Rec-league player cross-checked from behind. Cross-checker suspended 30-days, player assaulted banned from arena for life.

[jmiami 4]

Wow what a bizarre story. I'd be curious to hear a follow-up. I'm glad to hear the victim is pursuing charges, as that was a brutal attack. The victim's neck could have been broken. If an incident like that occurred in the NHL these days I'm pretty sure there would be charges filed, and it would be a media sh*tstorm.

The perpetrator in this case, like many perps, clearly doesn't have that stop-mechanism that tells him "what you are about to do may gravely injure somebody else". Not having that stop-mechanism is a problem. Prisons are filled with guys who don't have that stop-mechanism. I think a 30 day suspension for the attacker won't skew his thinking much. But getting jammed up with the cops, having to hire an attorney, being in court, and maybe spending time in jail...well that might make a dent. Or maybe not. Maybe he's been there and done that a few times before. But then there is always civil action. Either way, I hope the victim hammers his attacker into the ground. You don't cross-check a guy in the neck from behind and drive him down to the ice. You just don't.

[zebra_steve 11]

I am in no way condoning what the player did, but I am saying the rink is fully within their rights not to allow the victim to play either. If I ever go back to play ice hockey at that rink, I am going to make sure to either avoid the league that attacking player is in, or make sure he has been banned. The assaulting player is clearly over aggressive and trying to emulate what they have seen on TV against players not expecting it in a non-check league. I will be highly disappointed if I find out that player isn't banned from the rink as well.

Somehow I suspect there is more to this story than we'll ever know - and be able to put in print here. I've seen enough players lose it up close and personal that I too wonder just what made him snap like that... I have my suspicions, but they are just that my own suspicions having been on both sides of incidents similar to this one. Yeah, the rink owner was within his rights to ban someone from his property... I don't dispute that... but if the only reason for A LIFETIME banning of the "victim" was because he filed charges and that was bad publicity for the rink.... IMHO That's a bit punitive and discriminatory. Man that just doesn't sit well with me.....

[chk hrd 164]

It could be a smart move by the rink. If the player who was cheap shotted comes back to play there may be alot of people who are pissed because he called the police. There is the chance of more harm to the player resulting in more cops being called. The guy could have a reputation or history. The rink is sued for not protecting the player or some B.S. thing. It could be a law suite waiting to happen. The rink may feel this is the best way to protect themselves.

[Fisticuffs 0]

This is an obviously idiotic move my the league management. Now, who knows what happened leading up to it, but if anyone threw a cross-check like that in a league I ref, there would be a serious discussion over whether he would be returning, ever. I would guess most of the leagues would suspend him for at least a year. I can't defend a rink that suspends a player for seeking charges where he was blindsided while defenseless. If they wanted to avoid bad press, they badly misplayed their hand.

We had two guys get in an altercation, and one cross-checked the other in the mouth, knocking out a couple teeth. The guy who got his teeth knocked out had the other player pay the co-pays for his dental work. The player was also suspended for the rest of the season's 13 games. To me, that was pretty reasonable on all parts. No cops were involved, but the player who crossed the line suffered the consequences (in games, and monetary damages), and the player who was injured didn't have to come out of pocket for the damage done. I would venture 3/4 of the players in the league don't even know it happened.

[mhkehoe 1]

This is an obviously idiotic move my the league management. Now, who knows what happened leading up to it, but if anyone threw a cross-check like that in a league I ref, there would be a serious discussion over whether he would be returning, ever. I would guess most of the leagues would suspend him for at least a year. I can't defend a rink that suspends a player for seeking charges where he was blindsided while defenseless. If they wanted to avoid bad press, they badly misplayed their hand.

We had two guys get in an altercation, and one cross-checked the other in the mouth, knocking out a couple teeth. The guy who got his teeth knocked out had the other player pay the co-pays for his dental work. The player was also suspended for the rest of the season's 13 games. To me, that was pretty reasonable on all parts. No cops were involved, but the player who crossed the line suffered the consequences (in games, and monetary damages), and the player who was injured didn't have to come out of pocket for the damage done. I would venture 3/4 of the players in the league don't even know it happened.

I would hope that these two guys could setup something similar in this situation to cover his medical costs and such. Obviously the league is trying to maintain an environment that is conducive to playing hockey. They want to make players feel that they can play without having frivolous legal action taken against them (this is not really a case of that). And if they want to be consistent, they need to get rid of the assaulting player as players shouldn't have to worry about getting hit like that.

