bunomatic Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 It's a condition, not a penalty. But it is something. If he were to get in trouble again, the only consequence is that this case would be reinstated. Charges weren't dropped. They were ACD'd. And it is well debatable whether it's ultimately good for Kane to have secured this outcome. My kid played a rival high school in the playoffs last week. The opponent's star player had been caught at a dance the past weekend with a flask in her purse. She was suspended as an initial matter, but her mom (a lawyer) got the penalty held in abeyance pending a further investigation (they are saying it wasn't her flask, etc.). My kid says the girl is widely known as a rowdy party girl. Good for her to be relieved of the consequence until after the season is over? Some might say so. I don't. She'll likely go through life being relieved of consequence by mom. Poor kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 It's a condition, not a penalty. But it is something. If he were to get in trouble again, the only consequence is that this case would be reinstated. Charges weren't dropped. They were ACD'd. And it is well debatable whether it's ultimately good for Kane to have secured this outcome. My kid played a rival high school in the playoffs last week. The opponent's star player had been caught at a dance the past weekend with a flask in her purse. She was suspended as an initial matter, but her mom (a lawyer) got the penalty held in abeyance pending a further investigation (they are saying it wasn't her flask, etc.). My kid says the girl is widely known as a rowdy party girl. Good for her to be relieved of the consequence until after the season is over? Some might say so. I don't. that kids Mom! Not literally. But yeah, that lady! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 ###### that kids Mom! Not literally. But yeah, ###### that lady! I didn't overly intend to slag that kid's mom. My larger point is whether it's ultimately good for Kane to have evaded a (criminal) consequence in this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 I didn't overly intend to slag that kid's mom. My larger point is whether it's ultimately good for Kane to have evaded a (criminal) consequence in this situation. Evader Kane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) I dnon-cri overly intend to slag that kid's mom. My larger point is whether it's ultimately good for Kane to have evaded a (criminal) consequence in this situation. Here we go again you and I. Wasn't he charged with non criminal trespass? If so he was never facing criminal charges but rather what amounts to public safety ordinance violations. So he didn't evade anything. In fact, ordinance violations are somewhat binary in the conduct proscribed. One could read these facts and say that the authorities are done placating the complainants, and dismissed on grounds that even if their allegations were true, there is no liability criminal or otherwise. Another interpretation of the events for your consideration. Edited October 29, 2016 by 3putt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 Here we go again you and I. Wasn't he charged with non criminal trespass? If so he was never facing criminal charges but rather what amounts to public safety ordinance violations. So he didn't evade anything. In fact, ordinance violations are somewhat binary in the conduct proscribed. One could read these facts and say that the authorities are done placating the complainants, and dismissed on grounds that even if their allegations were true, there is no liability criminal or otherwise. Another interpretation of the events for your consideration. I was non caffeinated and taking a poop. Sorry? Substitute "non-criminal penal" for "criminal." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 31, 2016 Report Share Posted October 31, 2016 Sounds like he's in court this morning to accept his ACD. Cambria said Kane would make a statement following the appearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 Just another case of jumping the gun by a media (and its followers) looking for a story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Kane had a cute video with his little dog posted on his social media. I hope he keeps out of trouble from here on out and I hope his ribs heal quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Mike Russo, who is a jurno I'd trust, was on Marek & Wyshinski's podcast yesterday stating as fact that the Wild were in deep negotiations with GMTM re: Evander before this mess happened. I think that pretty much confirms that GMTM was in full-on sell mode with him, and he'd be gone had he behaved himself. No idea what the return was / would have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Mike Russo, who is a jurno I'd trust, was on Marek & Wyshinski's podcast yesterday stating as fact that the Wild were in deep negotiations with GMTM re: Evander before this mess happened. I think that pretty much confirms that GMTM was in full-on sell mode with him, and he'd be gone had he behaved himself. No idea what the return was / would have been. Common sense would dictate the return would've been one of their defensemen. Given the time frame we're looking at, bet if it had happened we wouldn't have added Kulikov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Damn rapist................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Mike Russo, who is a jurno I'd trust, was on Marek & Wyshinski's podcast yesterday stating as fact that the Wild were in deep negotiations with GMTM re: Evander before this mess happened. I think that pretty much confirms that GMTM was in full-on sell mode with him, and he'd be gone had he behaved himself. No idea what the return was / would have been. Interesting. I find it a little hard to believe, though, because i don't see why GMTM would've wanted to unload him at that point (ie before Kane got into trouble). Kane was only a Sabre for 1 (injury – shortened) season at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Damn rapist................... You're better than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Interesting. I find it a little hard to believe, though, because i don't see why GMTM would've wanted to unload him at that point (ie before Kane got into trouble). Kane was only a Sabre for 1 (injury – shortened) season at that point. I dunno, the timing fits and Russo isn't Eklund. Russo reporting talks were deep, our biggest need was a top-4 LHD, Minnesota has an excess at that position, and the very day the Bottoms Up thing breaks...Murray trades for Kulikov? Methinks there's some fire here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 You're better than this. You're right. I took it too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 I dunno, the timing fits and Russo isn't Eklund. Russo reporting talks were deep, our biggest need was a top-4 LHD, Minnesota has an excess at that position, and the very day the Bottoms Up thing breaks...Murray trades for Kulikov? Methinks there's some fire here. Apparently, there's either a second source, or one journo is repeating another one: http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/23419-trade-ideas-and-speculation/?p=877684 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Apparently, there's either a second source, or one journo is repeating another one: http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/23419-trade-ideas-and-speculation/?p=877684 It was Russo on Marek / Wyshinski's podcast. Marek was speculating generally and Russo came on and tossed that nugget out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 I dunno, the timing fits and Russo isn't Eklund. Russo reporting talks were deep, our biggest need was a top-4 LHD, Minnesota has an excess at that position, and the very day the Bottoms Up thing breaks...Murray trades for Kulikov? Methinks there's some fire here. Murray traded for Kulikov on day two of the draft, and the Kane news broke on day 1, right? Still, probably same difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Murray traded for Kulikov on day two of the draft, and the Kane news broke on day 1, right? Still, probably same difference. You're right. For some reason I was thinking it was the day of because I know it was before they were 100% certain Asplund would still be there. Shockingly, however, I agree with you that it doesn't damage the logic of my argument :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 You're right. For some reason I was thinking it was the day of because I know it was before they were 100% certain Asplund would still be there. Shockingly, however, I agree with you that it doesn't damage the logic of my argument :) Bunker logic maybe??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Bunker logic maybe??? You're just jealous the validity of your denial can't hold a candle to the validity of my bunker :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 You're just jealous the validity of your denial can't hold a candle to the validity of my bunker :P Be careful, with all your new additions to the club, the expansion costs could go thru the grass line. Maybe you could take a lesson from the Sabres and do Dynamic Bunker admission prices, Bogo $5, DD $15, Franson $50??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Be careful, with all your new additions to the club, the expansion costs could go thru the grass line. Maybe you could take a lesson from the Sabres and do Dynamic Bunker admission prices, Bogo $5, DD $15, Franson $50??? I'm sold :lol: :lol: If we win tonight for #4 in a row, pretty sure Bylsma Bunker rooms will be nearly free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woods-racer Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 I'm sold :lol: :lol: If we win tonight for #4 in a row, pretty sure Bylsma Bunker rooms will be nearly free. There are some empty seats sure, but it ain't empty by any stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.