In a village north of Nice, a man who had built his livelihood on enduring public suffering died while his audience watched, and the law has now attempted to draw its lines around what happened. Two men convicted of aggravated violence in connection with the death of streamer Raphaël Graven will serve no prison time, their sentences shaped by the uncomfortable legal weight of consent — Graven had told police he was willing. The case leaves open a deeper question that courts are rarely equipped to answer: where does a person's right to choose end, and another's duty to protect begin.
Two convicted in death of French streamer whose demise was livestreamed
Raphaël Graven, 46, died during a live-streamed extreme challenge event in August 2025, with his death broadcast to millions of online viewers.
He lay on a mattress, covered by a duvet, visible to anyone watching
Mark
How do we understand consent in a situation like this? Graven said yes, but he died.
Mimi
That's the knot the court had to untie. Consent is a legal concept, but it assumes the person consenting understands the full risk. Did Graven? The court said he did, because he told police so. But his body answered differently.
Mark
The men weren't charged with manslaughter. Why does that matter?
Mimi
It matters because it separates intention from outcome. The prosecutors said his heart was already failing. The stunts didn't kill him—his fragility did. It's a way of saying: the men are guilty of something, but not of killing him.
Mark
But he was performing on a platform watched by millions. Doesn't the platform have responsibility?
Mimi
That's what French authorities are asking now. Kick says it's not their problem—these are just two creators. But a million people watched a man die. The platform provided the stage. Whether that creates obligation is still being decided.
Mark
What does it mean that both men got suspended sentences?
Mimi
They don't go to prison. They pay fines and can't stream for six months. It's a punishment that acknowledges wrongdoing without treating it as a serious crime. It's also a way of saying: we're not sure how to measure this harm.
Mark
Do you think Graven understood what he was risking?
Mimi
I don't know. He had a million followers. He was known for extreme challenges. Maybe he understood the physical risk but not the psychological cost of being humiliated for an audience. Or maybe he understood both and chose it anyway. The court decided that was his choice to make.
The Pulse
- A man died on camera in August 2025, his final moments streamed live to over a million followers on Kick, transforming entertainment into something no viewer could look away from or undo.
- The legal proceedings exposed a fault line between what the law can prove and what the body cannot survive — prosecutors stopped short of manslaughter charges, citing Graven's fragile health as the probable cause of death.
- Both convicted men argued that Graven had consented to the stunts, and the court accepted it, acquitting them of psychological abuse and handing down suspended sentences totalling no jail time.
- Kick, the platform that hosted the broadcast, remains under investigation by French authorities, while both men face a six-month ban from posting — a consequence that feels provisional against the permanence of what occurred.
- The case is now landing in a space of unresolved accountability, raising urgent questions about what streaming platforms owe to performers, and whether consent can ever be a complete answer when the stakes are a human life.
In a village north of Nice, a man who had built his livelihood on enduring public suffering died while his audience watched, and the law has now attempted to draw its lines around what happened. Two men convicted of aggravated violence in connection with the death of streamer Raphaël Graven will serve no prison time, their sentences shaped by the uncomfortable legal weight of consent — Graven had told police he was willing. The case leaves open a deeper question that courts are rarely equipped to answer: where does a person's right to choose end, and another's duty to protect begin.
Raphaël Graven was 46 years old when he died in a village north of Nice in August 2025, his death broadcast live on the streaming platform Kick to an audience of more than a million people. Known also as Jean Pormanove, he had built his following around extreme content — broadcasts in which other streamers subjected him to violence and humiliation, all framed as entertainment. On August 18, he lay unmoving on a mattress, visible to anyone watching. The video was later removed.
Two men, Safine Hamadi and Owen Cenazandotti, were convicted of aggravated violence in connection with his death, but the legal outcome was narrower than many expected. Neither faced manslaughter charges. Prosecutors concluded that while the stunts may have contributed to his collapse, the probable cause of death lay in Graven's own medical fragility — a weak heart, poor health. The law drew a line between what the men did and what killed him.
Both defendants argued throughout the proceedings that Graven had consented to everything, and the court accepted this. He had told police before his death that he was willing to participate. The acquittal on charges of psychological abuse followed the same logic: consent, the court reasoned, negated the charge. Hamadi received an 18-month suspended sentence and a €5,000 fine; Cenazandotti received two years suspended and €15,000. Neither will serve time in prison. Both are banned from posting on Kick for six months.
The platform itself remains under investigation by French authorities. Kick issued a statement distancing itself from the verdict, describing it as a matter concerning only the two individual creators. What the case leaves behind is a collision between consent and consequence — between what a person says they want and what the human body can actually survive — and the question of what platforms owe to those who perform on them remains, for now, unanswered.
Raphaël Graven was 46 years old when he died in a village north of Nice in August 2025, and the moment of his death was broadcast live to an audience of strangers on the streaming platform Kick. He lay on a mattress, covered by a duvet, visible to anyone watching his channel that day. Graven, who also went by the name Jean Pormanove, had built a following of more than a million people across social media by making himself the centerpiece of extreme content—the kind where other streamers would subject him to acts of violence and verbal humiliation during broadcasts, all framed as entertainment.
Two men, Safine Hamadi and Owen Cenazandotti, have now been convicted of aggravated violence in connection with Graven's death. The French court found them guilty of their role in the events that led to his collapse, though the legal outcome was narrower than it might have been. Neither man faced manslaughter charges. Prosecutors determined that while the stunts and abuse may have contributed to what happened, the probable cause of death appeared rooted in Graven's own medical fragility—his poor health, his weak heart. The law, in other words, drew a line between what the men did and what killed him.
Both defendants claimed throughout the proceedings that Graven had consented to everything. He knew what he was signing up for, they said. The court accepted this argument. When police spoke with Graven before his death, he had told them he was willing to participate in the stunts. The court also acquitted the men of abusing his psychological vulnerability, reasoning that if he had given permission, the charge did not apply. Hamadi's lawyer made this clear to Reuters: the consent claim held.
The sentences reflected this legal ambiguity. Hamadi received an 18-month suspended prison sentence and was ordered to pay €5,000 in fines. Cenazandotti received two years suspended and was ordered to pay €15,000. Neither man will serve time in jail. Both have been banned from posting on Kick for six months. The platform itself, meanwhile, remains under investigation by French authorities. In a statement, Kick said it was not a party to the case and had no comment on the verdict, adding that the ruling concerned only the two individual creators, not the platform.
What emerges from this case is a collision between consent and consequence, between what someone says they want and what the human body can actually withstand. Graven had built his entire online presence on being willing to endure what others would not. He had an audience, followers, a community. He was known for extreme challenges. But on August 18, 2025, the livestream showed him unmoving. The video was later removed from Kick. The investigation continues, and the question of what a platform owes to the people who perform on it—and what those people owe to themselves—remains unresolved.
Notable Quotes
The ruling relates solely to two individual content creators— Kick platform statement
Graven had told police prior to his death that he had consented to the stunts— Hamadi's lawyer to Reuters
Want the full story?
Read the original at BBC News ↗
Technology