I don't know if I'd call it common, when compared to the amount of people who actively participate in life and drinking without fist fighting.
Even in bar fights someone getting punched in the face isn’t that common. It’s typically a couple bozos threatening each other and dancing around. Maybe some wild swings, kicks, shoving or rolling around on the ground. Anyone who thinks bar fights = dudes exchanging punches to the face watches too many movies.
Pinder was doing a schtick about this on Barnburner the other day, and he said to Rhett “how many guys on that ‘04 team had punched guys in the face in bar fights - half?”. Rhett just rolled his eyes at Pinder.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I disagree the addition of alcohol or party favors is irrelevant. Anything that lessens cognitive ability to think rationally in a tense situation always always .... Always leads to shortened fuses.
I don't disagree that everyone is responsible for their actions in the end, but I've read alot in this thread from posters who think we are evolved enough to not give into our survival instincts. Which I do disagree with. I've made a lot of money babysitting drunk adults and teenagers, it's not so easy to just wash it all away under "we have rules, we are evolved not to fight anymore".
To clarify, altered state is no excuse. We’re still responsible for how we react to things.
Provocation is taken into account during sentencing.
For me, a lot of how I perceive this incident will depend on how they came to be in close physical contact. If the guy is being an ass but keeping his distance, this makes McKenna's actions worse. If the guy is the one who approaches McKenna, it makes his actions more understandable.
I wonder how it works in a civil case. Like if someone is suing you for damages, does provocation come into play? I know criminal law and civil law often have different thresholds when it comes to culpability. For example, you can be found criminally not guilty yet still be held accountable in a civil suit. I wonder if the opposite can be true. It seems like judges have a little more discretion in civil courts.
If not, I am going to go and antagonize rich people and get paid.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 02-09-2026 at 04:02 PM.
I wonder how it works in a civil case. Like if someone is suing you for damages, does provocation come into play? I know criminal law and civil law often have different thresholds when it comes to culpability. For example, you can be found criminally not guilty yet still be held accountable in a civil suit. I wonder if the opposite can be true. It seems like judges have a little more discretion in civil courts.
If not, I am going to go and antagonize rich people and get paid.
In civil suits liability can be apportioned. If someone hits me, even if they were mainly at fault, I can be found 10% liable because I maybe could have swerved or something. But in a battery lawsuit, I doubt provocation would come into it at all. If someone called my sister a name so I took a hammer to their car, that doesn't get me any benefits.
In both civil and criminal you have to differentiate between (a) provocation; (b) self defence and (c) mutual agreement to fight.
Provocation is just defined as words or actions which make you so upset you attack someone. It's never been a defence except that traditionally it could change premeditated murder into manslaughter (and often the "provocation" was ridiculous, like "unwanted homosexual advance"). It's hard to prove because the accused has to prove that a reasonable person would have similarly lost control due to the provocation.
Self-defence (or defence of a third party) is a complete defence to assault or murder. But you have to establish that you genuinely believed you or the person was in danger of imminent physical harm.
Since assault is defined as non-consensual use of force, mutually agreed fights are not assault. The combatants have, by agreeing to fight, consented to being touched. BUT (and this might be relevant here), if the person is no longer capable of giving consent at some point during the fight, that defence can disappear. You can't continue to beat on someone who is down and out, even if it didn't start that way.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
I have always found it rather silly that in Canadian criminal law we still allow for consensual fist fights (as long as both sides agree to repeatedly punch each other in the face there is no crime)...BUT we do not allow consent to extend to serious bodily harm (anything more than a transient or trivial bruise cannot be legally consented to by you or your opponent in the otherwise lawful fight)...BUT if you punch someone in a consensual fight not intending to break their face and their face gets broken unintentionally, then you can be acquitted of any crime even though you broke someone's face (which they cannot have consented to).
Moreover, we allow said consent fist fights even if people are drunk (drunken consent is still legal consent...BUT not if a person is so drunk they have no capacity to consent then there is no consent)...BUT if the person falls and hits their head and dies after you punch them in the face...it is probably objectively foreseeable that punching someone in the head could lead to their death and you could be charged and convicted of manslaughter (or maybe not depending on the circumstances).
Anybody wanna head to the bar tonight and agree to an all-out 'only minor bruises or less' fist-fight? What could go wrong?
