Referees: Ref Slaps kid, Brawl Ensues

[cowboy82nd]

Look, last comment on this because I'm at work and I have work to do. The ref was wrong (if you want to call it child abuse, you can), but under the same guidelines, the player that attacked the ref from behind was wrong also (you can call this assault if you want to, but you don't).

 

[DyerMaker66*]

So, minors can assault minors in a hockey game?

It's not assault: You are consenting to being hit and you expect such from the other team.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Look, last comment on this because I'm at work and I have work to do. The ref was wrong (if you want to call it child abuse, you can), but under the same guidelines, the player that attacked the ref from behind was wrong also (you can call this assault if you want to, but you don't).

Because as I have pointed out to you using force to stop assault is not assault. I don't get what you're not understanding about that.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

I can't quote you the case but it was about 1978 or 1979. The 12 year old was actually watching the 5 year old and she beat her and beat her bad. The 12 year old was charged and convicted of child abuse. Maybe it had something to do with the 5 year old being under her care at the time, but the point is, a child was convicted of child abuse.

Here's one for ya:

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...es-tuesday-choking-attack-11-year-old-custody

The 11-year-old, who is not being named by the Times-Union because of his age and pending situation, is charged with aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm after being accused of leaving strangulation marks on Braydan's neck, deputies said.

I don't see child abuse written there, do you? Maybe the reason you can't quote it is because it never happened?

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

What category would that fall under?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse



We are quite clearly talking about physical abuse, yes? Unless you are referring to sexual abuse (which has no place in this discussion) it's adult or older adolescent on child.

Also:

https://www.defencelaw.com/printversion-assault.html



It seems pretty clear-cut that what the kids did was justified and the only person here who broke the law is the ref.

Dyer,

In your opinion, the kid who started beating the crap out of the ref from behind, did he use necessary force or unnecessary force? And at what point, if any, does it become necessary?

 

[Goonzilla]

As I've said before, there's a lot of things I'm not an expert on, including hockey, but I am 20 years law enforcement and deal with this sort of thing for a living, so I can at least make a claim to being an actual professional with regards to much of what is being debated.

Certainly a lot of different jurisdictions will have some different points of law, but a lot of the principles are usually pretty universal, especially around things like the appropriateness of any response and proportionality. For example, if I push you out of the way in a grocery store, you are not justified in returning to your car to get a firearm and coming back to shoot me, even if I started it..for two reasons. Firstly the response is out of all proportion to the harm or force meted out or caused to you, secondly, because once you've left or the confrontation is over, you are no longer protecting yourself when you go back, you don't have to go back; you were able to remove yourself from the situation and the harm was not continuing.

The incident here is not dissimilar in those regards, because you have a quite disproportionate response being meted out when it did not appear there was any continuing assault going on by the referee. Essentially there was no need for the reaction against the referee, other than perhaps some misguided sense of cameraderie.

In this instance, you have the benefit of having video footage of what transpired, although it isn't absolutely complete, you can't hear what might be being said by parties and you don't have full footage or multiple angles like you might do in a player safety decision.

It is readily apparent, that the referee in question is initially breaking up an altercation, directing or 'assisting' the player away from the scrum or melee and giving him directions to move away, demonstrated by his pointing away. There doesn't appear any intent to cause harm to the player from the outset; and intent is generally one of the key elements to establishing any criminal culpability.

 

[Goonzilla]

S

If people like his refereeing style or not is an aside. Obviously at one point he appears to overstep the bounds of his warrant or authority as a referee and strikes or lashes out towards the player. Was it hard, was it intended to injure of hurt the player? What did it actually do to the player who was wearing protective equipment?

That appeared to be it and there is no evidence of any continuation, further escalation or ongoing assault on the player by the referee, he certainly wasn't raining punches, which doesn't condone what the referee did, but does put it into some perspective. He seriously erred, but on what is shown that would really be more appropriate for the local hockey or referees association to act on. Depending on some other unknown factors, including local policies, it would be more likely to result in a caution or warning should the matter be referred to Police or at least be treated as very low level offending by the Court.

 

[Goonzilla]

I don't want to go on and on, suffice to say that the reaction or response by at least one of the players appears to go far beyond any tenements of protecting or defending oneself or someone else. The other player was just not in need of someone jumping on the ref from behind and giving him a beating. It was out of all proportion and only went to inflame and escalate the situation further. He didn't need to do it and there was no need to do it.

To throw an element of preventing child abuse or an assault on a child just doesn't cut it outside of locker room machismo and BS or school playground talk. It just doesn't wash as an excuse or justification in this instance.

