Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
Yeah, and I think Vlad is correct.
These kind of things don't make me proud of the legal system we work with but what Ferland has done is legally likely a good strategy. I say this because I believe (based only on admittedly second or third hand reports) that Ferland was a drunken lout that night and is lucky he wasn't convicted. Now he's doubling down in the civil matter (remember OJ-- not guilty criminally, liable civilly-- the criminal verdict does not let you avoid civil responsibility).
Counter-suing civilly as strong as he is is likely to reduce any settlement agreed upon, unless the claimant (and his lawyer) are ready to go the distance. Probably not a profitable/reasonable venture given the claimant was also by all reports a drunken lout.
Either way, I don't respect Ferland.
|
Considering the police officer's report that the claimant struck Ferland first, I'm not really sure where your stance is coming from. At this point Ferland is simply defending himself legally, the same way he was required to do physically.
At this point it sounds like Ferland is the victim of a guy who is trying to get a payday from drunkenly assaulting an NHL prospect that put him in his place.
I definitely respect Ferland.