I am curious what the league will do. If this had not made the news, I don't think there would be a lifelong ban for the assaulting player. I have seen a number of a hot headed jerks in the leagues at this rink. None ever got a permanent suspension.

[chk hrd 164]

if the rink is anything like ours the P.O.S. who cross checked the guy will have to go to the state hockey assoc. (NAHA, SCAHA, etc.) disiplinary board. The rink may suspend the guy for a certain period by the board's action could be alot worse making the rinks null and void. It could even get sent to USA Hockey for review if it is deemed bad enough. There is the potential for a lifetime ban from any USA Hockey events or leagues (worse case scenario)

[n3ss 0]

beer league hockey is serious business, eh?

I can't believe there are retards that take the game seriously enough to assault someone.

[Fisticuffs 0]

if the rink is anything like ours the P.O.S. who cross checked the guy will have to go to the state hockey assoc. (NAHA, SCAHA, etc.) disiplinary board. The rink may suspend the guy for a certain period by the board's action could be alot worse making the rinks null and void. It could even get sent to USA Hockey for review if it is deemed bad enough. There is the potential for a lifetime ban from any USA Hockey events or leagues (worse case scenario)

That's predicated on the assumption that the beer league is sanctioned by USA Hockey. While USA Hockey has its faults, its almost irresponsible to run an unsanctioned league, but that doesn't stop many facilities.

[Chadd 916]

Nothing with the adult leagues gets elevated beyond the rink here with USA Hockey. Match penalties and above get elevated in youth hockey, but that's about all.

[iceNsteel 0]

I really doubt USA Hockey gives a rat's ass about the goings on of a beer league. They just want their thirty bucks a year from the adult players, and a cover for shrinking numbers of youth hockey players.

The problem is that even though everyone was within their rights and whatnot, the outcome still feels wrong to us non-lawyers since the fellow who got decked (and hence appears to be the victim) ended up being the one banned for life. It will all get worked out in the end.

It's not really a legal issue, but rather one of illogical thinking. The victim of the crosscheck isn't being banned because he was crosschecked. He's being banned because he choose to get the police involved. It's just a failure of logic to connect the banning with being on the receiving end of the crosscheck.

It's not an unreasonable policy. Rink managers/owners are going to get nervous when the cops show up. So it makes sense to discourage players from summoning law enforcement. Obviously they have no legal ability to stop someone from calling the cops, and probably didn't have this incident in mind when they wrote the policy. But all the same, if you make an exception in your policy here you can't really be surprised when John Doe and Joe Blow are running off the ice to call the cops on each other for a little pushing match. So while I can sympathize with the position that it isn't really fair, I can also understand why the policy exists. Equally so, I can understand why you can't make exceptions and expect a policy to remain intact.

[cptjeff 0]

I really doubt USA Hockey gives a rat's ass about the goings on of a beer league. They just want their thirty bucks a year from the adult players, and a cover for shrinking numbers of youth hockey players.

It's not really a legal issue, but rather one of illogical thinking. The victim of the crosscheck isn't being banned because he was crosschecked. He's being banned because he choose to get the police involved. It's just a failure of logic to connect the banning with being on the receiving end of the crosscheck.

It's not an unreasonable policy. Rink managers/owners are going to get nervous when the cops show up. So it makes sense to discourage players from summoning law enforcement. Obviously they have no legal ability to stop someone from calling the cops, and probably didn't have this incident in mind when they wrote the policy. But all the same, if you make an exception in your policy here you can't really be surprised when John Doe and Joe Blow are running off the ice to call the cops on each other for a little pushing match. So while I can sympathize with the position that it isn't really fair, I can also understand why the policy exists. Equally so, I can understand why you can't make exceptions and expect a policy to remain intact.

Actually, pretty much anything that has a chilling effect on the rights of a person to exercise legal protections is going to get smacked down by a court if challenged. It may seem like a good idea for a rink to ban somebody to prevent people from calling the police, but you can bet your damn ass that a judge is going to have a problem with that (based on public policy grounds). If the banned guy files suit against the rink for that one, he's almost certainly going to get awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and the latter would probably wind up being significant.

You're going to get the same sort of smackdown if you try to fire an employee for filing a worker's compensation claim- sure, it's a pretty good idea from the business' point of view, but telling people they will be punished if they exercise their legal rights is NOT something courts look kindly upon.

