• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Guest stinky fish taco

Throwing an octopus at the Joe no longer allowed

Rate this topic

296 posts in this topic

Good thing there's no other crime in downtown Detroit the police need to worry about.

Money on the board?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck....the prosecutor should come out and say all tickets written for throwing an Octopus on the ice at the Joe will be dropped by the Prosecutors office with the reason being the City doesn't have the time for something this petty.

sleepwalker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all hooks or interferences are called, but they are still a penalty. Don't get upset because Johnny Law and Detroit are spot picking. It's like going 5 over the speed limit, 99% of people get away with it, but if you get pulled over and cited for speeding, you still broke the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, it was getting sort of ridiculous anyway. do we really need 7 thrown every game?

a bit excessive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all hooks or interferences are called, but they are still a penalty. Don't get upset because Johnny Law and Detroit are spot picking. It's like going 5 over the speed limit, 99% of people get away with it, but if you get pulled over and cited for speeding, you still broke the law.

The 1% chance that you can get caught isn't enough to deter most from going 5 mph faster than the posted speed limit. The same can be said for this octopi situation. This is a deeply rooted playoff tradition and it is going to take a lot more than a 1% chance of a fine to stop it. Try the NHL might, but they will ultimately fail.

Edited by Howard He Do It?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could make the argument that the enforcement of that rule is a violation of your first amendment rights. The throwing of an octopus is a symbolic expression of you wishing to motivate your team. The same way flag burning is protected under free speech.

55fan and LAW like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always amazes me how many Americans don't have a clue what kind of political system we have. Hell most teachers think we are a democracy and we aren't. Idiots

Don't have a clue? It's not like I said we were fascists. Get off your high horse.

This is from ThisNation.com (an unbiased website on American government)

"By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" came to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy."

<_<

Edited by 8 Legged RedWing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NHL and the board of governors said it was illegal to wear hats in NHL sanctioned games, you better believe NHL patrons would get arrested. That doesn't mean the NHL "owns" the police, it means the police are enforcing the laws.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't get arrested (as police enforce laws and ordinances not an organization's code of conduct). They could be removed from the premises probably but the police would have absolutely no authority to arrest them for violating NHL rules unless there was a city, county, state, federal law/statute/ordinance that they were also violating and that officer was an agent of the entity law/statute/ordinance.

It always amazes me how many Americans don't have a clue what kind of political system we have. Hell most teachers think we are a democracy and we aren't. Idiots

It really is amazing. You would think that the Pledge of Allegiance would help "and to the republic for which it stands" (emphasis added) - - or perhaps Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (emphasis added) - - and while sadly it is rarely taught in public schools today all throughout the Federalist Papers, especially Federalist No. 10.

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could make the argument that the enforcement of that rule is a violation of your first amendment rights. The throwing of an octopus is a symbolic expression of you wishing to motivate your team. The same way flag burning is protected under free speech.

As a Constitutional lawyer I can assure you that while that is a colorful argument it almost assuredly is not a violation.

Edited by Frozen-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could make the argument that the enforcement of that rule is a violation of your first amendment rights. The throwing of an octopus is a symbolic expression of you wishing to motivate your team. The same way flag burning is protected under free speech.

I would imagine this ordinance probably would be upheld as a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I am thinking will happen. When I was in college at uofm, there was this penalty box chant that included some not so family friendly words. They handed out warnings and started kicking people out. At the beginning a bunch of people would get kicked out and it was enforced regularly. As more and more people got kicked out, more people started using those words, to a point that security pretty much stopped enforcing it. To this day, that chant still goes on.

I think the nhl will closely enforce it at the beginning, but it gets exhausting to kick out and cite all the people who throw octupi out on the ice every game.

And are they going to start enforcing this with vancouver and nashville "traditions" as well?

Edited by Wings_Rule_1010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some updates:

NHL VP of Media Relations Frank Brown sees this controversy as a "rite of spring," and something that comes up in the first-round of the playoffs every April. He said the NHL has not wavered from its stance that the tradition is against League policy for fan behavior.

"I don't believe it's anything new, but I'm waiting to hear back from our security. It's a safety issue. You throw stuff on the ice, people get their skates caught in it, they fall down and hurt themselves. It's wrong. That's a problem," said Brown, in a phone interview this afternoon.

"We have tremendous respect for the custom. We get that part. But not to the point of indulging improper behavior from spectators," he said.

After our conversation, Brown sent over the following statement:

"NHL security did not direct that this person be arrested, or ejected. We do have a prohibition against throwing things to the ice surface since this may cause a delay in game or injury to players or others working on the ice surface."

