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
10-22-2010, 08:06 PM
  #601
Awesomesauce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Except here we are not talking about criminal charges or the Quebec Civil Code.

We are dealing with the common law intentional tort of battery of which you seem to know little.
That was one particular incident. The vast majority of my experience has been in BC.

Just name the principle involved and I will shut up. What is the legal principle that bars a court from using a cause to mitigate to dismiss?

That's it, that's all you have to do.

Not that its relevant to this particular discussion since I was pointing out the practical reality that no judge or jury would reward such a claim.

According to the letter of the law, accidentally bumping into someone on the street is battery.

Awesomesauce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 08:15 PM
  #602
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomesauce View Post
That was one particular incident. The vast majority of my experience has been in BC.

Just name the principle involved and I will shut up. What is the legal principle that bars a court from using a cause to mitigate to dismiss?

That's it, that's all you have to do.

Not that its relevant to this particular discussion since I was pointing out the practical reality that no judge or jury would reward such a claim.

According to the letter of the law, accidentally bumping into someone on the street is battery.
I have given you the citations previously.

Accidentally bumping someone on the street is something quite different.

You simply do not understand common law battery. In an intentional tort such as battery there is no need for proof of injury (unlike negligence).

Damages are awarded based upon occurrence of the intentional tort (civil wrong) of battery.

Provocation is not a defence but it could reduce punitive damages.

And as I was a peace officer for almost a decade before I was a lawyer, I am quite familiar with criminal assault and the common law intentional torts of assault and battery.

Your posts demonstrate that you do not understand the law that applies to this particular case.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 08:17 PM
  #603
mrmyheadhurts
Registered Loser
 
mrmyheadhurts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,181
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
Holy!

Worst I had was a guy who was caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar. (stealing from the bank) Didn't get turfed. Didn't even get a bad reference when he eventually left.
That's nothing, this guy I knew worked in the mailroom at Pemrose Incorporated (it's in New York) and on one of his deliveries the guy notices an empty office in the building, due to one of his bosses frequent firings,(did I mention his boss is his non blood related uncle!?) and he has the balls to assume the identity of Carlton Whitfield, a new executive. Don't ask me how he got away with it but unbeknownst to his boss/uncle, the guy is basically working two jobs! The guy would literally be switching between casual wear and business suits in the elevator to keep up appearances.

That's not all though, somehow he gets roped into giving this crazy girl a ride home one day. Anyway, on the way home this chic is persuading my buddy to stay for a swim and totally seduces him. You won't believe the next bit though, turns out the chic is his Uncles wife which means he just boned his Aunt! Again, non-blood related but still! He barely escaped before his uncle came home.

Turns out his Uncle is a total jerk by the way. My buddy found out that he and most of his fellow executives were making ineffective and/or non-beneficial decisions for the company. Pemrose Corporation was preparing to merge with the infamous Davenport Corporation which would have desolated the company and only made his uncle and cronies rich.

In the end, my buddy and his aunt (who's father originally owned the company and wasn't happy when she heard it was being sold) raised enough cash, bonds, and stocks to wrest ownership of the Pemrose Corporation from his Uncle, and then proceeded with a hostile takeover bid of Davenport's Corporation. They get the company back and his Aunt, who obviously still has the hots for him, makes him CEO!

So my buddy is totally running the company now and is married to this smokin' blonde accountant.

You can get away with anything these days!

mrmyheadhurts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 08:23 PM
  #604
Stonz
Registered User
 
Stonz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmyheadhurts View Post
That's nothing, this guy I knew worked in the mailroom at Pemrose Incorporated (it's in New York) and on one of his deliveries the guy notices an empty office in the building, due to one of his bosses frequent firings,(did I mention his boss is his non blood related uncle!?) and he has the balls to assume the identity of Carlton Whitfield, a new executive. Don't ask me how he got away with it but unbeknownst to his boss/uncle, the guy is basically working two jobs! The guy would literally be switching between casual wear and business suits in the elevator to keep up appearances.

That's not all though, somehow he gets roped into giving this crazy girl a ride home one day. Anyway, on the way home this chic is persuading my buddy to stay for a swim and totally seduces him. You won't believe the next bit though, turns out the chic is his Uncles wife which means he just boned his Aunt! Again, non-blood related but still! He barely escaped before his uncle came home.

