Jesse Ryder Seriously Injured during attack at Christchurch bar

[cnerd123]

So apparently you can almost kill someone and avoid jail.

Disgraceful. "Injury was unexpected and couldn't be predicted" erm moron when you punch someone and they go down on a hard surface...

To be fair it says Ryder was being aggressive too, and the puncher's marriage and business and public reputation have all fallen apart since the incident...throwing him in jail too would be cruel now.

 

[OverratedSanity]

the puncher's marriage and business and public reputation have all fallen apart since the incident...throwing him in jail too would be cruel now.

That's no reason to not throw him in jail if he deserves it.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Last month in New Zealand a guy was sentenced to two years, four months in prison for selling cannabis. But you can smash someone into a coma and get less of a sentence, in fact no jail time at all? ****ed up.

 

[cnerd123]

That's no reason to not throw him in jail if he deserves it.

Last month in New Zealand a guy was sentenced to two years, four months in prison for selling cannabis. But you can smash someone into a coma and get less of a sentence, in fact no jail time at all? ****ed up.

Apparently the standard punishment is not jail time for such an incident. I can see the logic. It was a fight, not unprovoked, not a calculated assault...just a heat of the moment, alcohol fueled brawl that ended up with unintended consequences.

I get the feeling the standard punishment would have been harsher if Ryder had not been a celeb - they mentioned all that has happened to the Puncher from the incident to the decision. The judge probably looked at that and felt the guy has suffered more than he would have had he gotten into this drunken fight with an ordinary person. Ryder's life is back on track and he's doing well. Puncher has suffered a lot. Normally they don't throw people in jail for this anyways. Might as well give him the lightest sentence they can and let him move on.

IDK, I feel it's an ok decision.

 

[Hurricane]

Disagree with *****. I think this sentence sends the wrong message to the community and potential offenders.
Have you seen his interview *****. He is a bit of a goon.
"I defend people and dish out payback. It is what I do".
He said "what I do" not "what I used to do"
They had him on TV about 6 months ago so we could hear his side of the story and in some ways he made matters worse for himself.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

What gripes me is not the whole thing, but the final punch seems to have been a sucker punch from behind - something becoming all too common in these kind of fracas, and hits that have killed a number of potential pugilists. I'd have liked to see a much harsher sentence on the guy that threw the sucker punch.

 

[Hurricane]

Maybe cricket fans should go down to Hagley oval and riot.

 

[SteveNZ]

Apparently the standard punishment is not jail time for such an incident. I can see the logic. It was a fight, not unprovoked, not a calculated assault...just a heat of the moment, alcohol fueled brawl that ended up with unintended consequences.

I get the feeling the standard punishment would have been harsher if Ryder had not been a celeb - they mentioned all that has happened to the Puncher from the incident to the decision. The judge probably looked at that and felt the guy has suffered more than he would have had he gotten into this drunken fight with an ordinary person. Ryder's life is back on track and he's doing well. Puncher has suffered a lot. Normally they don't throw people in jail for this anyways. Might as well give him the lightest sentence they can and let him move on.

IDK, I feel it's an ok decision.

Very interesting, given Russell Packer was given jail time for a very, very similar incident. Different sides of the Tasman, but still a strong comparison.

Refuse to believe the puncher can't walk down the street in Chch, what a load of BS. Christchurch people can't read by and large so there's no issues there. If his relationship and business suffered, so be it. If you kick or punch someone on th egorund, and they get to a stage where they're in a coma - therefore not a million miles away from vegetation or death - you should do jail time. As Russell Packer did.

 

[cnerd123]

Disagree with *****. I think this sentence sends the wrong message to the community and potential offenders.
Have you seen his interview *****. He is a bit of a goon.
"I defend people and dish out payback. It is what I do".
He said "what I do" not "what I used to do"
They had him on TV about 6 months ago so we could hear his side of the story and in some ways he made matters worse for himself.

Nah haven't seen the interview, or know anything about the guy tbh. Just going off that article posted.

It's a grey area. Do you treat everyone equally and follow the letter of the law, or do you make exemptions/examples out of certain individuals based on their personality/history?

In a big picture sense - Craig saw Ryder and his nephew get into a fight. He chased after Ryder, punched him in the back of the head, and the (unexpected) consequences of that were very serious.

You look at the year that has passed since - Ryder is back in full health, living a happy life, doing well in County cricket. Craig has lost his marriage, his business, and his reputation.

