|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 2, 2004 18:06:57 GMT -5
I voted for the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 2, 2004 18:29:30 GMT -5
I say 15, but only because Stafford swung for Perez's head first. If Perez had initiated the stick swinging I'd say at least a full year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goldthorpe on May 2, 2004 20:35:19 GMT -5
I voted for the playoff, but reading other posters opinions, I simply don't know anymore. Even if I fancy myself as a objective guy, I may be blinded my the fact that he is a Habs prospect.
It's not like he's lost for the organisation... but with Balej gone I sure hope it won't hurt us next season. Perez had definitively a shot for the big team. At least we still have Higgins/Hossa/Plek.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 2, 2004 21:05:00 GMT -5
I voted 30 games with the balance of the suspension coming at the begining of next seson. I also think that the Habs should respect that suspension & not bring him up until it os complete.
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on May 2, 2004 21:28:02 GMT -5
I voted 30 games with the balance of the suspension coming at the begining of next seson. I also think that the Habs should respect that suspension & not bring him up until it os complete. Also voted for 30 games but couldn't put what I thought into sufficient words. This echoes what I think. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 2, 2004 22:30:25 GMT -5
I voted for up to 30 games. That was one nasty-looking incident.
I agree with BC's argument that sentences should be longer for everyone - this really should warrant a full year, but if Zhogin gets a year, I don't expect to see Bertuzzi back next season, either. If suspensions get longer, they have to be longer for everyone.
Come to think of it, the fear of having to suspend a star player for a long period of time is probably what stops the NHL from having something too strict that they can't go around...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on May 3, 2004 2:41:41 GMT -5
I agree fully with MC's comment, i.e. playoffs plus 15 games next season, but that's in the context of today's NHL and previous punishments. if it would be my way, I'd say playoffs and a half of next season. Stafford would also get at least 20-25 games.
R.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 3, 2004 7:35:13 GMT -5
We all know which way I voted. I voted for up to 30 games. That was one nasty-looking incident. I agree with BC's argument that sentences should be longer for everyone - this really should warrant a full year, but if Zhogin gets a year, I don't expect to see Bertuzzi back next season, either. If suspensions get longer, they have to be longer for everyone. Come to think of it, the fear of having to suspend a star player for a long period of time is probably what stops the NHL from having something too strict that they can't go around... I agree fully with MC's comment, i.e. playoffs plus 15 games next season, but that's in the context of today's NHL and previous punishments. if it would be my way, I'd say playoffs and a half of next season. Stafford would also get at least 20-25 games. R. Let me ask you guys this, then; you seem to be of the opinion that Perezhoghin, in a perfect world, should get a longer suspension, perhaps up to a year, as I feel, BUT that because the NHL doesn't work that way (though the AHL is a little stiffer, I believe) there is no precedent, and therefore, it would be "unfair" to suddenly slap Perezhoghin with a huge suspension. Todd Bertuzzi has been suspended for 13 regular season games, and 7 playoff games (which could have been much, much more, if Vancouver doesn't go out in the 1st round), for a total of 20 games. And counting. He has to apply to be reinstated to the NHL next year (assuming there is a "next year"). If Gary Betteman says, "sorry Todd, after reflecting upon it all summer, I've decided you should get all of next year too" does that change your opinion of what Perezhoghin should get? If Bertuzzi ends up getting, 80-100 games, do you think Perezhoghin should get 60-82? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 3, 2004 7:43:59 GMT -5
The reason I ask, and I fully admit, its a trap  , is this: If you feel that Perezhoghin should get more in a perfect world, that hockey needs to eliminate that kind of stuff - Stafford's too, if you want to include him - then don't you think that hockey HAS to start somewhere? Bertuzzi, in my mind, was a good start. Granted, I would have preferred that there be no doubt as to the length of his suspension (this "we'll decide later" stuff is silly), but everyone agrees the book was more or less thrown at him. The problem is, we've seen "good starts" before. McSorely was a good start, but it wasn't followed up on. Domi was a good start, but again, it wasn't followed up on. Now, we have Bertuzzi. I want THIS to be followed up on. I want this to be the new precedent. I want the word to come down, that this is not your father's NHL anymore. It sucks that its a Hab prospect, but it has to start somewhere (again). IF Perezhoghin recieves a lengthy suspension, and all subsequent suspensions are meted out based on THIS precedent, do you think it will be worthwhile? Or, as I suspect most people here feel, do you feel nothing good will come of this, no precedent will be set, and therefore Perezhoghin should get off lightly, because everyone else has, and more importantly, will in the future? |
|
|
|
Post by Gogie on May 3, 2004 7:59:22 GMT -5
Let's put the possible length of Perezhogin's suspension into perspective before we start banning him for life! Below is a list of the longest suspensions handed out by the NHL. Yes, I realize that it's the AHL that we're dealing with now, but NHL suspensions should certainly not be significantly different from AHL suspensions.
