[News] Kessel suspended rest of preseason. Will not miss any regular season games

[DazzlinDino]

This video shows Kessel slash last week and this week, does anyone think his slashes last week were justifiable due to self defense?


Repeat slashes Kessel

[$ven27]

According to CP Kessel is the next Avery.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by valo403

Killed someone by slashing them in the shins? That'd be a first. How worked up do you get about a cross check in the back in front of the net? That could conceivably kill someone too.

So what's he supposed to do? Just take a few punches to the head? How many people do you think die every year from getting punched in the head? I bet it's a lot more than die from getting slashed in padded shins.

Funny you never talk about how the swings could have hit someone in the eye.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

Funny you never talk about how the swings could have hit someone in the eye.

Who? We are talking about the first swing, the one where he was defending himself. Care to point out who could have been hit in the eye with that one?

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by valo403

Who? We are talking about the first swing, the one where he was defending himself. Care to point out who could have been hit in the eye with that one?

Okay, just curious, did you see the first tomahawk swing, "it was an overhand raised above Kessels head". There were several players on the ice when he started swinging his stick. Generally they have high sticking in hockey as a penalty for a reason.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

Okay, just curious, did you see the first tomahawk swing, "it was an overhand raised above Kessels head". There were several players on the ice when he started swinging his stick. Generally they have high sticking in hockey as a penalty for a reason.

Point me to one player who had Kessel's stick anywhere near the vicinity of their head for the first slash. One. Shouldn't be hard, assuming it actually happened.

Again, what would you have Kessel do? Not defend himself? Square up and fight Scott? Just swallow a couple punches? Turn and hope he doesn't catch you?

[Jacks]

Was Kessel even aware of who else was around him while he was swinging his stick around playing lunberjack?

Amazing that people are defending that second slash, he was already out of danger at that point.

Edit: It looks like you guys are arguing over the first slash, not sure why that even matters when the second slash was worthy of a lengthy suspension.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Was Kessel even aware of who else was around him while he was swinging his stick around playing lunberjack?

Amazing that people are defending that second slash, he was already out of danger at that point.

Edit: It looks like you guys are arguing over the first slash, not sure why that even matters when the second slash was worthy of a lengthy suspension.

I don't think it matters first or second slash, both could have hit someone in the eye. I just find it odd all the trouble some people make to defend Kessels actions when they were clearly dangerous. That first slash was way over his head and I agree kessel wasn't even looking to see where people were so that doesn't justify the way he was swinging his stick. The only part I get is he was defending himself the first time but it was still very dangerious.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by valo403

Point me to one player who had Kessel's stick anywhere near the vicinity of their head for the first slash. One. Shouldn't be hard, assuming it actually happened.

Right after you show us proof that Scott beat Kessel into a pulp.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by valo403

Killed someone by slashing them in the shins? That'd be a first. How worked up do you get about a cross check in the back in front of the net? That could conceivably kill someone too.

So what's he supposed to do? Just take a few punches to the head? How many people do you think die every year from getting punched in the head? I bet it's a lot more than die from getting slashed in padded shins.

How many people die from someone dropping gloves without throwing a punch? Because that's what happened.

You bring up that Kessel couldn't have killed someone by swinging at the shins, because that's what happened, while laughing at people who say he could've hit someone in the head or killed someone.
Yet:
You defend Kessel for defending himself from Scott who could have beat him to a pulp, but that's not what happened, Scott just dropped the gloves.
In your scenario, would'ves and could'ves are fine, in others, would'ves and could'ves are laughable and ridiculous.

You're a terrible hypocrite, and a bit of a troll.
Scott beating Kessel to a pulp is as hypothetical and plausible as Kessel killing him by hitting him in the head with a stick. Get over it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

Let's stop pretending like Ray is speaking gospel here. That's nothing but hearsay.

Just so we're clear, you support a situation where actual hockey players are unable to play hockey due to the presence of these clowns? So just line up 3 of them, have them kick the tar out of anyone out there who actually wants to play hockey (assuming they don't just stay on the bench, I mean why bother coming out if the solution is to just not play). Sounds like an awesome game.

Yup...no question that's what i was insinuating....anyone with common sense would draw such a conclusion....in fact i said as much.

Weak.

And 1 question in all this...if John Scott wanted to punch Phil Kessel in the face...why didn't he?

And before you answer, watch that video one more time...he could have cold cocked him in a nanosecond, instead, he just tried to grab him...pretty much means that he was never intending to pummel the guy as Scott has all the experience in these situations and knows what he is doing when it comes to such things and in that world you never "wait" to start throwing down, you just go.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by $ven27

According to CP Kessel is the next Avery.

Avery was never that careless with his stick.

But kessel was doing his best impression of Wayne Maki.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Right after you show us proof that Scott beat Kessel into a pulp.

Plenty of proof that Scott very well could have if not fended off. Literally no possibility Kessel's first slash could have hit anyone in the head, barring teleportation.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by strombad

How many people die from someone dropping gloves without throwing a punch? Because that's what happened.

You bring up that Kessel couldn't have killed someone by swinging at the shins, because that's what happened, while laughing at people who say he could've hit someone in the head or killed someone.
Yet:
You defend Kessel for defending himself from Scott who could have beat him to a pulp, but that's not what happened, Scott just dropped the gloves.
In your scenario, would'ves and could'ves are fine, in others, would'ves and could'ves are laughable and ridiculous.

