Auston Matthews charged with disorderly conduct

[loob job]

I think it's funny that Babcock claims he hadn't heard about it until last night. Sounds like Auston was hoping it would go away.

[GullFoss]

"Boys will be boys" should be used in the context that little boys are competitive and sometimes that competitive spirit gets the best of them. It's meant to apply to little kids where parents and educators realize that you don't want to discourage the competitive spirit and mistakes will be made while boys are still learning to control their competitive and aggressive impulses. It's typically used when boys are playing amongst themselves - think a game of hockey or basketball or tag or grounders that ends in boys losing their temper.

Sometimes you can apply it to teens that are trying to question the boundaries of authority, which again makes sense because you don't want men that blindly follow authority and the status quo. And sometimes while questioning authority make mistakes because they're learning where those boundaries are. So when boys get into arguments with coaches, teachers, principals, dad's, etc...everyone realized that "boys will be boys" and it's a part of growing up and these are teachable moments.

"Boys will be boys" not supposed to be used to condone rape culture or being an ashhole.

It's not meant to normalize toxic behaviors and attitudes.

It's not meant to apply to men.

It's not meant to normalize ######bag behavior by bro's and jocks.

It applies to boys who are learning social skills.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by sempuki

You're apparently not familiar with the United States of America.

> State law affords certain self-defense protections under what's referred to as the "castle doctrine," meaning the legal occupants of a home or vehicle can legally defend themselves against an intruder if they believe to be in some amount of danger, according to attorney Russell Richelsoph, a partner at Davis Miles McGuire Gardner law firm.

Defense attorney Andrew Wenker said the law presumes a person acted reasonably if they claimed to have defended themselves or others, forcing prosecutors to prove otherwise.

"So you show a little bit of evidence that shows that you acted in self-defense," Wenker said. "The State, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime you committed. But on top of that, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you weren't acting (in) self-defense."

I live in Texas. This is not something to mess with. When the pizza delivery person comes, they ring the doorbell and then take 10 steps back from your door and make sure you can see their hands to ensure the situation is good.

Also not really discussed from this situation is that the security guard was a military vet with severe PTSD. That to me is fairly concerning and yet not all that uncommon when it comes to security and law enforcement from what I've been lead to believe by people in the business here in 'Murica.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I find the posts questioning the guard's behavior the strangest. Debate the seriousness of what he did if you feel you have to, but if you have to call her character into question then you really don't get it IMO.

Questioning whether she was asleep on the job, frightens easily, isn't a good security guard or whatever the case may be; I just don't see how it's relevant to his behavior?

She talks a lot about her feelings in the police report. As long, as it is in the police report, it is relevant to the case.

[powderjunkie]

In most cases (like at a private residence) Security guards/rent-a-cops are hired to do the following:

1. Be [hopefully] awake
2. Be a visible deterrent for crime
3. Be a 'mobile alarm system' (that can confirm the existence of an incident better than an electronic system on its own) and notify the real authorities
4. Tell the drunks/methheads to move along
5. Intervene to whatever extent a situation warrants (shine a flashlight to chase someone off, go talk to a suspicious individual, attempt to detain, or simply maintain visual contact if outnumbered)
6. Sometimes provide 'customer service' - in the context of a luxury condo complex it might mean helping a resident who locked themselves out (in a mall or theme park its answering 'where's the restroom')

Whether you hire a woman, Paul Blart, old guy, or John Rambo to do the job, you understand that there is a wide range for #5. Most of the time, you'd rather Paul Blart allowing a window to get smashed while waiting for the cops than having John Rambo shoot someone on your behalf (obviously there is an ideal solution in the middle of those two, but it's pretty hard to expect ideal for minimum wage).

Maybe there are a few settings where a person with PTSD shouldn't work security, but a luxury condo complex in Scottsdale isn't one them...


And to the poster earlier complaining about women harassing a bouncer, it's obviously inappropriate behaviour. However, 'bouncer' is one of the very few jobs out there where it is actually reasonable to expect that you WILL BE harassed by groups of drunk idiots (the primary job of a bouncer is to make sure drunk idiots don't harass others...). It doesn't mean their behaviour is reasonable, but its a foreseeable part of the job and processes are in place to mitigate it (ie. backup). Men facing sexual harassment is a topic worthy of discussion, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Lastly, to anyone asking if this would be a story if the security guard was male, you might actually be asking the right question, but you need to go one step further back: would AM & co have conducted themselves in the same way if they knew it was a guy? Maybe, maybe not...