As you peruse the list you'll see that the longest suspension ever handed out for hitting someone with a stick was Marty McSorley's 23 games (the "rest of the season"). Yes, I realize that McSorley was required to apply for reinstatment if he wanted to play the following season, but he ultimatley retired so no one knows if his suspension would have been longer. Somehow I doubt that it would have been, but that's just my opinion.
Brad May got 20 games for a slash to Steve Heinz' head. Wilf Paiment received 15 games for a vicious hit to the face of Dennis Polonich. I remember the Ted Green-Wayne Maki incident - it was particularlay brutal, with both players taking two-handed swings at each other (and this in the days when few players wore helmets). Green ended up having to have a metal plate inserted into his skull as a result of his injuries. Both players ended up with 13-game suspensions.
So what do I think Perezhogin should get? How about the balance of the playoffs plus 10-15 games next year (depending on how many games he misses in the playoffs). I think the mitigating factors in this case argue for no more than this. His actions most certainly were not premeditated - they were reactionary. Garrett Stafford was initially a willing participant in the escapade. It was he who initiated the entire incident, manhandling, cross-checking and ultimately trying to decapitate Perezhogin by swinging his stick first. Perezhogin finally reacted, albeit grossly inappropriately, by swinging back at Stafford.
The Rest Of The Season - Marty McSorley of the Boston Bruins, for knocking out Vancouver's Donald Brashear by swinging a stick at his head in March, 2000. McSorley missed 23 regular season games. The Bruins did not qualify for the playoffs.
23 Games - Gordie Dwyer of the Tampa Bay Lightning, for abusing officials and leaving the penalty box to fight in a pre-season game against the Washington Capitals in September, 2000.
21 games - Dale Hunter of the Washington Capitals, for a hit on Pierre Turgeon of the New York Islanders following a Turgeon goal in the 1993 playoffs.
20 games - Tom Lysiak of the Chicago Blackhawks, for intentionally tripping a linesman in October, 1983.
20 games - Brad May of the Phoenix Coyotes, for a slash to the head of Columbus' Steve Heinze.
16 games - Eddie Shore of the Boston Bruins, for hitting Toronto's Ace Bailey over the head with his stick in 1933.
15 games (3 regular season, 12 playoff) - Maurice Richard of the Montreal Canadiens, for knocking down linesman Cliff Thompson during a scuffle with Boston's Hal Laycoe in March, 1955.
15 games - Wilf Paiement of the Colorado Rockies, for swinging his stick and hitting Detroit's Dennis Polonich in the face in October, 1978.
15 games - Dave Brown of the Philadelphia Flyers, for cross-checking Tomas Sandstrom of the New York Rangers across the face and breaking his jaw in November, 1987.
15 games - Tony Granato of the Los Angeles Kings, for slashing Pittsburgh's Neil Wilkinson in February, 1994.
13 games - Wayne Maki of the St. Louis Blues and Ted Green of the Boston Bruins, for swinging their sticks at each other in September, 1969.
13 games - Andre Roy of the Tampa Bay Lightning, for leaving the penalty box and physically abusing an official while trying to engage players in the New York Rangers' penalty box in April, 2002.
12 games - Brantt Myhres of the San Jose Sharks, for leaving the bench to attack Mattias Norstrom of the Los Angeles Kings in February, 1999.
12 games - Matt Johnson of the Los Angeles Kings, for deliberately injuring the New York Rangers' Jeff Beukeboom in November, 1998. Beukeboom suffered a concussion and never played again.