You're a terrible hypocrite, and a bit of a troll.
Scott beating Kessel to a pulp is as hypothetical and plausible as Kessel killing him by hitting him in the head with a stick. Get over it.

Do you understand the concept of self defense?

Kessel doesn't need to wait to be punched to defend himself. If we want to look at it from a legal viewpoint he simply needs to be reasonable in his belief that a threat is imminent, and he needs to respond proportionately. Perhaps Scott's intent was to simply mess up his hair, but that's not what matters. What matters is Kessel's reasonable belief, and I don't see what is unreasonable about believing that a hired goon has intent to put his fist through your face. Is his response proportionate? That's a tougher call, I think it is as a means to extricate himself from harm. Once that is done its over the line, as I've said repeatedly. Obviously this isn't court, but the reasoning given by shanahan follows a very similar path of reasoning.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by valo403

Killed someone by slashing them in the shins? That'd be a first. How worked up do you get about a cross check in the back in front of the net? That could conceivably kill someone too.

So what's he supposed to do? Just take a few punches to the head? How many people do you think die every year from getting punched in the head? I bet it's a lot more than die from getting slashed in padded shins.

Do you have a reading problem?

"he could have KILLED someone swinging a piece of lumber like that."

He didn't say once he could of killed someone by hitting his shins.

And to answer your question, Kessel should of turtled instead of slashing. It only took seconds for his teamates to help him

[strombad]

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you understand the concept of self defense?

Kessel doesn't need to wait to be punched to defend himself. If we want to look at it from a legal viewpoint he simply needs to be reasonable in his belief that a threat is imminent, and he needs to respond proportionately. Perhaps Scott's intent was to simply mess up his hair, but that's not what matters. What matters is Kessel's reasonable belief, and I don't see what is unreasonable about believing that a hired goon has intent to put his fist through your face. Is his response proportionate? That's a tougher call, I think it is as a means to extricate himself from harm. Once that is done its over the line, as I've said repeatedly. Obviously this isn't court, but the reasoning given by shanahan follows a very similar path of reasoning.

Ah, but that's not what I was pointing out. I as pointing out the hypocritical nature of your posts.

Of course Scott COULD have beaten Kessel to a pulp, it's in the realm of possibility, but you've stated it as fact. You stated that Kessel defended himself because Scott was going to beat him up.

The problem with this: You state it as so, despite the fact that no punch was thrown, Kessel is a capable fighter on the ridiculously rare occasion it is required (as seen as recently as the bloody mess he made his partner in the tilt shortly after this occassion), Scott has drawn against smaller men than Kessel and not destroyed them, and there were a multitude of other ways to defend himself (being that he is a fully grown man, and a much MUCH faster skater than Scott).

See the problems? You're using a lot of hypothesis to strengthen your point. Your leaning strictly on possibility, not on fact.

You then go on, in a hypocritical fashion, to say that people who suggest Kessel could have taken out an eye or seriously injured someone are wrong because his stick hit the shin pad, but you don't allow for any possibility. It's possible he could have lost control of his stick, it's possible he could have been purposely harmful (given his history using his stick as a weapon), it's even possible that a well placed knock on the leg could have tripped Scott and caused him to hit his head on the ice.

Again, the problem is that you're hypocritical, and the point everyone else is making that you refuse to see is that it is dangerous and reckless to use your stick as a weapon in every situation. You're supposing what MIGHT have happened as justification for what did happened, and ridiculing anyone who suggests that something else MIGHT have happened as well. It makes you a hypocrite.

There are equal instances of injury if you compare the act of a player dropping the gloves vs. a player using his stick as a weapon. In fact, I would suggest that the act of using your stick as a weapon would result in MORE injuries than the act of dropping gloves (which often, but not always, results in a fight). Again, this is comparing things that actually happened, not comparing one thing that actually happened with one thing you've hypothesised might have happened.

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

Do you have a reading problem?

"he could have KILLED someone swinging a piece of lumber like that."

He didn't say once he could of killed someone by hitting his shins.

And to answer your question, Kessel should of turtled instead of slashing. It only took seconds for his teamates to help him

People still make fun of Claude Lemieux for turtling against Daren McCarty.
At the end of the day, he slashed a big goon twice and got suspended three games. I'm not sure what people expected to happen.

[valo403]

You don't understand the difference between possible and probable. That's been demonstrated over and over again.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

People still make fun of Claude Lemieux for turtling against Daren McCarty.
At the end of the day, he slashed a big goon twice and got suspended three games. I'm not sure what people expected to happen.

A 6 foot, 215 pound fighter turtling to a 6 foot 1, 219 pound fighter is significantly worse and different than Kessel turtling to a 6 foot 8, 270 pounder

Turtling > Two handed ankle slashes

[strombad]

Originally Posted by valo403

You don't understand the difference between possible and probable. That's been demonstrated over and over again.

You depend so heavily on grains of sand to distort your arguments, it's hilarious. I'm not going to address every little distinction you add to make it harder to negate your argument. You've stated that Scott was going to beat him to a pulp, that's possible, not probable. Equally possible as a swinging stick ending up in the face. What's probable? A player dropping his gloves and proceeding to fight someone, that's probable. What else? The act of using a stick as a weapon resulting in injury, that's probable.

Possible: What has the potential to happen
Probable: What is likely to happen

Sounds like you're the one not aware of the difference between probable and possible. It must be difficult being both a hypocrite and having the inability to structure logically sound arguments or points that actually hold water.

Anyways, enough of this little Internet spat. Kessel got a few games for using his stick as a weapon. Not enough, but it'll do.