Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
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.
|
So what? Who hasn't fallen down that slippery slope of having too much to drink? It's not like he's permanently drunk, if he is, that then shows some character issues. This incident in and of itself doesn't.