You would only ask the kid who initially attacked the ref why he didn't just get in between his team mate and the ref or instead hold and restrain the referee? The reason he didn't is because it was really nothing to do with protecting anyone, but rather seizing the opportunity to inflict harm on someone else. The ref was hit from behind without warning and afforded no chance to back down or remove himself from the situation.

Of course he's a stupid young boy, but he would know right from wrong and of course that's why most jurisdictions have a youth justice process or procedures in recognition of that.

Of course you would need to speak to witnesses and interview the parties involved to get the full story of what transpired and why.

..and yeah I handle investigations and also make prosecution decisions and prepare cases for Court. You can break it down into quotes, analyze and opine, but I'm generally reasonably robust with both my knowledge and practises.

 

[Goonzilla]

Undoubtedly there are other LE people on here too. This sort of thing is of professional interest to me because it is becoming increasingly prevalent, not usually with a referee, but spectators getting involved in altercations with players at sports games and the like.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Thanks Goonzilla for the information and clarification. Maybe this info will put and end to this disagreement.

 

[FLYLine27*]

There was no "assaults" in the video. Assault means there was some sort of injury, obvious there wasn't from what I can tell.

At worst its a charge of harassment, a violation, not even a crime.

(Going by New York laws).

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

There was no "assaults" in the video. Assault means there was some sort of injury, obvious there wasn't from what I can tell.

At worst its a charge of harassment, a violation, not even a crime.

(Going by New York laws).

Assault has nothing to do with there being an injury or not,

You absolutely can have an assault without an injury

 

[Goonzilla]

Thanks Goonzilla for the information and clarification. Maybe this info will put and end to this disagreement.

The reality is that it doesn't, because things legal are almost nearly always open to interpretation and argument. Law isn't black and white as a result, it's grey, which is why you have lawyers, some to try and clarify things and some to muddy the waters, depending on their side of the fence or agenda.

There is a large spectrum of things requiring consideration though and it's not nearly as simple as some might like to believe in apportioning blame and to what degree.

That ref screws up badly, but I can't for the life of me find any justification or mitigation for the kid who then attacks the ref from behind, even if it was my own kid. I actually find it somewhat disturbing and I see plenty of ugly behaviour. I think he got off very lightly from hockey authorities.

..and I've been in plenty of scraps and scrapes myself. Never interjected or intervened in anything other than as a peacemaker and certainly never hit anyone from behind or hit anyone without warning. It's just inexcusable, both within any rules or laws, written or unwritten and by any measure of macho or manliness, or courage or bravado.

 

[Goonzilla]

There was no "assaults" in the video. Assault means there was some sort of injury, obvious there wasn't from what I can tell.

At worst its a charge of harassment, a violation, not even a crime.

(Going by New York laws).

I'd sure like to see that statute. Generally speaking an assault is the application of some sort of force to another person where no legal defense or justification to do so is present. Most assaults don't result in injury.

I've been assaulted quite a few times, never really injured. There are two assaults being mainly referenced in this video, the referee lashing out at the player and the other player who then attacks the referee from behind. Both I'd suspect or suggest are outside of or not really covered by the rules of the game and both would meet any legal definition of assault that I've ever seen.

 

[Goonzilla]

Anything to do with 'harassment' would on my understanding generally require some sort of pattern of behaviour to be established rather than a one off incident, but again different places have different definitions and statutes around things.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Dyer,

In your opinion, the kid who started beating the crap out of the ref from behind, did he use necessary force or unnecessary force? And at what point, if any, does it become necessary?

Ah it obviously becomes necessary, cops use force, yes? It's pretty clear that when someone starts assaulting you force can be necessary to stop it. I don't get what's so difficult about that.

What does your question have to do with the ref abusing his power and the kid? Should I start roughing up your friend, family member, or teammate in front of you and expect no retribution in return? Do I just take free shots and expect you to stand there and watch?

 

[Beezeral]

There was no "assaults" in the video. Assault means there was some sort of injury, obvious there wasn't from what I can tell.

At worst its a charge of harassment, a violation, not even a crime.

(Going by New York laws).

coming from a lawyer, you have no idea what you are talking about

 

[DyerMaker66*]

If people like his refereeing style or not is an aside. Obviously at one point he appears to overstep the bounds of his warrant or authority as a referee and strikes or lashes out towards the player. Was it hard, was it intended to injure of hurt the player? What did it actually do to the player who was wearing protective equipment?

Possibly emotionally scar him for the rest of his life, as someone who was supposed to keep peace actually heightened the chaos.

The weight of the hit shot have no bearing on it.