Turns out his Uncle is a total jerk by the way. My buddy found out that he and most of his fellow executives were making ineffective and/or non-beneficial decisions for the company. Pemrose Corporation was preparing to merge with the infamous Davenport Corporation which would have desolated the company and only made his uncle and cronies rich.

In the end, my buddy and his aunt (who's father originally owned the company and wasn't happy when she heard it was being sold) raised enough cash, bonds, and stocks to wrest ownership of the Pemrose Corporation from his Uncle, and then proceeded with a hostile takeover bid of Davenport's Corporation. They get the company back and his Aunt, who obviously still has the hots for him, makes him CEO!

So my buddy is totally running the company now and is married to this smokin' blonde accountant.

You can get away with anything these days!
This him?


Stonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 08:24 PM
  #605
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,371
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmyheadhurts View Post
Phew, thanks for letting me off the hook on that one. Other posters on here can attest to the fact that I am very, very slow so I appreciate the free pass.



Oh I see, so you weren't necessarily wrong or lacking in perspective on the situation, you were just being cynical. It would also explain why you believe that:



It was a shame that Rypper didn't give the kid an autograph after he tried to initiate some positive interaction with him. Oh and for the record, I have no problem with the fan getting a hat.
I'm sure Rypien and/or the Canucks would have done something for him right away (apologies, swag, tickets, whatever) if the guy hadn't been so quick to mention he was exploring legal avenues.

What on earth does cynicism about the NHL's disciplinary process have to do with my views on fan/player interaction? Why are you connecting the two?

And you're welcome for the free pass--I can tell you're struggling and it breaks my heart.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 08:29 PM
  #606
adam graves
Panthers 17yr sth
 
adam graves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: south florida
Country: United States
Posts: 8,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomesauce View Post


According to the letter of the law, accidentally bumping into someone on the street is battery.
No. Since battery is an INTENTIONAL tort, accidental bumping would not apply.

This was a crime uncontroverted; actionable civilly and criminally.

adam graves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 08:35 PM
  #607
DiggerDan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmyheadhurts View Post
That's nothing, this guy I knew worked in the mailroom at Pemrose Incorporated (it's in New York) and on one of his deliveries the guy notices an empty office in the building, due to one of his bosses frequent firings,(did I mention his boss is his non blood related uncle!?) and he has the balls to assume the identity of Carlton Whitfield, a new executive. Don't ask me how he got away with it but unbeknownst to his boss/uncle, the guy is basically working two jobs! The guy would literally be switching between casual wear and business suits in the elevator to keep up appearances.

That's not all though, somehow he gets roped into giving this crazy girl a ride home one day. Anyway, on the way home this chic is persuading my buddy to stay for a swim and totally seduces him. You won't believe the next bit though, turns out the chic is his Uncles wife which means he just boned his Aunt! Again, non-blood related but still! He barely escaped before his uncle came home.

Turns out his Uncle is a total jerk by the way. My buddy found out that he and most of his fellow executives were making ineffective and/or non-beneficial decisions for the company. Pemrose Corporation was preparing to merge with the infamous Davenport Corporation which would have desolated the company and only made his uncle and cronies rich.

In the end, my buddy and his aunt (who's father originally owned the company and wasn't happy when she heard it was being sold) raised enough cash, bonds, and stocks to wrest ownership of the Pemrose Corporation from his Uncle, and then proceeded with a hostile takeover bid of Davenport's Corporation. They get the company back and his Aunt, who obviously still has the hots for him, makes him CEO!

So my buddy is totally running the company now and is married to this smokin' blonde accountant.

You can get away with anything these days!
Awesome.

DiggerDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 08:57 PM
  #608
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam graves View Post
No. Since battery is an INTENTIONAL tort, accidental bumping would not apply.

This was a crime uncontroverted; actionable civilly and criminally.
Yup... Torts 101

Intent
Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent must be either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause the contact.

As with all torts, however, consent is a defense. Under certain circumstances consent to a battery is assumed. A person who walks in a crowded area impliedly consents to a degree of contact that is inevitable and reasonable.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ambiguation%29

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 09:06 PM
  #609
mrmyheadhurts
Registered Loser
 
mrmyheadhurts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,181
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
I'm sure Rypien and/or the Canucks would have done something for him right away (apologies, swag, tickets, whatever) if the guy hadn't been so quick to mention he was exploring legal avenues.

