HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Rick Rypien Incident(UPD: Suspended 6 Games, Post # 508)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-20-2010, 06:19 PM
  #351
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Maybe he was feeling threatened by the fan's boistrous clapping and heckling? Maybe he said something to hurt Rypien's feelings? All in all it would be about the same amount of damage done by Rypien.
But it's not the same. The fan would sue the Wild for negligence, not an intentional tort. Intentional torts (assault, battery, trespass) are actionable per se; no need to prove damages. Negligence requires damages, so he'd need the threat to justify any anguish and that would have to be medically proven.

LongRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:20 PM
  #352
Andy Dufresne
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Kazakhstan
Posts: 1,541
vCash: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
No need to prove harm or injury - battery is an intentional tort. Damages flow from the unlawful act. Injuries may affect the quantum of damages.
[INDENT]Battery
]
In the U.S aren't most of these types of laws written differently in each individual state?
Several posters on the main board quoted Minnesota law for 5th degree assault as:
blah blah blah AND 'causing fear'- not going to look up the exact quote now, but apparently if you scare someone you've assaulted them (in the 5th degree)

edit: Obviously that's Criminal court not Civil court, I wonder what the terminology would be for civil court (If i'm even wording that correctly ftm)

Andy Dufresne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:22 PM
  #353
PRNuck
Retain Kevin Lowe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,026
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuKer View Post
True, but not in this case. Ryp almost pulled the guy completely out of the stands just cause he was clapping. We're all Canucks fans here but if the situation was reversed and a Wild player did this to you at a Canucks game you're telling me you wouldn't sue him? I know I would.
Ok I just imagined myself having seats like that and calling Ben Eager a ***** (I hate him) and having him grab my jersey. I gotta say, I'd probably have more anger towards the arena for not having an appropriate amount of space to keep imaginary Ben and I apart.

PRNuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:23 PM
  #354
Winnipeg Jets
Lucky #7
 
Winnipeg Jets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Selkirk
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,653
vCash: 1125
The fan made a statement today I think saying that the only thing he did was say "way to be professional".

Quote:
Q. Way to be a professional, and that's what your brother says he said to Rypien?

"Correct."

Q. And that was it?

"That was it."
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...medium=twitter

Winnipeg Jets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:23 PM
  #355
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Look at "Wisniewski suspended two games for obscene gesture". Now compare that to some of the dangerous and illegal play that barely gets a 2 game suspensions. It nothing to to do with whether an obscene gesture is worse than a blatant headshot, its not, it about image. One could argue the NHL has its priorities a bit messed up, but TV stations don't like that sort of thing, now blood on the ice - that's fantastic.

Really Rypien didn't do that much. He doesn't deserve much of a suspension based on his actually physical interactions with the fan, but he'll get 10+ games because its a bad look for players to touch fans and that the NHL want to stop they kind of stupidity before it happens: hence over the top punishments to let the players know its not acceptable.

Meanwhile Staubitz threw about 5 or 6 elbows in that fight and will get away without a mention.
I didn't see that, but it would make sense considering how ape-**** Rypien went during what seemed like an unremarkable scrum. Doesn't make it right, but makes things a little clearer as to why he lost it.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:24 PM
  #356
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Dufresne View Post
In the U.S aren't most of these types of laws written differently in each individual state?
Several posters on the main board quoted Minnesota law for 5th degree assault as:
blah blah blah AND 'causing fear'- not going to look up the exact quote now, but apparently if you scare someone you've assaulted them (in the 5th degree)
The criminal law most likely, not civil. Civil is common law with very little codified. Lawsuits are civil law. You have to go through the case law to really understand what battery is in terms of intricate examples but the academic understanding is pretty well written in the restatement of torts:

An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

LongRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:26 PM
  #357
Karl Hungus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 833
Ugh, I hate to say it, but from my limited understanding of criminal law what Rypien did to that fan constitutes assault. I love watching the guy fight but he crossed a pretty big line. You get suspended for giving a fan "the bird." I think he'll be lucky if the fan laughs it off otherwise he could be in for a real headache.

Karl Hungus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:27 PM
  #358
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NathansPost View Post
The criminal law most likely, not civil. Civil is common law with very little codified. Lawsuits are civil law. You have to go through the case law to really understand what battery is in terms of intricate examples but the academic understanding is pretty well written in the restatement of torts:

An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
Did i read that right? So Rypien would have only had to lunge at the fan and not make contact and he could have been charged with battery? If thats the case, thats Jersey Shore dumb.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:28 PM
  #359
PRNuck
Retain Kevin Lowe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,026
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Hungus View Post
Ugh, I hate to say it, but from my limited understanding of criminal law what Rypien did to that fan constitutes assault. I love watching the guy fight but he crossed a pretty big line. You get suspended for giving a fan "the bird." I think he'll be lucky if the fan laughs it off otherwise he could be in for a real headache.
Go back to the previous page, it constitutes battery. (see wetcoaster's post)

PRNuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:28 PM
  #360
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZyggZagg View Post
Thanks, I always thought that was assault, not battery. I have a question, if you feel like answering it. If someone doesn't attack you, but batters you I guess, do you have the right to defend yourself? Like if someone grabs your arm, and you tell them to let go, and they don't, are you within your rights to strike him?
If someone touches you without consent you are free to act in self-defence. However the force you use must be proportional to the apprehended harm.

