A young man is set to be drafted...

[KryptOng 9]

Read this story and found it interesting in the sense I had no clue this player to be drafted was the accused in the rugby accident.

It was a hot topic/debate when it happened and i don't condone what happened, everyone makes mistakes and it was unfortunate of what happened to Manny Castillo. I hope the judge doesn't sentence this player any or even significant jail time and uses this incident more of an example to all young athletes that they have to control their aggression in any sports.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/06/19/...hy_draft_rugby/

More on the rugby incident:

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNe...8/?hub=CP24Home

What are you thoughts and opinions on this?

[K9 Unit 1]

wonder who it is...saw it all over the newspaper, from what i hear he got angry and threw that kid down like one of those wwe takedowns, i didn't know it was true until i read this, thats like the worst tackle ever

[furlanitalia 1]

Wow. Pretty shocking stuff to say the least. Imagine trying to determine his mental stability at the combine...

[Leafsrule16 5]

That sentence is a joke. Its not like the boy intentionally tried to kill the poor guy, not only that but imagine how he feels bad enough? At 16, taking a life and having to live with it for the rest of your life must be tough. A drunk driver went into the wrong lane when a family friend was driving transport and got killed, the family friend still feels awful. Theres no way the kid ment to kill that poor boy on the rugby field, I think the fact he took a life is punishment enough. Now he also has to face the publicity and may never reach the nhl which im sure was his dream. Dont tell me a manslaughter conviction isnt a deterrent to the teams who are interested in drafting this young man.

"It's worth noting that even Manny Castillo's family didn't want him charged on the grounds that ruining another boy's life only added to the damage suffered by their son." - Taken from the article. If they convict this kid, its foolish. I feel awful for the boy who died, but can only imagine how the guy who killed him felt and the pain he brought there family.

[Jason Harris 31]

What you need to factor in is whether this was an accident or a purposeful act that wasn't intended to go that far. If he jumped to the side to try to grab Manny Castillo as he was running with the ball, and ended up tripping him and causing Castillo to land on his head, that's an accident. If he picks up Castillo and slams his head into the ground, that was an intentional act of retribution against Castillo, although we assume he had not intention of killing the boy.

Regardless of his age or potential to play a professional sport, that's the definition of manslaughter. Did one's negligent act cause the death of another?

I don't believe the boy needs to spend the rest of his life in jail, but I don't think it's enough punishment for his negligent act to just say his guilt should be adequate.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

The problem is this: if the other kid hadn't died this would never have been a criminal issue. If you sent the police to your local high school football, hockey, rugby, or any contact sport game and told them to enforce the laws on assualt just like they would on the street every player would be in handcuffs. I've played rugby for years, it's a rough game. You have to accept when you step on the pitch that you might get seriously injuried. Have a friend with serious nerve damage in his neck that was the result of a scrum in training that collapsed. You also have to accept that the laws that protect you on teh street from certain types of conduct will cease to apply in favor of the laws of rugby. In the course of normal play you could get taken down the wrong way and have the same result. I've been kicked in the face by teammates going into a ruck after being tackled, have had my hands stepped on by guys in rugby boots, taken shoulders to the face that broke my nose, and the list goes on and on. I'm not special, just the way the game is played. Bottom line is guys have to be able to step on the field knowing that playing the game hard isn't going to result in criminal prosecution if some misfortune happens.

[eric42434224 1]

The problem is this: if the other kid hadn't died this would never have been a criminal issue. If you sent the police to your local high school football, hockey, rugby, or any contact sport game and told them to enforce the laws on assualt just like they would on the street every player would be in handcuffs. I've played rugby for years, it's a rough game. You have to accept when you step on the pitch that you might get seriously injuried. Have a friend with serious nerve damage in his neck that was the result of a scrum in training that collapsed. You also have to accept that the laws that protect you on teh street from certain types of conduct will cease to apply in favor of the laws of rugby. In the course of normal play you could get taken down the wrong way and have the same result. I've been kicked in the face by teammates going into a ruck after being tackled, have had my hands stepped on by guys in rugby boots, taken shoulders to the face that broke my nose, and the list goes on and on. I'm not special, just the way the game is played. Bottom line is guys have to be able to step on the field knowing that playing the game hard isn't going to result in criminal prosecution if some misfortune happens.