12 games - Ron Hextall of the Philadelphia Flyers, for attacking Montreal's Chris Chelios during a playoff game in May, 1989.
12 games - David Shaw of the New York Rangers, for high-sticking Pittsburgh's Mario Lemieux in October, 1988.
11 games - Owen Nolan of the San Jose Sharks, for a hit to the head of the Dallas Stars' Grant Marshall in February, 2001.
11 games (3 playoff, 8 regular season) - Tie Domi of the Toronto Maple Leafs, for knocking out Scott Niedermayer with an elbow to the head during the 2001 playoffs. Domi was suspended for the balance of the playoffs and the first eight games of the following season.
10 games - Jimmy Mann of the Winnipeg Jets, for sucker-punching Pittsburgh's Paul Gardner in January, 1982.
10 games - Ruslan Salei of the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, for hitting Dallas' Mike Modano from behind in October, 1999.
10 games - Scott Niedermayer of the New Jersey Devils, for hitting Florida's Peter Worrell in the head with his stick in March, 2000.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 3, 2004 8:06:49 GMT -5
The question is though, do we want the NHL to conduct "business as usual?"
Most people agree that hockey has an extremely negative perception, particularily in the United States. A lot of people - myself included - think that hockey needs to be cleaned up, before something really, really bad happens.
If that's the case, then past suspensions are useless. Under Gill Stein, players used to be suspended for "non-game days" meaning that they could play the games, but not go to practices. Do we want to rely on precedents like that?
Or do we want to go in the direction I want to go in, where we say "screw the past, the past didn't work - this is how its going to be, and its going to be harsh."
Hockey CAN clean itself up. Players are not automotrons, blindly going beserk with rage at the drop of a hat. Hockey used to have bench clearing brawls all the time, until they put in a rule stating that if you leave the bench, its an automatic 10 game suspension. Notice the "automatic" meaning "no mitigating circumstances - we don't care, we're not going to listen, don't do it." Strangely enough, bench clearing brawls completely stopped. Nobody wanted a ten game suspension.
Right now, based on previous suspensions, based on the precedents that have been set (as you listed), nobody fears NHL justice. In fact, there seems to be this belief that "players need to police themselves." Thats stupid, and no other segment of society, sports or otherwise, holds that belief. The players have clearly shown they can't do it themselves.
I say we chuck out the old precedents, which did nothing, and start with new ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on May 3, 2004 8:24:56 GMT -5
The reason I ask, and I fully admit, its a trap , is this: If you feel that Perezhoghin should get more in a perfect world, that hockey needs to eliminate that kind of stuff - Stafford's too, if you want to include him - then don't you think that hockey HAS to start somewhere? Bertuzzi, in my mind, was a good start. Granted, I would have preferred that there be no doubt as to the length of his suspension (this "we'll decide later" stuff is silly), but everyone agrees the book was more or less thrown at him. The problem is, we've seen "good starts" before. McSorely was a good start, but it wasn't followed up on. Domi was a good start, but again, it wasn't followed up on. Now, we have Bertuzzi. I want THIS to be followed up on. I want this to be the new precedent. I want the word to come down, that this is not your father's NHL anymore. It sucks that its a Hab prospect, but it has to start somewhere (again). IF Perezhoghin recieves a lengthy suspension, and all subsequent suspensions are meted out based on THIS precedent, do you think it will be worthwhile? Or, as I suspect most people here feel, do you feel nothing good will come of this, no precedent will be set, and therefore Perezhoghin should get off lightly, because everyone else has, and more importantly, will in the future? I agree with you and I wouldn't mind if the league makes an example of Perezhogin (for example a full year suspension) but only if: 1. Stafford gets punished accordingly (maybe less, but not much, say half a season) and 2. Perezhogin's suspension serves as a benchmark for similar offences, starting with Bertuzzi's I would just hate if this young man is made a scapegoat just to see everything going back the way it used to be. it would be an easy way of (not) dealing with these issues. btw, I feel Bertuzzi should be punished more severely than Alex since, IMO, his actions were clearly premeditated. R. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 3, 2004 8:50:24 GMT -5
