• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

449 Excellent

About unknown33429

  • Rank
    Canucks Prospect
  1. I think it's still a crime to offer money for sex. Prostitution is not illegal but all things around itself are like offering money for sex. Regardless, she could be lying and hoping for notoriety or a payoff. I still prefer an owner doing that than interfering with the management of the team, like the owner of the Canucks.
  2. Fires melt things, bro. Fire also weakens metals bro which is how you forge things with steel bro and create steel beams bro.
  3. For as long as the Canucks' playoff drought.
  4. We could lose one or both those players to FA. There is always a danger of that.
  5. Why does it sound familiar? It might have been the position taken by the NHLPA.
  6. Yup, people should cover their ears every time someone disagrees with them. the mark of a great society.
  7. You can't see that we are essentially in agreement on most parts except for one thing. You think that "concussion" is a defense used by Wideman. I'm trying to explain that "concussion" is a basis from which to conclude that an element of the offence, namely that the actions were deliberate, may have been absent. In terms of "finishing the hockey game," his physical faculties afterwards aren't as significant as you think. Most people who suffered concussion used to ignore it back in the day. That is because concussion is a swelling of the brain and that swelling can affect different things at different times, and may even go down quickly. The thing is, we don't know about it. That's why there are experts. And the opinion of the experts was uncontradicted. If NHL was so confident he was faking a concussion, they would have had their own expert examine him, to try to rebut the other experts.
  8. Yes, you are absolutely right. The burden of proof that his actions were deliberate on a balance of probabilities lies with the NHL. They failed to meet that burden.
  9. It's not an assumption he was concussed. It is the uncontradicted opinion of two experts in the field.
  10. That is a messed up and dangerous conclusion that Bettman went to based on those findings. If you suffer a concussion and are involved in a car crash that kills someone, the fact your concussion was not diagnosed (even in cases when it should have been) before the car crash does not mean you did not have a concussion. Add to that the fact that two independent experts in the area hired by the NHLPA believe he had a concussion would suggest he more than likely had a concussion. At the very minimum, it would mean that his actions cannot be proven to be deliberate on a balance of probabilities. If it was a player who was not involved in a collision arguing he had a concussion, he's have a tougher time.
  11. Ok http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/pdfs/NHL-Wideman-Order.PDF There are two experts cited in the judgement and there is no contradictory evidence given by the NHL officials. Whenever there is a crime, do you think there is a psychologist/psychiatrist present at the occurrence of the crime to conclude what the state of the mind of the person was at that time. Wideman suffered a hit which is likely to cause a concussion. Two experts testified that they believe he was concussed. No contradictory expert evidence. Bettman is not an expert on concussions and what he (or you) believe does not matter. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to support the actions were deliberate.
  12. The general rule in law is that if a person cannot physically control what they are doing, then they should not face any liability for it. What if I were to grab Wideman's hand and punch an official in the face? would Wideman be liable for that? No.. A person with a brain injury cannot be assumed to be responsible for their actions.
  13. People need to learn to reserve their opinions about things they no nothing about. "Intentional" means the same things in both contexts. "Deliberate" means the same thing in both contexts. The fact is that a person's action cannot be presumed to be deliberate when they have a f**cking brain injury. The fact most people, including Bettman who went to law school, can't grasp this is beyond me. "It looked like he meant to hit him..therefore he meant to hit him." The stupidity of the general populace frightens me sometimes.
  14. I did. "but you certainly can't cross check someone without it being deliberate" That is wrong. You can cross check someone without it being deliberate. A suggestion that a cross-check has to be deliberate can lead to the conclusion that you believe all actions are deliberate, since cross-checking is not different that other actions. Learn the definition of deliberate and then respond.
  15. Ugh. You should be speechless. In fact, just speak less. Intent is a legal term clearly beyond your comprehension. Leave it to people who know the law.