Would it go so far as court? Not unless the owner is a very special breed of stupid. The guy should lawyer up, and have his lawyer send a strongly worded letter to the owner detailing exactly how he's going to get his ass handed to him if they go to court. That sort of thing tends to set people straight who might not realize just how legally dubious what they're doing is.

[tareatingrat 4]

In addition to the above:

It's one thing to go calling the cops for a hearsay pushing match, it's another to ban a guy for getting crosschecked in the head from behind and there being video of it.

I can see a rink wanting to avoid frivolous complaints, but really?

Actually, pretty much anything that has a chilling effect on the rights of a person to exercise legal protections is going to get smacked down by a court if challenged. It may seem like a good idea for a rink to ban somebody to prevent people from calling the police, but you can bet your damn ass that a judge is going to have a problem with that (based on public policy grounds). If the banned guy files suit against the rink for that one, he's almost certainly going to get awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and the latter would probably wind up being significant.

You're going to get the same sort of smackdown if you try to fire an employee for filing a worker's compensation claim- sure, it's a pretty good idea from the business' point of view, but telling people they will be punished if they exercise their legal rights is NOT something courts look kindly upon.

Would it go so far as court? Not unless the owner is a very special breed of stupid. The guy should lawyer up, and have his lawyer send a strongly worded letter to the owner detailing exactly how he's going to get his ass handed to him if they go to court. That sort of thing tends to set people straight who might not realize just how legally dubious what they're doing is.

[iceNsteel 0]

Actually, pretty much anything that has a chilling effect on the rights of a person to exercise legal protections is going to get smacked down by a court if challenged. It may seem like a good idea for a rink to ban somebody to prevent people from calling the police, but you can bet your damn ass that a judge is going to have a problem with that (based on public policy grounds). If the banned guy files suit against the rink for that one, he's almost certainly going to get awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and the latter would probably wind up being significant.

You're going to get the same sort of smackdown if you try to fire an employee for filing a worker's compensation claim- sure, it's a pretty good idea from the business' point of view, but telling people they will be punished if they exercise their legal rights is NOT something courts look kindly upon.

Would it go so far as court? Not unless the owner is a very special breed of stupid. The guy should lawyer up, and have his lawyer send a strongly worded letter to the owner detailing exactly how he's going to get his ass handed to him if they go to court. That sort of thing tends to set people straight who might not realize just how legally dubious what they're doing is.

He has no grounds to sue. A private business has the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, and for any reason. Calling the cops isn't a protected class for which he had some grounds to sue. The employer/employee relationship is different, and carries differing legal protections for employees, than exists between a private business and a customer. Hence the local 7-11 clerk can toss you out of the store because he doesn't like the color of your shoes. There's nothing you can do about it. The courts have no authority to compel the rink, or the league, to allow this guy to pay. They can only award damages if he was discriminated against based on a protection class: sex, race, color, national origin, or religion. You see we have this thing called the constitution which gives us the right to freely associate, or not associate. You can't sue a business because you violated an agreement you made and they gave you the boot.

That has no ramifications on whether the DA's office can pursue criminal charges, but this is a civil matter. Completely different ball game.

[Chadd 916]

His only potential (legitimate, in my mind) grounds for a suit would be if the banned player had paid for the full season and there were some number of games remaining. He could be entitled to a refund but it would likely cost him much more in legal fees to get it returned.

[Fisticuffs 0]

A private business has the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, and for any reason.

While I agree that in this case the guy has no legitimate claim against the facility (with the possible exception of his share of the remaining season of league fees), the broad claim that a business can deny service to anyone for any reason is not correct.

[zebra_steve 11]

While I agree that in this case the guy has no legitimate claim against the facility (with the possible exception of his share of the remaining season of league fees), the broad claim that a business can deny service to anyone for any reason is not correct.

This is a very interesting question Re: any recourse for the lifetime ban.... to put it into a similar scenario:

You are in a convenience store and you are attacked by the local gangbanger.... you call the cops and the store owner bans you from setting foot on his property BECAUSE YOU CALLED THE POLICE AND THE BAD PUBLICITY MAY AFFECT HIS BUSINESS (remember that this is the STATED REASON for his lifetime ban) Similar situation, different location??? Pits property rights against civil rights....