Now it's the court's turn to make a ruling. The normal ruling -apparently- would not send a man to jail for such an incident:

If the court removed the celebrity status of the victim, it was a very common, run-of-the-mill case, usually met with non-imprisonment sentencing options.

If I were the judge here, I'd just look back and say that justice seems to have already been served. Give this man the regular sentencing, and let it go.

 

[Hurricane]

@*****

If the court removed the celebrity status of the victim, it was a very common, run-of-the-mill case, usually met with non-imprisonment sentencing options.

I could be wrong but the way I read the article I thought that claim was from the defence lawyer.

Another couple of points to respond to your earlier post

1) the fact that was an alcohol induced event doesn't excuse anyone or mitigate it. You must take responsibility for your actions whether sober or not or don't drink in the first place. We can't being having two sets of laws, one for sober people and one for drunk people.

2) Has he suffered enough already - everyone who goes to jail becomes unemployable for a period of time. That is the biggest consequence. The solution is not to go around breaking the law.

Finally this is not a point you raised - but I am dubious about community service hours as a punishment ever since I heard the following story.
3 team mates of mine ran into trouble with the law when they were teenagers. They were sentenced to 80 hours community service. They had to muck out some stables as the punishment. They turned up the first day and smoked cigarettes for 45 minutes and left and never went back and there were no consequences. Perhaps that is an exception to the rule I don't know but it has made me dubious about that punishment.

 

[SteveNZ]

You look at the year that has passed since - Ryder is back in full health, living a happy life, doing well in County cricket. Craig has lost his marriage, his business, and his reputation.

If I were the judge here, I'd just look back and say that justice seems to have already been served. Give this man the regular sentencing, and let it go.

I don't see how this is relevant. Were documents served to prove his marriage is over, his business is shot? And even if they were, maybe his marriage was shot in the first place and his business was similarly bust. I read the papers/follow media avidly + obviously cricket, and I have no idea who these guys are. So if he thinks his reputation was sullied to the point he couldn't walk down the road, run a business or keep his marriage afloat, I say bull****.

If you crack someone in the back of the head, obviously giving the person no chance of defending themselves, then they end up in a coma...I can't think why you shouldn't go to jail. Coward punches are the worst. They kill people. How can you punch someone in the back of the head and call any consequences unexpected? It's the anti pokies machine - if you put your money in, you won't always win but you will every now and then.

I don't mind community service for the younger guy.

 

[cnerd123]

@*****



I could be wrong but the way I read the article I thought that claim was from the defence lawyer.

Another couple of points to respond to your earlier post

1) the fact that was an alcohol induced event doesn't excuse anyone or mitigate it. You must take responsibility for your actions whether sober or not or don't drink in the first place. We can't being having two sets of laws, one for sober people and one for drunk people.

2) Has he suffered enough already - everyone who goes to jail becomes unemployable for a period of time. That is the biggest consequence. The solution is not to go around breaking the law.

Finally this is not a point you raised - but I am dubious about community service hours as a punishment ever since I heard the following story.
3 team mates of mine ran into trouble with the law when they were teenagers. They were sentenced to 80 hours community service. They had to muck out some stables as the punishment. They turned up the first day and smoked cigarettes for 45 minutes and left and never went back and there were no consequences. Perhaps that is an exception to the rule I don't know but it has made me dubious about that punishment.

Is that from the defence lawyer? I'll read it again. Even if it was - isn't it true? I'm not familiar with NZ law.

I agree with 1). I'm not saying that they should get off lightly 'cause drunk, just saying they can't be charged with calculated assault. I was just painting the scene, not excusing the behaviour.

As for 2), this guy is already unemployable isn't he? He has been charged with a crime; and any company he applies for will look into it, or google his name, and find out that he was the dick who put Jesse Ryder into a coma. That's a pretty big tag to live with - being the man who assaulted a loved public figure.

The community service thing is interesting...even if community service is a very poorly enforced punishment, the idea is to punish someone within the laws and trust those responsible with enforcing it to do their job?

 

[cnerd123]

I don't see how this is relevant. Were documents served to prove his marriage is over, his business is shot? And even if they were, maybe his marriage was shot in the first place and his business was similarly bust. I read the papers/follow media avidly + obviously cricket, and I have no idea who these guys are. So if he thinks his reputation was sullied to the point he couldn't walk down the road, run a business or keep his marriage afloat, I say bull****.

If you crack someone in the back of the head, obviously giving the person no chance of defending themselves, then they end up in a coma...I can't think why you shouldn't go to jail. Coward punches are the worst. They kill people. How can you punch someone in the back of the head and call any consequences unexpected? It's the anti pokies machine - if you put your money in, you won't always win but you will every now and then.

I don't mind community service for the younger guy.

I expect their to have been sufficient proof to tie the marriage and business failures to the fallback from this incident; but you have a point.

If we trust the judge and his ruling, then I think that answers your second point - he punched the guy in the back of the head (cowardly, I agree), and his life went into the ****ter. Isn't that justice already? Does he really need to go to jail on top of all that?

As for unexpected consequences...if Ryder had fallend and fractured his skull (as inititally reported), THAT would be an expected consequences. As it turns out, 'he inhaled vomit which caused pneumonia and a period of intensive care'. I can see the case for not expecting a punch to the back of the head to lead to pneumonia tbh.

 

[cnerd123]

FWIW - if you committed a crime, and were told to pick your punishment: either a spell in Jail, or having your 13 year long marriage end + your business collapse + your reputation forever tarnished + community service and a small fine...which would you feel would be the lesser of the two punishments?

 

[Hurricane]

FWIW - if you committed a crime, and were told to pick your punishment: either a spell in Jail, or having your 13 year long marriage end + your business collapse + your reputation forever tarnished + community service and a small fine...which would you feel would be the lesser of the two punishments?

Jail would be worse. Because you would end up losing your wife etc as well. In most cases.

 

[SteveNZ]

I expect their to have been sufficient proof to tie the marriage and business failures to the fallback from this incident; but you have a point.

If we trust the judge and his ruling, then I think that answers your second point - he punched the guy in the back of the head (cowardly, I agree), and his life went into the ****ter. Isn't that justice already? Does he really need to go to jail on top of all that?

As for unexpected consequences...if Ryder had fallend and fractured his skull (as inititally reported), THAT would be an expected consequences. As it turns out, 'he inhaled vomit which caused pneumonia and a period of intensive care'. I can see the case for not expecting a punch to the back of the head to lead to pneumonia tbh.

Nah you are right - sentences are designed not to punish, but to best minimise the chance of reoffending. So if he truly has lost his marriage, business by consequence and suffers effects of this crime in his every day life, then there's really nothing to be gained from punishing him with jail time.

I'd just suggest there's no amount of evidence that can suggest his business and marriage broke down as a direct result of his offending, however. Unless his bottom line was absolutely flying then a massive downturn exactly correlates with the incident, and there's thousands of happy pictures with his wife that go cold from the date as well. It could just be him rallying his lawyer to build a case for him to avoid jail time. Because on the face of it, I'd suggest jail time is absolutely suitable for someone who smacks someone from behind and puts them in a coma. Otherwise it's 'sweet, community service - close shave there'.

On that last sentence, I reckon any injury should be an expected consequence. If you wack him from behind, you're tasked with dealing with anything from headache to death and whatever happens as a result. Jesse wasn't going to get pneumonia standing upright.

The magistrate in the Russell Packer (Aussie-based NZ league player) said this:

In sentencing, Magistrate Greg Grogan told the court the community and courts were sick of alcohol-related violence.

He sentenced Packer to the maximum available penalty of a two-year fixed term.

And Ryder's injuries were arguably worse.

 

[cnerd123]

Jail would be worse. Because you would end up losing your wife etc as well. In most cases.

Hmmm. I'd hope to marry a woman who'd put up with me being in Jail for a spell tbh :P

Given this guy has already suffered all that though...is jail time needed on top of that?:

 

[Athlai]

Hmmm. I'd hope to marry a woman who'd put up with me being in Jail for a spell tbh :P

Given this guy has already suffered all that though...is jail time needed on top of that?:

BFJ could've died.

 

[GGG]

To be fair it says Ryder was being aggressive too, and the puncher's marriage and business and public reputation have all fallen apart since the incident...throwing him in jail too would be cruel now.

Yeah nah, this sort of thing happens too often and too often people die because of sucker punches and kicking someone on the ground. 2 years if I was the judge.

 

[cnerd123]

BFJ could've died.

Yeah nah, this sort of thing happens too often and too often people die because of sucker punches and kicking someone on the ground. 2 years if I was the judge.

Is it or is it not the norm imprison people on this offence?

The article suggests that the norm is that you don't go to jail for this. Not saying that's right, just saying that it would be cruel to make an example out of this man now, given how events transpired.

If the norm is to throw them in jail then sure, he should go to jail.