I agree with you and I wouldn't mind if the league makes an example of Perezhogin (for example a full year suspension) but only if: 1. Stafford gets punished accordingly (maybe less, but not much, say half a season) and 2. Perezhogin's suspension serves as a benchmark for similar offences, starting with Bertuzzi's I would just hate if this young man is made a scapegoat just to see everything going back the way it used to be. it would be an easy way of (not) dealing with these issues. btw, I feel Bertuzzi should be punished more severely than Alex since, IMO, his actions were clearly premeditated. R. That's exactly how I feel. It has to start somewhere. I cannot in good conscience say "it should have started with Bertuzzi, and if it didn't then, then it shouldn't start with Perezhoghin" or "let it start with the next guy." If you believe this was a severe enough offense to merit a lengthy suspension, then you should be calling for a lengthy suspension. Call for one for Stafford too, if you like, and Bertuzzi as well, but don't try and couch Perezhoghin's offense in terms of "well, everybody else is doing it." Cause that don't make it right. If you believe that everything is hunky-dory with the way the NHL polices itself, and that past suspensions have done a good job of keeping the NHL clean, safe and entertaining, then by all means, call for a lighter suspension to Perezhoghin... |
|
|
|
Post by Gogie on May 3, 2004 9:15:39 GMT -5
How about another angle on the Perezhogin incident (and others, for that matter). I firmly believe the league (both the NHL and the AHL) and on-ice officials must share some of the blame for what goes on on the ice. Too often I've seen poor officiating (both one-sided and downright inept) lead to uncontrolled play. Earlier in the Hamilton-Cleveland series (game 2 to be exact) I watched as Dean Morton, in his usual inept manner, proceeded to lose control of the game. He constantly missed or ingnored blatant infractions (on both sides of the ice). As I sat in the stands I wondered to myself how long it would be before he totally lost control and something nasty happened. It took a few more games and another useless referee (Bob Langdon) to finally make it happen.
So what can be done? How about calling the play "by the book"? How about making it a penalty to touch a player, accidently or otherwise, with your stick above the waist? As mentioned in an earlier post, when hockey got serious about eliminating bench-clearing brawls it worked. No leniency and no mercy - leave the bench, get suspened for a significant amount of time. The same could happen with all the stick work that goes on. Touch a player above the waist with your stick - 2 minutes. Do it again, another 2 minutes. Think about how much cleaner and faster the game would be. No more hooking onto a player as he goes by and going along for the ride. No more getting your stick up into an opponent's face as he tries to legally body check you.
Yes, Perezhogin is at fault for his actions. But the system itself also contributes. Perezhogin's actions are a symptom, not the cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 3, 2004 10:44:09 GMT -5
Ah yes, the Rule Book. What a noble concept. Something for all to revere, and to abide by (but only if forced to do so). A tool for radically minimizing or preventing anarchy and chaos, if the will exists to use it in a manner that can be taken seriously rather than whimsically.
But no, "we must let the players decide the outcome" because "there is just too much on the line to allow the referees to decide the game." And so...we end up clamoring for after-the-fact "justice".
Btw, there used to be 30 referees in the NHL. Now there are 60. Where did the other 30 come from?
Gogie, IMO you hit something on the head.
Hmmm, isn't it every pre-season that there are pleasant sounds made by those in charge about "cracking down [on-this-that-or-the-other] so that skilled players [like Perezhogin] can bring more excitement to the game."? Where are they now?