At civil law the threat of unlawful touching by a person with the apparent ability to carry it out is assault and the touching itself is a battery. In the Criminal Code assault is used to describe a civil assault and a civil battery.

This is a fairly accurate statement of the law on self-defence as it would apply (at least in Canada):
"A person acting in self-defense is normally acting to prevent the commission of a crime, as it a person acting in defense of another. The test to be applied ... is (that) divorce used in self-defense ... must be reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

"Provided the force used is reasonable, a person is entitled to defend not only himself or a member of his family, but even a complete stranger if the stranger is subject to an unlawful attack by others.

"Acts of self-defense are not limited to spontaneous acts done in response to actual violence, but the threat and danger must be reasonably imminent and must be of a nature which could not be met by more pacific means.

"It cannot be ruled that a person who was attacked must retreat before retaliating. A person's opportunity to retreat with safety is a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether his conduct was reasonable....

"Where the force used is unreasonable and death results, the defendant is liable to be convicted of murder or manslaughter.... No defense is available if what the defendant is defending himself or another person against is neither a criminal nor an unlawful act." - Halsbury's 2006 Reissue of Laws of England
S. 34 of Canada's Criminal Code:
"Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm."
Hope that helps.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:29 PM
  #361
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Hungus View Post
Ugh, I hate to say it, but from my limited understanding of criminal law what Rypien did to that fan constitutes assault. I love watching the guy fight but he crossed a pretty big line. You get suspended for giving a fan "the bird." I think he'll be lucky if the fan laughs it off otherwise he could be in for a real headache.
This almost certainly won't result in criminal charges. There's not enough there to justify the state pursuing it. It could go under civil if the fan chooses to sue.

LongRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:32 PM
  #362
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Did i read that right? So Rypien would have only had to lunge at the fan and not make contact and he could have been charged with battery? If thats the case, thats Jersey Shore dumb.
Technically yes, but that would most likely be pursued under assault. But there have been a few rare cases where someone has been lunging at someone, been halted by a third party and gotten a judgment for battery.

LongRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:34 PM
  #363
Karl Hungus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by NathansPost View Post
This almost certainly won't result in criminal charges. There's not enough there to justify the state pursuing it. It could go under civil if the fan chooses to sue.
Ok, that makes sense. Good to finally know what "battery" means.

Karl Hungus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:35 PM
  #364
mrmyheadhurts
Registered Loser
 
mrmyheadhurts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,471
vCash: 50
Any precedent setting cases or settlements involving a fans jersey being wrinkled?

Seriously though, are there any other cases in the US that we can use as a barometer?

mrmyheadhurts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:36 PM
  #365
Intangibos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,472
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
If someone touches you without consent you are free to act in self-defence. However the force you use must be proportional to the apprehended harm.

At civil law the threat of unlawful touching by a person with the apparent ability to carry it out is assault and the touching itself is a battery. In the Criminal Code assault is used to describe a civil assault and a civil battery.

This is a fairly accurate statement of the law on self-defence as it would apply (at least in Canada):
"A person acting in self-defense is normally acting to prevent the commission of a crime, as it a person acting in defense of another. The test to be applied ... is (that) divorce used in self-defense ... must be reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

"Provided the force used is reasonable, a person is entitled to defend not only himself or a member of his family, but even a complete stranger if the stranger is subject to an unlawful attack by others.

"Acts of self-defense are not limited to spontaneous acts done in response to actual violence, but the threat and danger must be reasonably imminent and must be of a nature which could not be met by more pacific means.

"It cannot be ruled that a person who was attacked must retreat before retaliating. A person's opportunity to retreat with safety is a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether his conduct was reasonable....

"Where the force used is unreasonable and death results, the defendant is liable to be convicted of murder or manslaughter.... No defense is available if what the defendant is defending himself or another person against is neither a criminal nor an unlawful act." - Halsbury's 2006 Reissue of Laws of England
S. 34 of Canada's Criminal Code:
"Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm."
Hope that helps.
Hate to nag, but that first bit, is that saying that just threatening someone is assault, if they can actually carry out the threat?

Intangibos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:39 PM
  #366
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Dufresne View Post
In the U.S aren't most of these types of laws written differently in each individual state?
Several posters on the main board quoted Minnesota law for 5th degree assault as:
blah blah blah AND 'causing fear'- not going to look up the exact quote now, but apparently if you scare someone you've assaulted them (in the 5th degree)

edit: Obviously that's Criminal court not Civil court, I wonder what the terminology would be for civil court (If i'm even wording that correctly ftm)
Civilly the tort law between Canada and the US are pretty much the same for these sorts of torts.