[Eubee]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

"Boys will be boys"

####, I can't wait for that stupid excuse to go away.

There is ZERO reason someone has to accost a stranger to have a good time. Also, just because you're young doesn't mean you shouldn't act like a professional in public. Dumb dip####s working on the rigs do stuff like this because they know they don't have much of a future. Even if we shouldn't expect young people to behave somewhat adequately in public, I have no idea why someone who gets nearly $12 million dollars a year doesn't have someone around him managing his stupid impulses.

Coming from someone that lives way up on a high horse watching spring training baseball in Boca Raton Florida? Trashing people that leave their families for months at a time so they can create a future (maybe even in Florida...if they're lucky), while working with both their minds and their their hands in often brutal conditions, all the while needing to make workplace safety paramount - Its not marauding thugs pulling on door handles determined to assault people mind you, but still - so they can actually come home to their future-less families? And still no apology for that comment. Go $#%& yourself indeed.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by loob job

I think it's funny that Babcock claims he hadn't heard about it until last night. Sounds like Auston was hoping it would go away.

I'm not surprised Babcock didn't hear about it. I'm more curious as to how exactly this became news. Are their dedicated beat-writers whose job it is to simply go through the daily arrest reports that are made public and try to match up any names that are famous? How the heck does a disorderly conduct charge become this big of a story?

[CaptainCrunch]

They're just lucky that she didn't pull out a gun and blaze away when they tried to enter her car.

[DeluxeMoustache]

The statement from Matthews

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...onduct-charge/

"It’s not something that I think any of us really wish we were talking about today. Unfortunately, it’s the situation we’re in." Matthews said. "I regret any of my actions that would ever put a distraction on the team or distress any individual.

"I take a lot of pride in preparing myself for the season and representing the Toronto Maple Leafs as well as I can. Unfortunately due to the situation, I’m afraid I can’t really make any other comments."

[Erick Estrada]

I had a buddy that when drunk would perform the cheek-spread in public. He wasn't a highly paid professional athlete that had fans looking up to him though. We did a lot of stupid stuff when his age but I don't recall ever thinking about trying to break into a car occupied by a female (or male) to see their reaction. Not a great look for Matthews.

[Pointman]

I by no means support Matthews, but I believe that it is somehow missed, that the whole point of his behavior - however stupid and disgusting it was - was to mock an assault and check out how the guard of his condo would react. It was awful for sure, but pretending that he did it to a random woman on the street is sort of missing the context.

[sureLoss]

I think the most recent precedent for a situation like this was when Claude Giroux was arrested for grabbing a police officer's ass multiple times.

https://ottawasun.com/2014/07/02/phi...3-9a35d32e641f

[Poe969]

People who are talking about sexual assault need to give their head a shake. If he and his friends were going to rape her, or were even thinking about it, it would have happened. She came out of the car. She spoke to them. She was shaken and has every right to be but if they were going to rape her, or if she even felt remotely threatened, she would have stayed in the car and called the real police. I'm sure Auston could have overpowered her if he wanted to. He didn't. He was drunk and did something really dumb but if he had intentions of doing something worse, it would have happened.

IF we're going to assume that he had sexual assault on his mind, why not go all the way and assume he was going to steal the car and murder her too?

He did something dumb but lets not go overboard and think that he was going to rape her.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I by no means support Matthews, but I believe that it is somehow missed, that the whole point of his behavior - however stupid and disgusting it was - was to mock an assault and check out how the guard of his condo would react. It was awful for sure, but pretending that he did it to a random woman on the street is sort of missing the context.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Does anyone think it was a random woman? Insofar as it relates to Mathews behavior, is one scenario more favorable to him than another? I don't believe he was trying to prank a friend here.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I by no means support Matthews, but I believe that it is somehow missed, that the whole point of his behavior - however stupid and disgusting it was - was to mock an assault and check out how the guard of his condo would react. It was awful for sure, but pretending that he did it to a random woman on the street is sort of missing the context.

Wow, I missed the point where he declared his intent and it was was mocking an assault. I even pasted his official comment in here and didn’t catch anything like that.