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on May 3, 2004 11:32:31 GMT -5
I agree with you and I wouldn't mind if the league makes an example of Perezhogin (for example a full year suspension) but only if: 1. Stafford gets punished accordingly (maybe less, but not much, say half a season) and 2. Perezhogin's suspension serves as a benchmark for similar offences, starting with Bertuzzi's I would just hate if this young man is made a scapegoat just to see everything going back the way it used to be. it would be an easy way of (not) dealing with these issues. btw, I feel Bertuzzi should be punished more severely than Alex since, IMO, his actions were clearly premeditated. R. For the record, I voted 30 games with a "time served" clause for the playoff games lost this season. In response Rimmer, I have this horrible nagging worry in the back of my mind that the league (the NHL in this case) has been looking for a fringe player, or unproven player, to make an example of instead of one of its stars a al Bertuzzi. This whole incident has the ability to have "scapegoat" written all over it, so Alex's punishment ultimately will only be judged as being fair in light of what both Bertuzzi and Stafford also get handed down as suspensions. As you can see, I am also of in favour of handing something down to Stafford. He was not just an innocent victim here. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on May 3, 2004 14:48:38 GMT -5
Right now, based on previous suspensions, based on the precedents that have been set (as you listed), nobody fears NHL justice. In fact, there seems to be this belief that "players need to police themselves." Thats stupid, and no other segment of society, sports or otherwise, holds that belief. The players have clearly shown they can't do it themselves. I say we chuck out the old precedents, which did nothing, and start with new ones. I agree. As much as I would love to see Perezhogin in a Habs uniform the penalty needs to be stiff. He should be gone for upwards of 60 games. The stick swinging nonsense has to be stopped. But while we are at it, we should also look at the role of the officials (and the guys who give them their orders) in this. The old rule of thumb is that the guy who retaliates is the one who is penalized. I don't know what kind of logic was used to develop that mindset but if the officials began calling the first penalty, it could substantially reduce the number of retaliatory penalties and the vigilante justice that now occurs. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 3, 2004 18:56:13 GMT -5
But no, "we must let the players decide the outcome" because "there is just too much on the line to allow the referees to decide the game." And so...we end up clamoring for after-the-fact "justice". The problem being that the refs, being human, make mistakes, especially when the rules are "interpreted" and refs have to constantly make judgment calls. Knowing whether or not someone touched someone with his stick is easy enough, but knowing whether or not he hooked him enough to effect the play is a whole other ball game, and one that the refs are sure to be imperfect at. Once you have a fuzzy rulebook, then the concept of "letting them play" makes some sense. Not much, but some. So, just for the record, I'm very much for a clear-cut rulebook, where if you hook a guy very slightly far from the play, you get a penalty, just because that's something you don't do. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 3, 2004 19:00:35 GMT -5
That's exactly how I feel. Same here. The real problem is knowing if there's really something starting, or if, as others have said, we aren't just looking at a single scapegoat and it's business as usual for the next guy. Of course it doesn't, but I don't want to see my team penalised more than another, either. Make it 2 seasons off, make it a 2 billion dollar fine, but make it the same for everyone. And no mercy whatsoever for repeat offenders. Triple sentence or so for 2nd offenses. At the same time, a clear system where a guy can challenge another and drop the gloves should IMO be in place. Maybe take a 2 minute penalty for instigating, but nothing worse. I don't think we can take the dirty hits out of hockey without giving players a legit mechanism for hurting each other within reasonable bounds, ie, fighting. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 3, 2004 19:37:42 GMT -5
So, just for the record, I'm very much for a clear-cut rulebook, where if you hook a guy very slightly far from the play, you get a penalty, just because that's something you don't do. Those are exactly the constraints by which I grew up playing organized hockey in the ever so tight-assed 60s. Ah, good times, good times... |
|
|
|
Post by LeafSuck on May 3, 2004 19:48:42 GMT -5
to me it looked like perezhogin was acting in self-defense. looked like the guy went for his head as well. not to mention he recieved a pretty vicious cross-check just seconds earlier.
not saying smashing his stick into stafford's face was the best idea, but i can see why he'd do it. i'd be pretty pissed off if someone was taking swings at my head with a hockey stick.
i would give hogin about 20-30 games next year, and the rest of this playoffs. i cannot see anything more simply cause of the circumstances.
the fact it was in the heat of battle has to be taken into consideration. the fact cleveland is a dirty team has to be taken into consideration. the fact stafford swung at his head has to be taken into consideration. the fact it's his first ever suspension in the AHL and that he has a good rep as a clean player has to be taken into consideration.
i think these acts of violence are over blown by people why hate the game and are looking for any excuse to bash it.
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on May 3, 2004 20:16:44 GMT -5
I was watching The Score last night and they had coverage on the "incident". At the end of it the two commentators were talking about how The Score had recieved some form of communication (I don't remember which) from a media outlet in a city with a team still in the playoffs and all that outlet wanted was images from the incident.