According to the NHL, the City of Detroit Legal Department has prosecuted fans for throwing an octopus on the ice surface, with the determining factor in whether it violated a local misdemeanor ordinance (section 39.1.1 and 39.1.2) being whether the object could have caused injury to the participants or damage to the playing surface.
Also, the League pointed out that Michigan State Law -- specifically MCL 750.167, Disorderly Person (misdemeanor) section 167. (e) — states that a "disorderly person" is anyone intoxicated in a public place that is "endangering the safety of another person, or of property." According to the League, Michigan State Police "have prosecuted a Detroit Red Wings fan" that threw an octopus while violating that statute.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/NHL-vs-octopus-Detroit-police-fine-Red-Wings-f?urn=nhl-wp2695&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like going 5 over the speed limit, 99% of people get away with it, but if you get pulled over and cited for speeding, you still broke the law.

No, its not like that at all.

Its like if people going 5 miles over the speed limit were never cited before, and all of the sudden some foreign multi-billion dollar corporation, who had no interest in the city at all, called up the local police and said;

"Look, I know you never have before, but we are ordering you to now start ticketing people. Why? Because we don't like the people of your city, and we are more powerful AND more wealthy than you, and if you don't obey our orders, we will use our money and power to f*** you over. Yes. That is a threat. Deal with it assholes."

THAT is what it is actually like.

Edited by sleepwalker
atodaso, HankthaTank, Veery and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine this ordinance probably would be upheld as a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of free speech.

Well, I'm not certain that it would even be considered speech under the 1st Amendment. The seminal flag burning case stated that "[t]he First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of 'speech,' but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. While we have rejected 'the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled `speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea,' United States v. O'Brien, supra, at 376, we have acknowledged that conduct may be 'sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,'" Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) Based upon the factors listed thereafter in the case I'm not sure the conduct would reach the level required for speech. If however, it were determined speech the question would then be "whether the State's regulation is related to the suppression of free expression." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 403 (1989); see also United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).

The key issues would be that it is likely not even considered speech and if it is speech is not prohibited because of the State is attempting to suppress speech but rather the ordinance is for safety purposes. Similar to the fact that while burning a flag may be protected free speech and a law prohibiting burning flags would be a violation of the 1st Amendment a law that prohibits burning flags in a public building (while having no prohibition against burning flags in other places) would not be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Partially because as you stated time, place, manner restrictions but also largely because the law is not to suppress speech but rather for public safety concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE!!

This is why Gary Buttman cant have nice things!!!!!!!!!!!! :siren:

Edited by Blaayze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see in the 59 years of Octopus hitting the ice how many injuries have occurred due to "gunk"?

Gary keeps on trying to force his vision of parity not only in the teams lineup but also on traditions.

Going to be a hoot to see how many hit the ice tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha... What a bunch of bullcrap. "We're worried about the safety of our players." You should probably be more worried about that deal you made with the devil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, its not like that at all.

Its like if people going 5 miles over the speed limit were never cited before, and all of the sudden some foreign multi-billion dollar corporation, who had no interest in the city at all, called up the local police and said;

"Look, I know you never have before, but we are ordering you to now start ticketing people. Why? Because we don't like the people of your city, and we are more powerful AND more wealthy than you, and if you don't obey our orders, we will use our money and power to f*** you over. Yes. That is a threat. Deal with it assholes."

THAT is what it is actually like.

I don't like what the NHL is doing and hope that the tradition continues and even happens more just to rub it in their faces however it is not like what you stated:

You stated "had no interest in the city at all" - - The NHL does have an interest in what happens in an NHL rink, to NHL players, during an NHL game. They may be (and I fully think that they are) wrong in what they are wanting to do but to state that they have no interest in what happens is just completely inaccurate. This didn't happen on some random street and so the NHL wants people fined, it happened at an NHL event. Additionally, people ask the police to enforce the law all the time (including laws that are rarely enforced) and almost always the police will have to do it. My wife is a Deputy District Attorney and has to deal with it all the time, the police have to enforce something the "victim" wants them punished, she has some prosecutorial discretion but only to an extent. That is the way that it works a lot. For example the City may not enforce an ordinance that weeds be kept below 6" on residential property but if a neighbor calls and complains they will almost always enforce the ordinance as it relates to the property about which the complaint was made.

Again, please don't interpret this to mean that I like what the NHL did or is doing, I don't at all, but mischaracterizing and distorting what did/is happening isn't necessary when the whole argument is we have been doing this for 60 years, and it is a great tradition and has never been a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many are going to hit the ice tomorrow, I'm going with 10

:lol: We should have a pool and bet on it with the proceeds to go to help pay fines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now