Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jsonnabend

  • Rank
    Albany Devil

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brooklyn, USA
  1. Ok, so Buffalo's management contacts Lou and says, "we don't like the way Miller's beard is growing in. We'd like to trade straight-up for Brodeur." Do you do it? - Jeff
  2. Well, you'd suspect wrong. I'm not only a fan, but have played for twenty something years at this point. There's bravery and then there's stupidity, as well as the old edict of "discretion is the better part of valor" and all that. And yes, DanykoIsGod, Collin consented to having his lights punched out, even it it meant going blind. You know, there's a fine line between stupid and clever . . .
  3. Yeah, he showed a lot of stupidity. It never ceases to amaze me how fans lose sight of reality -- hockey is a game played for the entertainment of the fans. We should applaud a player for risking total blindness to uphold some sort of "code" in this context? Please.
  4. Thank you. I am brick. The point is, law is all about line drawing, and juries make calls on those lines all the time. Like the difference between various flavors of manslaughter, for instance. And drawing attention to other close cases (e.g., the Erik Cole hit) doesn't address the question. Whether I say the Cole hit was criminal or not doesn't affect this elbow, does it? Oh, and your quoted post above states a different position than before. Now you're arguing the intent. Well, that I can't argue. It's a question of fact. I believe the video shows a hit with intent to injure be
  5. No, hockey players consent to clean hits and to a range of infractions as well. Football players consent to tackles, catchers to contact at the plate, and boxers to punches to the face. Is the concept of consent really that difficult?
  6. Oh my, it's like talking to a wall. First, there's a difference between hurt and injure. Clean hits hurt. Intent to injure through flagrant disregard of the rules is different. You admit time and time again that this was an attempt to injure and that the receiving player did not consent to such contact. What, then, is the issue? Second, juries can't understand the concept of implied consent? Maybe not, the concept is beyond the capacity of many people around here. In my experience with juries, though, they are able to handle some pretty complicated concepts. Finally, who said anything ab
  7. Well, that's where you and I differ. I don't think anyone consents to an opposing player committing a blatant infraction with intent to injure. Unfortunately, IMO, your view encapsulates all that is wrong with the sport -- blatant disrespect for another human being (no less fellow hockey player). Hockey is a sport, the sole purpose of which is to entertain. That entertainment shouldn't come at the expense of fundamental human values. - Jeff
  8. Triumph, the line is not arbitrary, and you answered the question on this line in particular (you answered "no" to my implied consent question). As for drawing lines elsewhere, that is what juries are for. And just because borderline (i.e., difficult) cases exist doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist or be enforced. Also, everyone here crowing about "intent", intent is a critical element in much of criminal law (see "mens rea"). Did Cormier intend to injure the opposing player? I think so, but others may disagree. Again, that's what juries are for. - Jeff
  9. Well, no (although I am an attorney). The point is that you made a statement about conviction, I made a statement about whether the act was right or wrong, criminal or not. I have no idea how hard a conviction would be to obtain. Most people here are arguing intent, and that's a question of fact for the jury. My point, which seems counter to your and Tri's point, is that Cormier's play can be criminal even though it took place in a hockey game. That's where the legal concept of implied consent comes in. Shoving someone into a wall with a stick is a crime called assault -- except when it'
  10. I am not sure why you and Tri are bringing up other hits. Maybe they were criminal, maybe not. I have no opinion on that. As for your comment that it would be "incredibly difficult to get a conviction," I am not sure what you are basing that conclusion on. Are you a criminal defense attorney? A DA? And Tri, the law is all about line drawing. I don't know where to draw this particular line, but I can tell you Cormier's actions were on the wrong side of it. - Jeff
  11. No, that's wrong. Violations of the rules, including elbows and fights, are known to be part of the game, and anyone who plays professional hockey assumes the risk of and consents to such infractions being committed against them. The difference here is the degree. Swinging a stick at someone's head is technically a slash and/or high stick. Does any hockey player consent to that? Same is true of flagrant head-hunter elbows like Cormier's. Please, "just happens in this case a player was hurt." You know, you don't have to go to law school to reason any of this out. A little bit of common
  12. The severity of the injury was a direct consequence of the severity of the act. Punch a guy in the face it's assault. Punch him hard enough to kill him, it's murder. And as for Tri's comments about the league losing control of its rulebook, that's nonsense. The rulebook says what Cormier did is a violation of the rules. As NJDevs26 correctly points out, no one signs on for that kind of hit simply by stepping on the ice -- its a flagrant violation of the rules. The law allows fights, hitting, etc. in hockey based on "informed consent" and "assumption of risk", it's not "extralegal". No on
  13. An elbow to the head at that speed is heinous. Legally speaking, implied consent and/or assumption of risk don't begin to cover it. And as for "crimes of passion", how about stomping on someone's neck (to use your example) in the heat of the moment, as opposed to premeditatedly? The law says "crimes of passion" and/or "heat of the moment" don't excuse criminal acts (but they may change the severity of the charge). - Jeff
  14. You are 100% correct. No one consents to that kind of contact merely by signing-on to play. In New York, that's assault and if the player died, manslaughter. I hope to never see Cormier in NJ. - Jeff
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.