What on earth does cynicism about the NHL's disciplinary process have to do with my views on fan/player interaction? Why are you connecting the two?

And you're welcome for the free pass--I can tell you're struggling and it breaks my heart.
It's clear I can't keep up with you intellectually, I relent, thanks for your concern.

mrmyheadhurts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 09:17 PM
  #610
mrmyheadhurts
Registered Loser
 
mrmyheadhurts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,181
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonz View Post
This him?

hmm, looks like him. This is a better picture of him though:


mrmyheadhurts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 10:30 PM
  #611
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
I feel like I should sue HFboards for the emotional battery caused by going through this thread. What a tempest in a teapot.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2010, 11:42 PM
  #612
Hal 9000*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Yup... Torts 101

Intent
Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent must be either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause the contact.

As with all torts, however, consent is a defense. Under certain circumstances consent to a battery is assumed. A person who walks in a crowded area impliedly consents to a degree of contact that is inevitable and reasonable.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ambiguation%29
So, what exactly is your point?

Hal 9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2010, 12:16 AM
  #613
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal 9000 View Post
So, what exactly is your point?
Justification of his existence.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2010, 06:12 PM
  #614
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal 9000 View Post
So, what exactly is your point?
It was to deal with this incorrect claim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomesauce View Post
According to the letter of the law, accidentally bumping into someone on the street is battery.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2010, 06:14 PM
  #615
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Rypien will apparently address the media on the incident and his suspension on Monday.
Suspended forward Rick Rypien returned to practise with his Vancouver Canuck teammates Saturday, but did not do media interviews.

Rypien has served two games of a six-game suspension he received Friday from the NHL for becoming physically engaged with a fan during the second period of Tuesday night's game in Minnesota.

NHL policy suggests that players participating in a practice should be made available to the media after the team's workout, but the Canucks said Rypien would not be speaking on Saturday.

Coach Alain Vigneault said Rypien had a prior engagement immediately after practice and added that Rypien will speak with the media following Monday's practice. The Canucks have a day off on Sunday.

"He would have talked to you today but I had given him permission," Vigneault said. "He had a prior engagement."
http://communities.canada.com/vancou...not-speak.aspx

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2010, 11:45 PM
  #616
Johnny Canucker
Registered User
 
Johnny Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I have given you the citations previously.

Accidentally bumping someone on the street is something quite different.

You simply do not understand common law battery. In an intentional tort such as battery there is no need for proof of injury (unlike negligence).

Damages are awarded based upon occurrence of the intentional tort (civil wrong) of battery.

Provocation is not a defence but it could reduce punitive damages.

And as I was a peace officer for almost a decade before I was a lawyer, I am quite familiar with criminal assault and the common law intentional torts of assault and battery.

Your posts demonstrate that you do not understand the law that applies to this particular case.

Wetcoaster, what type of law do u practise? Just curious.

Johnny Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2010, 01:01 AM
  #617
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomesauce View Post
That was one particular incident. The vast majority of my experience has been in BC.

Just name the principle involved and I will shut up. What is the legal principle that bars a court from using a cause to mitigate to dismiss?

That's it, that's all you have to do.

Not that its relevant to this particular discussion since I was pointing out the practical reality that no judge or jury would reward such a claim.

According to the letter of the law, accidentally bumping into someone on the street is battery.
Uggggggggggggggggh. What a waste of time. Go search WestLaw for yourself for cases regarding provocation and damages. It's not used as a defense. I don't know, maybe you've been involved in cases where another tort has already occurred and self-defense came into play. That's a defense. Provocation is not. Lane v Holloway, Holt v Verbruggen, every case where a claim of provocation is raised. Better yet, give me the names of the plaintiff and the defendant in one of these cases you've been involved in and I'll look it up and show you why you're wrong.


Last edited by LongRoad: 10-24-2010 at 01:11 AM.
LongRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2010, 01:12 AM
  #618
ZyggZagg
Registered User
 
ZyggZagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NathansPost View Post
Uggggggggggggggggh. What a waste of time. Go search WestLaw for yourself for cases regarding provocation and damages. It's not used as a defense. I don't know, maybe you've been involved in cases where another tort has already occurred and self-defense came into play. That's a defense. Provocation is not. Lane v Holloway, Holt v Verbruggen, every case where a claim of provocation is raised.

