Ferland Trial

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Bargaining I'd guess but Vlad is the expert.

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.

[Beatle17]

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.

Please explain your reasoning, other than you hate Ferland for some unknown reason. As the trial proved he did nothing wrong, he got punched in the face and defended himself. Ferland has done nothing outside of the proper legal system and you don't respect him, wow!

[Wolven]

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.

[Kjesse]

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.

[Resolute 14]

You are conveniently ignoring two key points, Delgar:

-The so-called victim told police on scene that he initially did not wish to press charges as he "wasn't completely innocent" himself.
-Same so-called victim apparently changed his mind after learning Ferlund was a pro hockey player.

[Kjesse]

Resolute, I'm aware of those things. Sure he was admittedly an agitator of sorts in the bar. That doesn't make it open season to harm him. That he got the taste of money afterward doesn't impact on whether he should be compensated for being assaulted. He might be a good guy, might not be. Maybe he parks in handicap places with an over-sized truck. But he was hit and seriously injured.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are conveniently ignoring two key points, Delgar:

-The so-called victim told police on scene that he initially did not wish to press charges as he "wasn't completely innocent" himself.
-Same so-called victim apparently changed his mind after learning Ferlund was a pro hockey player.

I don't understand this logic. He may have thought that cause he was drunk adn there and didn't stop it.

Tons of people change their minds all the time about pressing charges in a multitude of different cases. And it wouldn't be surprising if people change their minds when they learn more about the situation of the person they would be sueing or pressing charges against.

If I get hit by a car and its a poor person and I am not hurt I likely forget about it. If I get hit by a CEO of an Oil company downtown, I am taking him to the cleaners.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Resolute, I'm aware of those things. Sure he was admittedly an agitator of sorts in the bar. That doesn't make it open season to harm him. That he got the taste of money afterward doesn't impact on whether he should be compensated for being assaulted. He might be a good guy, might not be. Maybe he parks in handicap places with an over-sized truck. But he was hit and seriously injured.

If he struck him first then it is definitely open season to harm him. It's not Ferland's fault he has a glass jaw.

You punch someone then expect to get punched back.

Why do you think he told the police he wasn't completely innocent?

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If I get hit by a car and its a poor person and I am not hurt I likely forget about it. If I get hit by a CEO of an Oil company downtown, I am taking him to the cleaners.

Do poor people get second rate insurance?

[indes]

If some ####### is causing #### at a bar and starting fights he deserves to get his clock cleaned. Reap what you sew, good on Ferland for walking away from this with a clean slate.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I don't understand this logic. He may have thought that cause he was drunk adn there and didn't stop it.

Tons of people change their minds all the time about pressing charges in a multitude of different cases. And it wouldn't be surprising if people change their minds when they learn more about the situation of the person they would be sueing or pressing charges against.

If I get hit by a car and its a poor person and I am not hurt I likely forget about it. If I get hit by a CEO of an Oil company downtown, I am taking him to the cleaners.

What about a middle class person? Lower middle class? Upper?

I'm just curious as to where you draw your line....

As for the drunken bar fight....I said from day 1 it was a waste of time and money, the guy has said enough that we know about to make sure he gets nothing. Ferland is doing exactly what every one of us would and should do in a similar situation.

Unless people just flat out hate their money.

[Weitz]

It was an extreme example to highlight my point.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If I get hit by a car and its a poor person and I am not hurt I likely forget about it. If I get hit by a CEO of an Oil company downtown, I am taking him to the cleaners.

Except in both cases the driver will have insurance or you will be covered by the Fund, and, in both cases you have to prove your damages.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Except in both cases the driver will have insurance or you will be covered by the Fund, and, in both cases you have to prove your damages.

Ok, perhaps it was a poor example as I am not a lawyer. But the point I was making is that peoples situations matter when it comes to things like pressing charges. This is just in response to people saying he is only doing this because he is a hockey player.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Ok, perhaps it was a poor example as I am not a lawyer. But the point I was making is that peoples situations matter when it comes to things like pressing charges. This is just in response to people saying he is only doing this because he is a hockey player.

You're actually arguing my (and Ferland's) point: Eyma's decision to go after Ferlund appears to stem from learning he mixed it up with a professional hockey player. He got dollar signs in his eyes, and that is why he chose to go after Ferlund legally.

[saXon]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Either way, I don't respect Ferland.

So you're the guy who, after everyone else beat him up through the justice system and the media, decides to kick sand in his face as he's getting up?

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Resolute, I'm aware of those things. Sure he was admittedly an agitator of sorts in the bar. That doesn't make it open season to harm him. That he got the taste of money afterward doesn't impact on whether he should be compensated for being assaulted. He might be a good guy, might not be. Maybe he parks in handicap places with an over-sized truck. But he was hit and seriously injured.

Ultimately, the countersuit is going to be leverage against the civil suit that was filed during or near the trial. The civil suit was simply leverage too. At the end of the day, Ferland incurred legal costs and his name being associated with a bar fight in which there was another contributing party who tried to get paid.

Whether Ferland's countersuit claims have enough weight to prevail in trial is unknown, but at the very least, it's his right as much as it's the right of the original filing party. I don't see how you don't respect him for that when you either don't know, appreciate or understand the facts, the legal process or the reality of civil suit fishing expeditions.

[kermitology]

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.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by kermitology

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.

It was also after a wedding....I think one or two of us MAY have found ourselves in a similar situation.

Two drunk guys fighting and no one died or was seriously injured....what a frikkin' waste of time and money.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by kermitology

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.

Lots of piling on in this thread, I guess that's because I said I don't respect him.

The reason him being obscenely drunk matters is because it is what resulted in Ferland punching a random person-- someone who hadn't done anything to warrant/deserve it -- and breaking bones in his face.

I wouldn't hold anything against him if there was a reason he punched this guy. But this is a situation where he himself has said he punched the first guy he saw. Had the guy (Eyma) pushed Ferland or confronted him, I'd be OK with the punch. But the way it happened, it was an extremely drunk guy punching whomever was closest to him. Not acceptable, and not deserving of respect.