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to MBates For This Useful Post:
I have always found it rather silly that in Canadian criminal law we still allow for consensual fist fights (as long as both sides agree to repeatedly punch each other in the face there is no crime)...BUT we do not allow consent to extend to serious bodily harm (anything more than a transient or trivial bruise cannot be legally consented to by you or your opponent in the otherwise lawful fight)...BUT if you punch someone in a consensual fight not intending to break their face and their face gets broken unintentionally, then you can be acquitted of any crime even though you broke someone's face (which they cannot have consented to).
Moreover, we allow said consent fist fights even if people are drunk (drunken consent is still legal consent...BUT not if a person is so drunk they have no capacity to consent then there is no consent)...BUT if the person falls and hits their head and dies after you punch them in the face...it is probably objectively foreseeable that punching someone in the head could lead to their death and you could be charged and convicted of manslaughter (or maybe not depending on the circumstances).
Anybody wanna head to the bar tonight and agree to an all-out 'only minor bruises or less' fist-fight? What could go wrong?
Our moms could get insulted.
__________________
"9 out of 10 concerns are completely unfounded."
"The first thing that goes when you lose your hands, are your fine motor skills."
The Following User Says Thank You to D as in David For This Useful Post:
I have always found it rather silly that in Canadian criminal law we still allow for consensual fist fights (as long as both sides agree to repeatedly punch each other in the face there is no crime)...BUT we do not allow consent to extend to serious bodily harm (anything more than a transient or trivial bruise cannot be legally consented to by you or your opponent in the otherwise lawful fight)...BUT if you punch someone in a consensual fight not intending to break their face and their face gets broken unintentionally, then you can be acquitted of any crime even though you broke someone's face (which they cannot have consented to).
Moreover, we allow said consent fist fights even if people are drunk (drunken consent is still legal consent...BUT not if a person is so drunk they have no capacity to consent then there is no consent)...BUT if the person falls and hits their head and dies after you punch them in the face...it is probably objectively foreseeable that punching someone in the head could lead to their death and you could be charged and convicted of manslaughter (or maybe not depending on the circumstances).
Anybody wanna head to the bar tonight and agree to an all-out 'only minor bruises or less' fist-fight? What could go wrong?
A son of a guy I went to HS with got in just such a fight and the other kid died. Imagine how everyone felt about it.
I have always found it rather silly that in Canadian criminal law we still allow for consensual fist fights (as long as both sides agree to repeatedly punch each other in the face there is no crime)...BUT we do not allow consent to extend to serious bodily harm (anything more than a transient or trivial bruise cannot be legally consented to by you or your opponent in the otherwise lawful fight)...BUT if you punch someone in a consensual fight not intending to break their face and their face gets broken unintentionally, then you can be acquitted of any crime even though you broke someone's face (which they cannot have consented to).
Moreover, we allow said consent fist fights even if people are drunk (drunken consent is still legal consent...BUT not if a person is so drunk they have no capacity to consent then there is no consent)...BUT if the person falls and hits their head and dies after you punch them in the face...it is probably objectively foreseeable that punching someone in the head could lead to their death and you could be charged and convicted of manslaughter (or maybe not depending on the circumstances).
Anybody wanna head to the bar tonight and agree to an all-out 'only minor bruises or less' fist-fight? What could go wrong?
TV definitely makes fighting or even taking a single punch to be a lot easier than it actually is.
We also all watch a sport that sanctions bareknuckle fights on ice...for teenagers. Soo.... are we surprised a teenage hockey player uses punching to solve problems?
Even in bar fights someone getting punched in the face isn’t that common. It’s typically a couple bozos threatening each other and dancing around. Maybe some wild swings, kicks, shoving or rolling around on the ground. Anyone who thinks bar fights = dudes exchanging punches to the face watches too many movies.
Pinder was doing a schtick about this on Barnburner the other day, and he said to Rhett “how many guys on that ‘04 team had punched guys in the face in bar fights - half?”. Rhett just rolled his eyes at Pinder.
My buddy was a bouncer st Cowboys in those days and there was a few...Oliwa multiple times.
TV definitely makes fighting or even taking a single punch to be a lot easier than it actually is.
We also all watch a sport that sanctions bareknuckle fights on ice...for teenagers. Soo.... are we surprised a teenage hockey player uses punching to solve problems?
He is a star, I don't think he's ever fought on the ice.
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
