now. Everyone recording instead of watching.
You always have really good insight and analysis. Thank you for sharing.
....
It's so annoying when people - even HUGE hockey fans - continual the narrative that (1) "he didn't mean to kill him" "he didn't intend to kill him" and (2) "he feels really bad right now".
Really?? Really???
Intent is a huge legal issue and argument. How do any of these Podcasters and commentators feel justified in stating his intentions at that time, alledging that they knew his mind, his mens rea.
And even worse, how can they presume to know his current feelings?!?! Has he made any statements? Polygraph tests? Made statements under oath? If anything, it would probably be closer to Aston Kutcher who panicked when he found his girlfriend dead and decided to cover up his association.
This guy, Tim Peel, some commentator, https://youtu.be/u9FPFWW2WK4 says Petgrave didn't intend to kill him. Then he continues, saying that Petgrave might have meant to hit the victim's head (a/n with a blade with extreme force) but he didn't intend to kill him..
That's like.... I can't even think of a Jesus or Aesop type of parable that everyone can understand, that is so outrageous. Help me out here??? You creative writers lurking here?
That is the logical train of thought based on the video footage of events.
That's like a commentor saying:
Even this hormonal young girl was treated horrendously by the media and we can't really know her thoughts. She was definitely suicidal and mentally ill as she could not have expected to survive the crash. It was definitely a very emotional moment that led to her boyfriend's death.
19-year-old Mackenzie Shirilla was called ‘hell on wheels’ - after she drove her car at 100mph into a brick wall. Failing to brake, the crash killed her boyfriend Dominic Russo and his friend Davion Flanagan last year. She denied purposefully killing both men – sobbing in court and said she didn’t remember the crash. The judge sentencted her on 12 charges including murder and felon-ious assault - she'll serve 15 years to life in prison.
Just as a point of comparison (and to keep the history alive), even though ice hockey has the reputation as a violent sport, this is the most violent incident I ever knew of (although I'm sure there are others):
The Donald Brashear-Marty McSorley Incident
It took place 2/21/2000, so you can already see how far back we have to go. Interestingly as relative to the current incident, the attacker McSorley was white and the victim Brashear was black.
I think the NHL has ever had at most four black players. But you can see in the article (and I bet in any other writeup you find on the incident), that no one even mentions race.
We never appreciated how good things were without the constant and intense racial division.
His name is odd to me - Pstgrave. That's like a predictive programming or indication of the marrix/simulation theory.
He is a petty, dirty player. And he killed someone, put them in the grave.
I still wonder how this will all fall out.
How can his US relatives or govt sue? How will the Britiaj govt handle a a foreign prisoner?
Is he technically a Canadian? He seems the type to have various nationalities.
It's too fast for me to see, I'm not used to watching hockey. https://x.com/Iwontsubmit/status/1719738491280466285?s=09 But hockey followers are suspecting there was a second kick.
Very bad video. And NO video from the audience?!?! Is it being purged
Look for the guy in red. Looks like he was aiming to kick him in the face it's absurd.