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.
|
It wasn't established that he hit the wrong guy. It was either he or his buddy that hit him first. IIRC these two guys, in their drunken haze crossed the street in order to interfere with Ferland and his girlfriend or his aunt. In other words, they were looking for trouble and got it.