All we know is that a security guard was sitting in a car, someone made contact with the car and for whatever reason, this surprised her.

I’m pretty sure the intent was harmless. It obviously was in poor judgment but let’s not say the guy intended to ‘mock an assault’ on someone.

I don’t think it is a very unlikely scenario that they saw a guard who was not paying attention to things and thought it would be funny to surprise her. Bad judgment again, for sure.

But please dispense with the term assault when describing his intent

That helps nothing here

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Poe969

People who are talking about sexual assault need to give their head a shake. If he and his friends were going to rape her, or were even thinking about it, it would have happened. She came out of the car. She spoke to them. She was shaken and has every right to be but if they were going to rape her, or if she even felt remotely threatened, she would have stayed in the car and called the real police. I'm sure Auston could have overpowered her if he wanted to. He didn't. He was drunk and did something really dumb but if he had intentions of doing something worse, it would have happened.

IF we're going to assume that he had sexual assault on his mind, why not go all the way and assume he was going to steal the car and murder her too?

He did something dumb but lets not go overboard and think that he was going to rape her.

Has anyone actually said they think his intent was to rape her?

No, it's about what *she* thought, while this was happening. She may well have been very scared for her own safety.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Wow, I missed the point where he declared his intent and it was was mocking an assault. I even pasted his official comment in here and didn’t catch anything like that.

All we know is that a security guard was sitting in a car, someone made contact with the car and for whatever reason, this surprised her.

I’m pretty sure the intent was harmless. It obviously was in poor judgment but let’s not say the guy intended to ‘mock an assault’ on someone.

I don’t think it is a very unlikely scenario that they saw a guard who was not paying attention to things and thought it would be funny to surprise her. Bad judgment again, for sure.

But please dispense with the term assault when describing his intent

That helps nothing here

From the first post of this thread :

"She confronted them and the response from Auston was they wanted to see what she would do and they believed it would be funny to see how she would respond"

I would try to explain my point more clear. It would be entirely incomprehensible if Matthews would try to break into someone's car at 2am just to see how that person would react. However, it is not impossible to understand a man mocking an intrusion to see whether the person hired to protect his house is capable of handling that. It is not quite uncommon for people who are paying for guards/security to mock an attack just to see if guards are actually capable.

Again, I don't want to come across as someone who is fine with what Matthews did. I just wanted to point out that his intentions were missed.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Pointman

From the first post of this thread :

"She confronted them and the response from Auston was they wanted to see what she would do and they believed it would be funny to see how she would respond"

I would try to explain my point more clear. It would be entirely incomprehensible if Matthews would try to break into someone's car at 2am just to see how that person would react. However, it is not impossible to understand a man mocking an assault to see whether the person hired to protect his house is capable of handling that. It is not quite uncommon for people paying guards to mock an assault just to see if guards are actually capable.

Again, I don't want to come across as someone who is fine with what Matthews did. I just wanted to point out that his intentions were missed.

So you think Auston was putting on his building superintendent or property manager task and doing a professionalism check on the guard?

I think it’s just as likely to believe the intent was to shake a door handle as much as it was to get in the car, again, to get a reaction from an unaware security guard. You know, because security guards are supposed to be aware of their surroundings.

Mock an assault? Man. The sky is a different colour in the world where that was his intent

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So you think Auston was putting on his building superintendent or property manager task and doing a professionalism check on the guard?

I think it’s just as likely to believe the intent was to shake a door handle as much as it was to get in the car, again, to get a reaction from an unaware security guard. You know, because security guards are supposed to be aware of their surroundings.

Mock an assault? Man. The sky is a different colour in the world where that was his intent

I believe, that Matthews point was to put a prank on the guard of his condo who was perceived as not doing a good job of guarding at the moment.

English is not my first language, so "mocking an assault" may not be the most precise choice of words. What I wanted to say is that he did it to the guard of his own condo, rather than to some random woman he saw on the street, and it is an important thing to consider. And it is still a stupid and disgusting act nonetheless.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Poe969

...IF we're going to assume that he had sexual assault on his mind, why not go all the way and assume he was going to steal the car and murder her too?

He did something dumb but lets not go overboard and think that he was going to rape her.

Good lord. NOBODY in this thread has indicated that they think anything like this. What Matthews intended is pretty irrelevant in the light of the stupidity and recklessness of his actions, which could have had grave consequences.