But yeah, sit and argue the law against lawyers and law students.
To be fair, those groups are probably the best to argue law with.

ZyggZagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2010, 01:19 AM
  #619
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZyggZagg View Post
To be fair, those groups are probably the best to argue law with.
There should be no exclusivity to the law. You don't have to be a lawyer to know and that type of openness should be encouraged. But when you're wrong you're wrong and citing personal experience with no support is just grating.


Last edited by LongRoad: 10-24-2010 at 01:30 AM.
LongRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2010, 01:48 AM
  #620
ZyggZagg
Registered User
 
ZyggZagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NathansPost View Post
There should be no exclusivity to the law. You don't have to be a lawyer to know and that type of openness should be encouraged. But when you're wrong you're wrong and citing personal experience with no support is just grating.
I know, I'm just saying that lawyers would be the best people to argue law with. I never did well in school because I never cared enough to put effort in, I barely attended. I would show up for one day, ace my test and then be gone for a month, unfortunately you get graded on homework too (which makes no sense), and I never did any. The only time I actually wanted to pay attention was in an argument or a discussion. I was just saying you're going to learn the most in an argument about law with a lawyer.

ZyggZagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2010, 02:12 AM
  #621
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZyggZagg View Post
I know, I'm just saying that lawyers would be the best people to argue law with. I never did well in school because I never cared enough to put effort in, I barely attended. I would show up for one day, ace my test and then be gone for a month, unfortunately you get graded on homework too (which makes no sense), and I never did any. The only time I actually wanted to pay attention was in an argument or a discussion. I was just saying you're going to learn the most in an argument about law with a lawyer.
I disagree... You could learn just as much about the law having discussions with competent criminals as well...

I in the Eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2010, 02:13 AM
  #622
ZyggZagg
Registered User
 
ZyggZagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye View Post
I disagree... You could learn just as much about the law having discussions with competent criminals as well...
If a criminal is competent, you probably wouldn't know he's a criminal. Only stupid people go to jail

ZyggZagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2010, 03:56 PM
  #623
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Rypien faced the media today. Here are some quotes from Ben Kuzma on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/benkuzma

Rypien: "I play the game at times with more emotion than others. It was out of my character to do something like that. It was inexcusable."

Rypien: "If I could take that moment back, I'd take it back. That was out of character. I don't have a history of doing things like that."

Article by Iain MacIntyre of the Vancouver Sun:
Vancouver Canucks winger Rick Rypien takes full responsibility for his altercation with a fan last week in Minnesota but insists it was out of character and shouldn't define him as a player.

Speaking to reporters for the first time since the National Hockey League suspended Rypien six games for grabbing James Engquist, the Canuck said he has apologized to his team and the league commissioner Gary Bettman, but will keep “private” his dealings with the fan who has threatened legal action.
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/h...#ixzz13P1bjdRF

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2010, 04:39 PM
  #624
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Per Michael Russo hockey writer following the Wild for the Star Tribune tweets regarding the aftermath of the Rypien incident:

#mnwild will put extra security by visitors' bench, but there will be nothing different structurally in terms of barrier or permanent canopy
http://twitter.com/Russostrib/status/28706435493

The NHL should step in and force a change - definitely there should be a barrier.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2010, 05:06 PM
  #625
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Per Michael Russo hockey writer following the Wild for the Star Tribune tweets regarding the aftermath of the Rypien incident:

#mnwild will put extra security by visitors' bench, but there will be nothing different structurally in terms of barrier or permanent canopy
http://twitter.com/Russostrib/status/28706435493

The NHL should step in and force a change - definitely there should be a barrier.
Problem with setups like XCEL is you're asking for it - I was just at Burnaby's main rink the other day and the glass barrier between the stands and the players is like 6' high - no way for an incident like that to happen.

But for the Wild, that's precisely the appeal of that section - you could have a couple of yahoo's under the influence needling the players, and the whole section behind them cheering them on - for example, there were quite a few high five's with fans nearby as the two fans were being removed. At a time when the US economy is suffering and attendance is down, they don't want to turn anyone away, even those looking for off-ice entertainment.

And of course, the Wild have been a somewhat boring team for years so fans have to get their entertainment somewhere.

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 04:10 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.