The American Restatement of Torts, Second is an influential treatise issued by the American Law Institute. It summarizes the general principles of common law United States tort law. For Battery these would be the elements:
§ 1.02 Battery [7-10]

[A] Overview and Definition

Battery occurs when the defendant’s acts intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with the victim’s person. [See Restatement §§ 13, 16, 18.] Accidental contact, by contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict liability.

[B] Intent Requirement

While battery requires intent, the prevailing tort definition does not require an intent to harm. It is only necessary that the defendant intend to cause either harmful or offensive contact. [See, e.g., Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891).] The transferred intent doctrine is applicable to battery. [See § 1.01 [B], supra.]

[C] Harmful or Offensive Contact

Battery encompasses either harmful or offensive contact. Even trivial offensive contact can constitute a battery.

[D] Causation

The defendant's voluntary action must be the direct or indirect legal cause of the harmful or offensive contact. However, defendant need not herself actually contact the victim.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:41 PM
  #367
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Did i read that right? So Rypien would have only had to lunge at the fan and not make contact and he could have been charged with battery? If thats the case, thats Jersey Shore dumb.
No there must be offensive contact - note the "and" connecting sections a and b.

If he lunged and did not make contact that would be an assault at civil law.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:45 PM
  #368
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZyggZagg View Post
Hate to nag, but that first bit, is that saying that just threatening someone is assault, if they can actually carry out the threat?
No problem. Verbal threats can constitute an assault civilly and under the Criminal Code which has sections dealing with threatening.
Assault is ".. the intentional creation of the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact...

"An assault can be committed without a battery and battery can occur without an assault preceding it. For example, swinging at someone and missing is an assault but not a battery. Striking someone from behind, without his or her knowledge, is a battery but not an assault. Conduct which intentionally arouses apprehension of an imminent battery constitutes an assault. Shaking a fist at another person, lunging at someone in an effort to attack and swinging an axe at another person are actionable assaults." - Canadian tort law professor A. Linden in Canadian Tort Law, 6th Edition, (1997).

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 06:51 PM
  #369
Intangibos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,472
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
No problem. Verbal threats can constitute an assault civilly and under the Criminal Code which has sections dealing with threatening.
Assault is ".. the intentional creation of the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact...

"An assault can be committed without a battery and battery can occur without an assault preceding it. For example, swinging at someone and missing is an assault but not a battery. Striking someone from behind, without his or her knowledge, is a battery but not an assault. Conduct which intentionally arouses apprehension of an imminent battery constitutes an assault. Shaking a fist at another person, lunging at someone in an effort to attack and swinging an axe at another person are actionable assaults." - Canadian tort law professor A. Linden in Canadian Tort Law, 6th Edition, (1997).
Thank you very much. I have had this discussion with friends a few times. Although I was right to an extent, I was still wrong, confusing assault with battery.

Intangibos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 07:02 PM
  #370
kovaless
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,205
vCash: 500
While I agree that grabbing a fan is a no-no I just have to say this
Americans need to grow a pair
They sue for anything




Pathetic

Next thing you know. The guys going to show up in court with a neck guard on

kovaless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 07:03 PM
  #371
xtr3m
Registered User
 
xtr3m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,305
vCash: 50
I still think it was too loud and Rypien simply wanted to grab the guy and whisper something into his ear.

xtr3m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 07:04 PM
  #372
Andy Dufresne
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Kazakhstan
Posts: 1,541
vCash: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
[C] Harmful or Offensive Contact

Battery encompasses either harmful or offensive contact. Even trivial offensive contact can constitute a battery.
[/INDENT]
Jeezus- forget chasing ambulances- there should be a contingent of lawyers just hanging around some of the public basketball courts i've played at.

At least now we know what happened to the electric car- too much battery!

Andy Dufresne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 07:09 PM
  #373
Gorge Canuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 265
vCash: 500


All Rick all the time, TSN is your one stop Rypien spot.

Gorge Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 07:09 PM
  #374
Hal 9000*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRNuck View Post
Ok I just imagined myself having seats like that and calling Ben Eager a ***** (I hate him) and having him grab my jersey. I gotta say, I'd probably have more anger towards the arena for not having an appropriate amount of space to keep imaginary Ben and I apart.
So, you would have a total and complete lack of accountability for your role?

And, you in turn would blame the arena for not providing something to hide behind while you hurled insults at a total stranger?

Hal 9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2010, 07:11 PM
  #375
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
So do we know if those seats belong to a Wild STH or are they generally available?

Reason i ask is there's a player on CBJ that I really despise, unfortunately they were just at XCEL last week but will be back March 19.

Love to get those seats so I can yell at him the entire ***** game, that would be priceless (or would that be classless?)!!!

Edit: although i tend to spit when I yell, would that be considered assault if I happened to spit on him? And how do we know the Wild fan didn't spit on Rypien? They were within a foot of each other.

Those seats are really problematic in my view.

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.