I agree with JasonHarris on this one, and respectfully disagree with Rec and Leafs. Of course if the kid wasnt killed the situation would be criminally different, if even non-existent. But he did die. He died due to the actions of another. If he had been paralyzed, he would have been charged with a different offense....maybe felony assault...I dont know for sure. The point is, it doesnt matter if you are playing a sport. Being an athelete in a contact sport does not give you license to attack and possibly maim or kill another person by an act that is clearly not within the parameters of the sport. This was a deliberate violent act that had nothing to do with Rugby. Being seriously injured or killed accidentally while playing a sport is one thing....being killed in a deliberate and violent act of retribution that has absolutely nothing to do with the accepted parameters of the game is another. Your assertion that certain laws will cease to protect you when on the field is correct...up to a point. Is manslaughter or murder not applicable? Reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions, and reasonable people can agree that there are indeed situations that are criminal, even in sports. You say that this injury or death could have happened in the normal course of play, and this misfortune is an unfortunate product of accepted risk. The obvious point you seem to miss is that this was not an accident, but an intentional and violent act that was most certialny not even close to being considered "normal course of play".

Also, it doesnt matter if the victims family doesnt want any charges brought on the kid. The prosecutor deems that there is enough evidence there was a crime, and he prosecutes. The victims family may have an effect on sentencing, or civil actions for sure, but the law is the law. The offense was prosecuted correctly IMO. Someones guilt is not enough of a punishment. On the note of his future in the NHL.....NHL teams are not going to look at just his conviction as a deterrent....they will look at his actions. His action of assaulting another person in anger shows personality traits that might deter NHL teams. This isnt the end of the road for him though. He obviously needs to re-evaluate his life and make some changes, and in the end he could be just fine.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

He got slammed to the ground, that's certainly a part of playing rugby. The law can't show up on the field and start prosecuting by result. Being an athlete in a contact sport carries the risk of being injuired or killed in the course of play, even if it's because an opposing player got a little too rough. There are either times when the general laws of soceity stop applying, or the courts need to just come out and say all contact sports are illegal because they all qualify as assualt. It's absurd to live in a soceity that permits contact sports, but wants to step in and start handing out jail time only when there's a bad result. There's no reason in that, it's just about feeling good by being reactionary. Where is this prosecutor when overly rough play only results in minor injuries? Why aren't the police at every hockey game arresting everyone that gets into a fist fight?

[eric42434224 1]

Fights are an acceptable occurence in Hockey. Being slammed to the ground in a scrum during the normal course of play in a Rugby game is an accepted occurence. Pile Driving someone into the ground after the play out of anger is not an acceptable occurence in the normal course of play in Rugby.

Do you even know what a pile driver is? I am beginning to think you dont. It is completely outside any rational interpretation of what is acceptable in any sport.

If you will also notice, the defense was that it was self-defense....not an unfortunate accident in the normal course of Rugby play. That says a lot. They knew it wasnt accepted Rugby play, so they had to come up with a lame excuse. Only problem is how can he be defending himself from being choked when he is in the position to pile drive someone?

The prosecution of this kid was correct IMO, at least with the information we have.

[Leafsrule16 5]

He got slammed to the ground, that's certainly a part of playing rugby. The law can't show up on the field and start prosecuting by result. Being an athlete in a contact sport carries the risk of being injuired or killed in the course of play, even if it's because an opposing player got a little too rough. There are either times when the general laws of soceity stop applying, or the courts need to just come out and say all contact sports are illegal because they all qualify as assualt. It's absurd to live in a soceity that permits contact sports, but wants to step in and start handing out jail time only when there's a bad result. There's no reason in that, it's just about feeling good by being reactionary. Where is this prosecutor when overly rough play only results in minor injuries? Why aren't the police at every hockey game arresting everyone that gets into a fist fight?