That appeared to be it and there is no evidence of any continuation, further escalation or ongoing assault on the player by the referee, he certainly wasn't raining punches, which doesn't condone what the referee did, but does put it into some perspective.

It doesn't add any perspective. The guy who was supposed to keep order lost his cool and physically abused someone. Who know what happens the next time he'll be on the ice? Or even just walking around in society? Can he ever be trusted around children again, when he's made it pretty evident he can't handle one?

 

[DyerMaker66*]

That ref screws up badly, but I can't for the life of me find any justification or mitigation for the kid who then attacks the ref from behind, even if it was my own kid. I actually find it somewhat disturbing and I see plenty of ugly behaviour. I think he got off very lightly from hockey authorities.

Stopping abuse is a pretty good reason, because if you stand by and let it happen you're rally no better than the person who committed the crime. It demonstrates that you'll tolerate it and actually defend it when the situation arises again.

 

[Goonzilla]

Stopping abuse is a pretty good reason, because if you stand by and let it happen you're rally no better than the person who committed the crime. It demonstrates that you'll tolerate it and actually defend it when the situation arises again.

You fail to grasp some basic concepts or make some important differentiations that you possibly never will, so I'm not going to argue with you.

There is a reason though why there's a saying 'always walk to a fight'.

I sure hope you are a young guy.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

I don't want to go on and on, suffice to say that the reaction or response by at least one of the players appears to go far beyond any tenements of protecting or defending oneself or someone else. The other player was just not in need of someone jumping on the ref from behind and giving him a beating. It was out of all proportion and only went to inflame and escalate the situation further. He didn't need to do it and there was no need to do it.

Who knows what you're going to do next when you start abusing minors? Maybe he was going to attack another one of their teammates next. He'd already flipped his lid once.

To throw an element of preventing child abuse or an assault on a child just doesn't cut it outside of locker room machismo and BS or school playground talk. It just doesn't wash as an excuse or justification in this instance.

I'm pretty sure it's legal to defend others from abuse.

http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html

the circumstances. 1

For purposes of the self-defense legal defense, “reasonable under the circumstances” means that you need to have:
1.Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,

Pretty sure we can agree the ref touched him unlawfully.

In order to plead self-defense successfully, you must have had an honest and reasonable belief that you faced imminent harm and needed to use force to defend yourself.

Watching some else get abused would certainly fit that definition.

You can also use self-defense as a legal defense when you acted to defend someone else. 30

The requirements for defending others are the same as for defending yourself. You must:
1.Reasonably believe that the other person is in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,
2.Reasonably believe that you need to use force to prevent this, and
3.Use no more force than necessary. 31

The only thing that could be argued here using more force than necessary, but who knows what that ref was going to start doing if no one stopped him, so I'd agree the force was necessary.

You would only ask the kid who initially attacked the ref why he didn't just get in between his team mate and the ref or instead hold and restrain the referee? The reason he didn't is because it was really nothing to do with protecting anyone, but rather seizing the opportunity to inflict harm on someone else. The ref was hit from behind without warning and afforded no chance to back down or remove himself from the situation.

Because who know what that adult was capable of doing next? He'd already hit one child, what's one more?

Of course he's a stupid young boy, but he would know right from wrong and of course that's why most jurisdictions have a youth justice process or procedures in recognition of that.

Uh, pretty sure it's an officials job to know right from wrong and to not hit kids.

Of course you would need to speak to witnesses and interview the parties involved to get the full story of what transpired and why.

Why when you have video and we can see exactly what happened?

 

[DyerMaker66*]

You fail to grasp some basic concepts or make some important differentiations that you possibly never will, so I'm not going to argue with you.

There isn't any; you're simply overcomplicating it. Fact is an official lost his cool and started abusing a child and you've been defending it for pages.

There is a reason though why there's a saying 'always walk to a fight'.

I sure hope you are a young guy.

I have never heard this saying and a search tuned up nothing. Are you sure you didn't just make that saying up?

I sure hope you don't treat children like the ref does.

 

[Goonzilla]

Goodness, I really hope you at just trolling now..for your sake. Please tell me you are.

You are posting some absolute monuments to yourself.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Goodness, I really hope you at just trolling now..for your sake. Please tell me you are.

You are posting some absolute monuments to yourself.

Funny, speaking of monuments to yourself:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Always+walk+to+a+fight%22

Apparently only you and one other person has ever used that "saying".

Please tell me you're joking in your defence of this clown referee.

 

[Goonzilla]

Well it's along the lines of 'walk to a fight, run to a fire'; and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it because you can't google it. I'm sure others have heard it before.

You appear to have some rather interesting personality traits..sorta.