So what is the rest of the story? Did the guy "needle" the aggressor all game and the guy finally lost it? Did they have a personal battle going on all game and there was one final comment, jab - or butt end that triggered it.... if the guy was stirring the pot all game - and has the rep (or past history) of causing trouble that way then I could see the ban....

There is ALWAYS more to the story!

[nystromshairstylist 14]

He has no grounds to sue. A private business has the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, and for any reason. Calling the cops isn't a protected class for which he had some grounds to sue. The employer/employee relationship is different, and carries differing legal protections for employees, than exists between a private business and a customer. Hence the local 7-11 clerk can toss you out of the store because he doesn't like the color of your shoes. There's nothing you can do about it. The courts have no authority to compel the rink, or the league, to allow this guy to pay. They can only award damages if he was discriminated against based on a protection class: sex, race, color, national origin, or religion. You see we have this thing called the constitution which gives us the right to freely associate, or not associate. You can't sue a business because you violated an agreement you made and they gave you the boot.

That has no ramifications on whether the DA's office can pursue criminal charges, but this is a civil matter. Completely different ball game.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. State law might come into play as well, but IIRC if the rink is open to the public, it has to post a public sign what behaviors are unacceptable and will get people expelled/banned, whether the facility is privately or publiclly owned or not.

The discrimination by class you listed above refers to the federal government and to private employment opportunities and treatment.

Since the rink/store is a facility that promotes itself as "open to the public", it cannot legally claim that the person who contacted the police is someone they no longer wish to "freely associate" with as per the constitution. For instance, a bar/tavern might prevent those under age from entering, but it fully discloses the age requirements on the front of the establishment. That's why a clerk in that 7/11 could not just throw someone out for wearing red shoes - BUT- if the person with red shoes was trashing the store, they could as the person's actions were causing damage to the store.

The rink cannot make that same claim against a person calling the police for suffering assault in the rink, even if the rink-owner believes that the publicity could be detrimental to the rink's public image.

Pits property rights against civil rights....

I do not believe property rights apply in this instance as the courts would not abide by the rink's claim that a victim could not contact the authorities if they felt they were in danger.

Let's take this a step further, if a g/f of one of the players while sitting in the stands while watching the game, was being raped/threatened with rape, could the rink also ban her for life from visiting if she called the cops because it could generate bad publicity against the rink?

Even if the players had signed a waiver that they would never call the police for an on-ice incident - and then one of them did so - I do not believe that the rink would be able to legally enforce that type of "contract."

[skyscrape 5]

I would hope that these two guys could setup something similar in this situation to cover his medical costs and such. Obviously the league is trying to maintain an environment that is conducive to playing hockey. They want to make players feel that they can play without having frivolous legal action taken against them (this is not really a case of that). And if they want to be consistent, they need to get rid of the assaulting player as players shouldn't have to worry about getting hit like that.

I am curious what the league will do. If this had not made the news, I don't think there would be a lifelong ban for the assaulting player. I have seen a number of a hot headed jerks in the leagues at this rink. None ever got a permanent suspension.

But it was the guy who was assaulted that was suspended for life.

I play at the rink five days a week and there are way too many guys like this! I just got back from a tryout with the aahl and I wish all the guys who think they are bad ass could get a chance to play in an adult league that is full contact! Especially since most of the hot heads can barely skate!

[iceNsteel 0]

While I agree that in this case the guy has no legitimate claim against the facility (with the possible exception of his share of the remaining season of league fees), the broad claim that a business can deny service to anyone for any reason is not correct.

In the United States a business very much retains the right to refuse service to anyone they'd like. So long as you aren't refusing service because of a protected class you're within your rights. Hence the legions of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason." Freedom of association is a fundamental right as per our constitution.

[iceNsteel 0]

I'm not sure if I agree with this. State law might come into play as well, but IIRC if the rink is open to the public, it has to post a public sign what behaviors are unacceptable and will get people expelled/banned, whether the facility is privately or publiclly owned or not.

Have no idea where you came up with that, but you're wrong.

The discrimination by class you listed above refers to the federal government and to private employment opportunities and treatment.

Seriously, do they not teach civics anymore? The federal constitution is the supreme law of the land, state law does not at any time supersede federal law. The federal government uses interstate commerce laws, which gives them the authority, to enforce anti-discrimination laws regard private businesses. However, protected classes are clearly defined by the constitution.