Thats exactly how i see it. I dont support this act what so ever, i just dont feel as if this kid should forever be known as a murderer, hes not. Also, im not 100% sure how this kid could grab ahold of another guy, and throw him into a piledriver. If someone was resisting it would be pretty hard to put them in a pile driver. It just doesnt sound reasonable, there has to be more to the story then that. You punch someone in the face or swear at them out of anger, slash them with a hockey stick or throw a dirty hit out of anger, you dont grab someone, flip them upside down, hold onto them and then drop to your knees with there head between your knees killing them in anger. Thats just not a reasonable/likely story and i have trouble to believe that that is exactly what happened.

[eric42434224 1]

He got slammed to the ground, that's certainly a part of playing rugby. The law can't show up on the field and start prosecuting by result. Being an athlete in a contact sport carries the risk of being injuired or killed in the course of play, even if it's because an opposing player got a little too rough. There are either times when the general laws of soceity stop applying, or the courts need to just come out and say all contact sports are illegal because they all qualify as assualt. It's absurd to live in a soceity that permits contact sports, but wants to step in and start handing out jail time only when there's a bad result. There's no reason in that, it's just about feeling good by being reactionary. Where is this prosecutor when overly rough play only results in minor injuries? Why aren't the police at every hockey game arresting everyone that gets into a fist fight?

Thats exactly how i see it. I dont support this act what so ever, i just dont feel as if this kid should forever be known as a murderer, hes not. Also, im not 100% sure how this kid could grab ahold of another guy, and throw him into a piledriver. If someone was resisting it would be pretty hard to put them in a pile driver. It just doesnt sound reasonable, there has to be more to the story then that. You punch someone in the face or swear at them out of anger, slash them with a hockey stick or throw a dirty hit out of anger, you dont grab someone, flip them upside down, hold onto them and then drop to your knees with there head between your knees killing them in anger. Thats just not a reasonable/likely story and i have trouble to believe that that is exactly what happened.

He isnt a murderer. He was convicted of manslaughter because his actions caused the death of another. He killed someone, and that is a simple fact. If he is forever known as someone who killed someone, then he has to live with that....because that is exactly what happened.

Also, we can only judge the situation on the info we have. The info we have is that he pile-drove the kid....he even admitted it himself right after he did it. Given that info, how can someone being pile-driven be reasonably considered acceptable action in a rugby match? It cant. You may not think it is a reasonable/likely story, but there were numerous witnesses that confirm it. Given the facts available, the prosecution was correct.....IMO.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

Fights are an acceptable occurence in Hockey.

Fighting is clearly against the rules of hockey and will result in a major penalty. Fighting is against the rules of soceity and is assualt. If you are going to be at all consistant in your logic then if slamming someone to the ground in violation of the laws of rugby constitutes a crime because it also violates the law, then anyone that fights during a hockey game should be arrested and charged with assualt. The same as if they had gotten in a fight on the street.

Being slammed to the ground in a scrum during the normal course of play in a Rugby game is an accepted occurence. Pile Driving someone into the ground after the play out of anger is not an acceptable occurence in the normal course of play in Rugby.

Do you even know what a pile driver is? I am beginning to think you dont. It is completely outside any rational interpretation of what is acceptable in any sport.

DO you know what a scrum is, tackling is not part of a scrum. I'm well aware of what a pile driver is, and it's absolutely no different than the hundreds of times a season a player finishes a tackle after the wistle in high school football because they're pissed off. Or the hundreds of instances of boarding, spearing, or any of the other crap that goes on in hockey after the whistle.

If you will also notice, the defense was that it was self-defense....not an unfortunate accident in the normal course of Rugby play. That says a lot. They knew it wasnt accepted Rugby play, so they had to come up with a lame excuse. Only problem is how can he be defending himself from being choked when he is in the position to pile drive someone?

