This is what we know based on articles/statements etc:
-Ferland was completely ####faced
-He wasn't convicted of assault, because he himself believed he was acting in self-defence. He hit the wrong guy because he was so drunk he didn't know who hit him. That was enough to avoid a conviction. His intent was self-defence, that was enough.
-On a civil standard, that doesn't constitute self-defence. Ferland has already admitted he didn't know who hit him and he just punched the first guy he saw.
-So now he doubles down in the civil action and alleges malicious prosecution among other things.
That's why I'm no Ferland fan. Looks like he has a good lawyer though.
|