Since the rink/store is a facility that promotes itself as "open to the public", it cannot legally claim that the person who contacted the police is someone they no longer wish to "freely associate" with as per the constitution. For instance, a bar/tavern might prevent those under age from entering, but it fully discloses the age requirements on the front of the establishment. That's why a clerk in that 7/11 could not just throw someone out for wearing red shoes - BUT- if the person with red shoes was trashing the store, they could as the person's actions were causing damage to the store.

Again, I guess they aren't teaching civics anymore. Private property is private property, regardless of whether it's open to the public or not. I have no idea where you got the idea that private property owners somehow forfeit their rights, but they don't. Yes, the 7-11 clerk can ask you to leave if he doesn't like your shoe color. There's nothing you can do about it, it's private property. Once asked to leave you'll find out when the cops show up how they do indeed have the right to tell you get off their property. The only aspect of freedom of association that is lost for businesses open to the public is that of discrimination against protected classes, which is enforced solely by interstate commerce laws.

Even at that, the rink here in question was not open to the public at the time of the incident. It was being used by a private league, to which a player would have to belong, pay fees, and abide agreements made to play.

I do not believe property rights apply in this instance as the courts would not abide by the rink's claim that a victim could not contact the authorities if they felt they were in danger.

What you believe in immaterial. This is a privately owned rink, they can ban whom they please.

Let's take this a step further, if a g/f of one of the players while sitting in the stands while watching the game, was being raped/threatened with rape, could the rink also ban her for life from visiting if she called the cops because it could generate bad publicity against the rink?

Yes, it's a private rink. They can ban anyone they'd like.

Even if the players had signed a waiver that they would never call the police for an on-ice incident - and then one of them did so - I do not believe that the rink would be able to legally enforce that type of "contract."

They can, it's called a life time ban, and they enforced it in this case already. See the life time ban.

[gxc999 7]

Yeah, it's an actionable tort but that probably wouldn't best solve this problem, it needs to be solved hockey wise. Hockey wise, it's an awful idea to ban the victim unless he's a notorious trouble maker. The players in the league who aren't a-holes need to protest somehow.

[nystromshairstylist 14]

Have no idea where you came up with that, but you're wrong.

Seriously, do they not teach civics anymore? The federal constitution is the supreme law of the land, state law does not at any time supersede federal law. The federal government uses interstate commerce laws, which gives them the authority, to enforce anti-discrimination laws regard private businesses. However, protected classes are clearly defined by the constitution.

Again, I guess they aren't teaching civics anymore. Private property is private property, regardless of whether it's open to the public or not. I have no idea where you got the idea that private property owners somehow forfeit their rights, but they don't. Yes, the 7-11 clerk can ask you to leave if he doesn't like your shoe color. There's nothing you can do about it, it's private property. Once asked to leave you'll find out when the cops show up how they do indeed have the right to tell you get off their property. The only aspect of freedom of association that is lost for businesses open to the public is that of discrimination against protected classes, which is enforced solely by interstate commerce laws.

Even at that, the rink here in question was not open to the public at the time of the incident. It was being used by a private league, to which a player would have to belong, pay fees, and abide agreements made to play.

What you believe in immaterial. This is a privately owned rink, they can ban whom they please.

Yes, it's a private rink. They can ban anyone they'd like.

They can, it's called a life time ban, and they enforced it in this case already. See the life time ban.

Side note: I happen to be meeting my father-in-law for dinner tonight, and he was a NY state judge for some time; i will ask him about this, and follow up. It is not so clear cut as you make it, as I mentioned the rink might be privately owned, but for various reasons cannot take the actions it has. Will get back to the board on this...

[Fisticuffs 0]

In the United States a business very much retains the right to refuse service to anyone they'd like. So long as you aren't refusing service because of a protected class you're within your rights. Hence the legions of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason." Freedom of association is a fundamental right as per our constitution.

Denying service to anyone you want, and denying service to anyone you want who is not a member of a protected class is substantially different. 75% of Americans are part of a protected class.

[rinkrat94 1]

Denying service to anyone you want, and denying service to anyone you want who is not a member of a protected class is substantially different. 75% of Americans are part of a protected class.

The rink owner is a moron. He is worried about bad press?? I don't think he could look worse than he does now.

[mhkehoe 1]

The rink owner is a moron. He is worried about bad press?? I don't think he could look worse than he does now.

Remember, it was the news that reported this story. I am sure the banned player received a longer explanation, but that won't sound as good on a news story.