The prosecution of this kid was correct IMO, at least with the information we have.

Fighting is against the rules of hockey, and yet every year hundreds of assualts are witnessed by millions of viewers during NHL games. The players aren't arrested and tried. This is nothing but prosecution by result.

[eric42434224 1]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I simply do not agree with you. If you cant see the difference between actions that are, and have been, accepted as normal course of play in a sport......and ones that arent....then we will not be able to have any reasonable discussion on the topic.

Fighting is against the rules in Hockey, but it is clearly an accepted activity in the normal course of play in hockey. Just because there is a penalty for it doesnt mean it isnt an accepted action.

Pile driving is not an accepted activity in any sport....except fake TV wrestling...and those are fake pile drivers. If you think a pile-driver is "absolutely no different than the hundreds of times a season a player finishes a tackle after the wistle in high school football because they're pissed off. Or the hundreds of instances of boarding, spearing, or any of the other crap that goes on in hockey after the whistle." then you really do not know what a pile driver is. Until you do, there really isnt much for you and I to discuss on this topic.

Again, I respect that someone else has a particular opinion, but I think that you and I must just agree to disagree.

[Chadd 916]

The kid should spend some time in jail and be required to go through anger management courses. In short, whatever sentence is normal for this type of case should be applied here. That would normally prevent him from getting a work visa, but he's an athlete and rules don't apply.

[team50 20]

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNe...6/?hub=CP24Home

[Chadd 916]

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNe...6/?hub=CP24Home

Just goes to show that you can get away with anything if you are a good enough athlete or a big enough celebrity.

[Jason Harris 31]

That truly is a slap on the wrist for someone who intentionally tried to injure another, even though we have to assume he had no intention of killing the other boy.

[Chadd 916]

That truly is a slap on the wrist for someone who intentionally tried to injure another, even though we have to assume he had no intention of killing the other boy.

If you intend to injure someone and it results in death, that is generally considered second degree murder in most American jurisdictions.

[team50 20]

I believe in Canada that intending to injure and a death resulting is not enough. I believe that the perpetrator had to intend death or ought to have known that their actions would likely result in death before it is considered murder. Acting with wanton wrecklessness and an unintended death occurring is manslaughter.

Edit: typed without benefit of being able to consult or check the Criminal Code.

[Chadd 916]

I believe in Canada that intending to injure and a death resulting is not enough. I believe that the perpetrator had to intend death or ought to have known that their actions would likely result in death before it is considered murder. Acting with wanton wrecklessness and an unintended death occurring is manslaughter.

Edit: typed without benefit of being able to consult or check the Criminal Code.

Either way a year of probation is absurd for an intentional act that had a more severe than intended result.

[team50 20]

I believe in Canada that intending to injure and a death resulting is not enough. I believe that the perpetrator had to intend death or ought to have known that their actions would likely result in death before it is considered murder. Acting with wanton wrecklessness and an unintended death occurring is manslaughter.

Edit: typed without benefit of being able to consult or check the Criminal Code.

Either way a year of probation is absurd for an intentional act that had a more severe than intended result.

Agreed. That sentence does not offer much of a deterrent or send a messsage to others that the accused actions in this matter on a sports field were unacceptable.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/article/GTA/661870

Reaction from the family.

[dalebert 8]

Newsday published an article today, he went 4th round to the Islanders.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/ny-spisles07...0,1723329.story

[Jason Harris 31]

That truly is a slap on the wrist for someone who intentionally tried to injure another, even though we have to assume he had no intention of killing the other boy.

If you intend to injure someone and it results in death, that is generally considered second degree murder in most American jurisdictions.

No doubt. I'm just giving the kid the benefit of the doubt that he didn't intend to kill his opponent, but I'm certain the "lesson" he was teaching was meant to come with pain.

Consequently, a year's probation is a joke.