I believe there is such thing as bad publicity...
|
|
|
|
Post by montreal on May 4, 2004 0:48:21 GMT -5
I hope he doesn't get more then 10 games next year. The head of the ahl was interviewed during the last dogs game and he talked about Perezhogin having a clean record, and that they would view the game tape, the officals report and the medical report to hopefully have an idea later in the week. Also in the rds article, from the sound of it, the officer in charge of the investigation did say something along the lines that he didn't think charges would be filed, but they will talk with Alex tomorrow. He said it's hard for them to tell the difference between a rough sport on an actual crime. But my French is very poor, so I may have read it wrong. Guess we'll see what the AHL does, but 60 games, 1 year, good god thats insane! Way too much.   |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on May 4, 2004 10:06:46 GMT -5
Hockey is a rough game.
Clean rough.
Crack down on the dirty, dangerous rough.
Call games by the book in the first place.
And suspend both these players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goldthorpe on May 4, 2004 12:36:55 GMT -5
Yesterday evening I had nothing else to do so I scooped around other team's board take on the situation (if you want to know, I checked HF ones). The concensus range from the "yea it sucks but there are circumstancial explanation" (Oiler's) to "the SOB should be deported to Russia" (Boston).
I think the whole NHL violence problem won't be resolved by making an example and giving a year of suspension to a kid with no history of violence, but by giving realistic and systematic suspensions to much, much more players.
If ref. would begin giving 5-matchs suspensions at least 2-3 times a week league-wide, you can be sure that the teams would get the message quickly. Imagine if any given team could suffer 10-20 game-day of suspension each season... suddendly this is something they would have to address in their team strategy. Giving 30-matchs suspensions to a handful of players, basing ourself almost exclusively on the victim's injuries, is completely pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 4, 2004 13:32:33 GMT -5
Yesterday evening I had nothing else to do so I scooped around other team's board take on the situation (if you want to know, I checked HF ones). The concensus range from the "yea it sucks but there are circumstancial explanation" (Oiler's) to "the SOB should be deported to Russia" (Boston). I think the whole NHL violence problem won't be resolved by making an example and giving a year of suspension to a kid with no history of violence, but by giving realistic and systematic suspensions to much, much more players. If ref. would begin giving 5-matchs suspensions at least 2-3 times a week league-wide, you can be sure that the teams would get the message quickly. Imagine if any given team could suffer 10-20 game-day of suspension each season... suddendly this is something they would have to address in their team strategy. Giving 30-matchs suspensions to a handful of players, basing ourself almost exclusively on the victim's injuries, is completely pointless. I agree that making an example of one unfortunate who gets caught is not the way for the NHL or AHL to enforce discipline and reduce stick swinging. Perezhoegin should not be used as an example. He should be punished based upon the merits and circumstances of his infraction. Bertuzzi had a much less serious infraction with much more disasterous consequences. Bertuzzi is a warrior with lots of other peoples blood on his sweater. Despite Bertuzzi's strength and history, he does not have a record of attacking from behind. Bertuzzi struck a parked car at 5 mph, but the car contained a child that struck his head and broke his neck. Perezhoegin was speeding and reckless and but accident didn't result in long term damage. (fortunate for him) |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on May 5, 2004 12:56:51 GMT -5
Despite Bertuzzi's strength and history, he does not have a record of attacking from behind. (fortunate for him) Really? |
|
|
|
Post by oldhabsfan on May 7, 2004 1:49:12 GMT -5
The police investigation -
According to Wenesday's (May 5) Hamilton Spectator newspaper (page A6):
"Hamilton Bulldog forward Alexander Perezhogin was interviewed by Hamilton police for more than two hours [Tuesday] night as investigators decide if they'll charge the 20-year-old forward for a vicious slash in Friday's playoff game against Cleveland...
[snip]
"Perezhogin arrived at the central police station about 7:15 last night, dressed in a dark suit and accompanied by agent Don Meehan, an interpreter and a third person. They said nothing to reporters on entry and exited secetly.
"Detective Sergeant Lisa Di Cesare has said police will consult with the Crown's office before deciding if they will lay charges. A key issue is whether it is believed Perezhogin intended to cause harm or simply reacted. Hamilton Crown attorney Tim Power said if police lay charges, the Crown's office must decide if there's a reasonable prospect of conviction."
|
|
, is this:
