You almost never hear of an NHL player being upset (in a litigation sort of way) about injuries they got that resulted from fighting (drop the gloves and throw punches).

In general, the one major incident I am aware of that resulted in legal action being taken against a player was when Todd Bertuzzi checked Steve Moore down the the ice from behind and then drove his head/neck into the ice with his stick in some heavy followup hits. This is mentioned in the wikipedia article @eric3579 posted, and hinted at in the article @RedSky posted from the Economist.

In that incident, Steve Moore (a lower-level player on the Colorado Avalanche) had hit Marcus Naslund (a star level player of the Vancouver Canucks) in a previous game. That hit was a fairly normal hockey hit -- Naslund had the puck, Moore intentionally hit him to try to separate him from the puck, but arguably led with his elbow to Naslund's head. It was a dangerous play, that should have be penalized (it wasn't) -- although I don't think Moore intended to cause injury. It is a fast game, sometimes you can't react quick enough to avoid a dangerous collision like that. Still, I think that kind of play should be penalized to make it clear to players that they need to avoid dangerous plays if possible. Steve Moore didn't have a history of dirty or dangerous play, but still.

Anyway, all of that dovetails in pretty nicely with my previous post, specifically about what leads to a "spontaneous fight". Moore, a 3-4th line guy (lower ranks of skill/ability on the team) hit star player Naslund. In almost ANY hockey game where that kind of thing happens, you can expect that somebody from the star's team is going to go over to the offending player and push them around, probably with the intent to fight them. Usually it happens right at the time of the incident, but here it was delayed to a following game between the two teams.

In the next game between Colorado and Vancouver, Moore got challenged by a Vancouver player early in the first period and fought him. But I guess that the lag time and injury to Naslund (he ended up missing 3 games) had brewed up more bad blood than that so many Vancouver players hadn't gotten it fully out of their systems. Later in the game, Todd Bertuzzi skated up behind Moore when he didn't have the puck, grabbed him and tailed him for several seconds trying to get him into a second fight, and when he didn't respond just hauled back and punched him in the back of the head.

Moore fell to the ice, where Bertuzzi piled on him and drove his head into the ice. A big scrum/dogpile ensued, with Moore on the bottom. As a result of that, Moore fractured 3 vertebrae in his neck, stretched or tore some neck ligaments, got his face pretty cut up, etc. Pretty severe injuries.

So, in comparison:
Moore (lesser skill) hit Naslund (high skill) resulting in a minor(ish) injury, that could have ended up being much worse. But, it was a legitimate hockey play that just happened to occur at a time when Naslund was vulnerable -- arguably no intent to harm/injure.
Bertuzzi hit Moore in a following game, after he had already "answered" for his hit on Naslund by fighting a Vancouver player. Bertuzzi punched him from behind and followed up with further violence, driving his head into the ice and piling on him, initiating a dogpile. Not even close to a legitimate hockey play, well away from the puck, and with pretty clear intent to harm (maybe not to injure, but to harm).


Moore sued Bertuzzi, his team (the Canucks), and the NHL. Bertuzzi claimed that his coach had put a "bounty" on Moore, and that he hadn't intended to injure him -- just to get back at him for his hit on Naslund. Bertuzzi was suspended for a fairly long span of time, and his team was fined $250,000. The lawsuit was kind of on pause for a long time to gauge the long-term effects on Moore, but was eventually settled out of court (confidential terms).

All of this stuff is or course related to violence in hockey, but only loosely tied to fighting in hockey. Some would argue (with some merit in my opinion) that if the refs had called a penalty on Moore's hit on Naslund, and allowed a Vancouver player to challenge him to a fight at that time instead of the following game, it probably wouldn't have escalated to the level it did.

So, at least in my opinion, the league (NHL) needs to be careful, consistent, and fairly harsh in handing out penalties/suspensions to players who commit dangerous plays that can or do result in injuries -- especially repeat offenders. BUT, I think that allowing fighting can actually help mitigate that kind of stuff also -- as long as the league keeps it from getting out of hand and the enforcer type players continue to follow their "code".

Oh, fistfights are definitely treated differently than stick violence. Mild stick-related stuff (taking a short chop at someone with the stick is called a slash, tripping is self explanatory, leading a check/hit with the stick can be charging or a cross check, etc.) is usually given a 2 minute minor penalty. But if you go nuts and just try to lumberjack somebody with your stick (extremely rare, but happens every once in a while), it is treated very harshly with a likely LONG suspension. All that seems pretty well-handled to me -- if your slash or cross check or whatever is is a risky situation that can or does result in injury, those scale up from minor penalties into majors, game misconducts, or possible suspensions.

Fights are a 5 minute major penalty, assuming both sides/fighters intentionally got into it. However, both involved players get the same 5 minute penalty, so since they are coincidental it doesn't result in any actual penalty to the team (not down to 4 players instead of 5 like in a normal penalty) other than the player who was in the fight being unavailable for 5 minutes. A pretty high majority of players who get into fights are designated goons who might be on the ice for 1-3 minutes total of a 60 minute game, compared to 15-17 for a skilled forward or 20+ for a skilled defenseman. So, "losing" that player for 5 minutes is usually really no penalty at all.

However, the "code" of those enforcers/goons is actually a pretty real thing. Many fights (especially in the regular season) are actually a pre-planned thing between the enforcers on each team. They ask if the other guy is up for a fight, as a means to engage the crowd and/or their teammates. If both are up for it, the next time they line up for a faceoff or whatever they will probably contrive some offense and drop the gloves. Those fights are pretty silly, but both sides know what they are getting into and agree to it beforehand, so it isn't SO crazy.

Spontaneous fights usually happen when an average or lesser-skilled player makes a dangerous hit or dirty play against a skilled player on the opposing team. If that happens, their toughest teammate currently on the ice will likely rush to their defense, and if it appears like the offending player did it intentionally they will drop the gloves to "teach them a lesson". These fights seem much more purposeful to me, and if you ask great skilled players like Wayne Gretzky they almost all universally say that this system made things safer and opened up the ice for skilled players.

So, it is all pretty complicated and strange to the uninitiated, but there is a sort of method to the madness.

"Cooked" rounds only happen in automatic weapons where the chamber becomes hot enough to cause the propellent to spontaneously ignite. That cannot be the case here.

Of course, it could be some sort of defect, but it's pretty clear to me watching the video that he wasn't handling the gun with anything like the respect something so dangerous deserves.

Then we'd have proof that guns -can- kill people. In which case, this video will disappear in short order, thanks to the NRA.

I've never heard of any case of ammo spontaneously firing itself (especially while someone is fucking around with the gun it's in). But we have hundreds of cases of "experts" shooting themselves by accident. My money is on the latter in this case too.

Its raw in that there is no commentary, it was a spontaneous event that the photographer was there to document. I'm sure this isn't "new" to the security detail, and im sure they pucker up every time he decides to do it.

@Trancecoach

I don't comment much at all for years, but I did just want to say that people complaining about politicians acting like elitists apparently don't recognize some very key facts about voters:

Most people want the government to spend more (take your pick whether it's favoring increased spending on social programs, or it's more spending on defense, etc.), yet want to be taxed less. Just that fact alone proves how stupid the general electorate is. An alarming portion of voters can't tell you accurately the difference between a Republican and a Democrat, don't understand how market forces are supposed to work, or even be able to recognize what is and isn't a socialist idea at its core.

I don't mean this as an attack on Democratic voting blocs specifically, nor Republican voting blocs. I mean this as an attack against the intellectual ability of most American voters. And when the voting public is that ignorant, ideologically blind, or just plain stupid, what do you think some people are going to do, regardless of their party's affiliation? They're gonna try to take advantage of it.

And doing things to hide key aspects of legislation in order to get support is hardly new, and hardly unique to either side. Explain to me how doing those things is any different than making ridiculous claims about Obamacare that have no bearing on reality different?

Remember those? They're gonna kill grandma! DEATH PANELS!

"Obamacare is a complete socialist takeover of the healthcare system!" That one just proves my point. The conservative right spent decades programming the American voting population to equate socialism as bad, when so many people don't even know what socialism actually is, and they did this despite numerous examples of when largely socialist policies have been resounding successes. Then they make a completely false claim that Obamacare is a complete socialist take over of the US health care system, when it isn't to fire up their voting blocs to oppose it, along with anyone else who is too stupid to know what "complete socialism" would actually look like in the health care system (hint: single payer), and who are stupid or ideologically blind enough to recognize successful largely socialist policies (like institutionalizing compulsory public education as a DUH example).

Where the hell was your outrage then? You think those (we'll call them) criticisms were coming out of voters spontaneously? No, they were thrown into the ring by GOP and conservative leaders as tools to manipulate public opinion into opposing Obamacare when they were flaming piles of bullcrap.

So either you're one of the idiots, or you're one of many partisans trying to spread your BS incredulity at the other side.

And to be clear, I'm not attacking you because you're a conservative. I'm attacking you because this is either hypocrisy or ideological blindness at its worst.

Michael Palin of Monty Python fame did something similar, as did Billy Connelly, who did an awesome tour of almost the entire coast of Canada. Seems to be a "thing" among comedians from the isles, and Craig is certainly the type of spontaneous and interesting guy that could pull this off very very well.

Well worth watching: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Connolly:_Journey_to_the_Edge_of_the_World
and (now 25 years old!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Palin:_Around_the_World_in_80_Days

EDIT: Game show, huh? Waste of talent in my book, but probably VERY easy money for Craig and a very controllable schedule for filming. Ah well.

Yeah, the reflection is possible if perhaps a little unlikely... but it's also just around that point that you get to see the camera man's shadow as well as the actor (oops!!!!).

Then you start thinking... so why was a film crew in just the right place to film this spontaneous action?

I like how the ice caused the liquid nitrogen around it to boil spontaneously.

You really don't need to keep your freezer that cold. It makes your ice cream go too hard.

...whoa...outstanding find...thank you....

,,,from his website:

"Mariusz Goli the guitarist, busker born in Poznan, Poland. This street artist can be seen performing in Katowice as well in other Polish cities.

He has been playing guitar since fifteen years old, however his future was bound to this instrument seven years ago. Busking is his way of life.


Street concerts give Mariusz the biggest satisfaction, he loves direct contact with his public. His music can be heard as well in clubs, pubs and restaurants.
Mariusz's music is very spontaneous, he loves to impovise. In his creations he tries to cover elements of flamenco as well as all sorts of folk music. He's still looking for his own style, trying to discover new techniques."

How expensive is it? Could you put it in a spray can?

New improved super mace! Deters attackers by melting their faces!

Now can also be used as a replacement key (warning: house may not exist after use)

edit: hang on, what was the point of the "dabal"? I get that it's handy to have stuff not explode, but we already have tonnes of stuff that doesn't spontaneously catch fire, why do you need to take the cool stuff that does spontaneously catch fire and make it boring?

I have been sitting, reading a paperback with a booklight, when one of the AA batteries in the booklight spontaneously did this... it just started outgassing with a whine... it went in the sink

For the record: this wasn't a spontaneous group of people singing, this is actually the cast of a Lion King production singing pre-flight.

I have a degree in physics. I'm guessing that English is maybe a 2nd language for you? Your explanation of mass and weight is a little confusing. With regards to our astronaut on the moon, it's the difference in weight that matters. He should be able to (approximately) lift six times the weight he could on earth.
(Sidebar: It's often been said that Olympics on the moon would be fantastic because a man who could high-jump 7 feet high on earth would be able to high-jump 42 feet high (7x6) on the moon. In fact, he would only be able to jump about half that. Do you know why? I'll leave that with you as a challenge.)

Insofar as faked moon landings, I'm 90 % sure we went to the moon. However, bear in mind that Americans didn't know their own government was spying extensively on them til last year. It's the old joke... "Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't watching you..."

Alternative 3 is an interesting study of conspiracy dynamics. I first heard of it 30 years ago. It started as an April Fools joke in Britain on a science news TV show. It was brilliant in it's conception...

Short version:
1. Global warming will lead to total collapse of earth's eco-systems in two centuries or less.
2. Global governments are co-operating to move the cream of earth's leaders, scientists, etc to bases that have been established for decades on the far side of the moon and on Mars. (Alternative 3. Alternative 1 was huge underground bunkers, Alternative 2 was huge geo-synchronous cities... both were deemed too impractical to carry out.)
3. Mars is actually very liveable. We landed there in the 60s, established bases, using flying saucer technology developed here on earth by scientists.
4. The general population is being kept ignorant of the impending disaster, our advanced technology, the true state of Mars, etc. Governments worldwide are co-operating at the highest levels to perpetuate the myth that our progress in space is a slow, laborious process. (Which explains why the Soviet Union did not expose the Apollo programs as fake...) They don't want to cause a panic while they advance their agenda.
5. They have even developed psychic assassins capable of killing with their minds via spontaneous human combustion.

Due to TV schedule changes it was shown at a later date convincing the general public there that it was the real deal. (You can actually see the original show on YouTube... you'll even recognize some of the 'real scientists' etc as British character actors if you're old enough.)

It's a long convoluted story but thanks to a couple of follow up books and the Internet which gave it new life it has now 'morphed' into this vast conspiracy that involves alien / government co-operation at the highest levels à la X-Files. (The original conspiracy did not involve aliens...)

Adding to the fun and mystery is that some real world events -- too complicated to explain here -- later played right into details of the conspiracy.

I always thought it would make for a brilliant Hollywood movie -- the original version, not the 'updated' version.