Around the NHL 2022-2023 *Mod warning in effect pg145

[bleedblue1223]

I still don't think that that changes the fact that time does not make something less believable unless there are stats on that.

Yeah, it's silly to say time automatically means something is false.

 

[BlueOil]

And that's part of the problem isn't it? She never specified her age nor do we know the age of consent in the state it reportedly happened in. In fact we're missing all kinds of info which is why smearing someone's reputation shouldn't be done in this manner.

no, it's not part of the problem. age range was provided in the tweet. i'm aware if you knew the specific age, you might be able to discredit it even more than you already have despite not knowing anything about it.

again, your logic of arguing how "properly" this was done is a bad angle to take and your argument only gets worse as the victim's age decreases.

also, if you're so worried about smearing reputations, why only Ian's? why not also the victim's? you know, if it turns out to be true somehow despite not being done properly enough.

 

[Majorityof1]

no, it's not part of the problem. age range was provided in the tweet. i'm aware if you knew the specific age, you might be able to discredit it even more than you already have despite not knowing anything about it.

again, your logic of arguing how "properly" this was done is a bad angle to take and your argument only gets worse as the victim's age decreases.

also, if you're so worried about smearing reputations, why only Ian's? why not also the victim's? you know, if it turns out to be true somehow despite not being done properly enough.

An age range was provided in the tweet, but specific age actually matters in this case. The range "Minor" and "high school" if taken literally provides a range of roughly 14-17. But if the victim in this case was 17, then statutory rape is off the table. If the accuser was 16 and it took place in Pittsburgh, than statutory rape is off the table. It is not illegal for Cole to have had sex with a 17 year old (16 in Pennsylvania), as creepy as it would be.

Who said people aren't worried about smearing the victims identity? There are ways if reported properly to protect the victims identity and allow the accused to confront their accusers. If this is true, then Cole most likely already knows who it is. If its not, then I am not too concerned about protecting their reputation. But reporting it to the police or a journalist, that person would protect the identity of a minor by law in the case of the police or as source by ethics in the case of a journalist.

Going the route of an anonymous tweet only serves to smear Cole's name with no way for him to confront his accuser and clear his name.

 

[TK 421]

no, it's not part of the problem. age range was provided in the tweet. i'm aware if you knew the specific age, you might be able to discredit it even more than you already have despite not knowing anything about it.

again, your logic of arguing how "properly" this was done is a bad angle to take and your argument only gets worse as the victim's age decreases.

also, if you're so worried about smearing reputations, why only Ian's? why not also the victim's? you know, if it turns out to be true somehow despite not being done properly enough.

The "victim" did not risk ANYTHING using social media. She remains anonymous for the moment until her name is verified through an actual police report. I did mention her accusing the NHL of supporting mysoginistic behavior in my original post on this topic, sounds like an activist wrote it, not an actual victim. So yes I am throwing shade at her because her accusation already had consequences for Cole while she had none. Why didn't she come forward before? She engaged consensually for a time so why now? These are fair questions.

If it does end up having some validity then charge him accordingly, of course. But do it the right way, not some cowardly ambush on social media. Things won't be equal until she has to put HER NAME out there and have her story scrutinised. Right now he's getting raked over the coals with no due process and that's hardly equal treatment so no she doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. Especially since it oh so conveniently happened years before. Remember he's been suspended by TB pending an investigation over a social media post.

 

[Punished ROR]

no, it's not part of the problem. age range was provided in the tweet. i'm aware if you knew the specific age, you might be able to discredit it even more than you already have despite not knowing anything about it.

Her age is an extremely important detail in the story as it would be one of the fastest and easiest ways for her to prove Cole's guilt. If she was below the age of consent when they had sex, it's statutory rape. If she was above the age of consent, it is not statutory rape.

The latter scenario doesn't mean sexual assault didn't happen, of course. But "he manipulated me" is much more of a grey area w/r/t sexual assault.

... which is probably why these claims are being made in the court of public opinion

 

[BlueOil]

The "victim" did not risk ANYTHING using social media. She remains anonymous for the moment until her name is verified through an actual police report. I did mention her accusing the NHL of supporting mysoginistic behavior in my original post on this topic, sounds like an activist wrote it, not an actual victim. So yes I am throwing shade at her because her accusation already had consequences for Cole while she had none. Why didn't she come forward before? She engaged consensually for a time so why now? These are fair questions.

If it does end up having some validity then charge him accordingly, of course. But do it the right way, not some cowardly ambush on social media. Things won't be equal until she has to put HER NAME out there and have her story scrutinised. Right now he's getting raked over the coals with no due process and that's hardly equal treatment so no she doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. Especially since it oh so conveniently happened years before. Remember he's been suspended by TB pending an investigation over a social media post.

if we're being fair, you have to take the claim seriously, even if it was presented in an unfair way. you're arguing you can abandon taking the claim seriously because of how the victim went about things and how much time has passed. i think that's clearly unfair. i don't think you're justified in throwing shade or removing the benefit of the doubt for these reasons, especially if you're concerned about doing things the "right way" or fairly. i dislike the anonymous approach the victim took as well, but that doesn't remove the seriousness of accusation or how seriously it should be taken.

 

[BlueOil]

An age range was provided in the tweet, but specific age actually matters in this case. The range "Minor" and "high school" if taken literally provides a range of roughly 14-17. But if the victim in this case was 17, then statutory rape is off the table. If the accuser was 16 and it took place in Pittsburgh, than statutory rape is off the table. It is not illegal for Cole to have had sex with a 17 year old (16 in Pennsylvania), as creepy as it would be.

i understand the legal ramifications of the specific age, but even if she was 17, there's still more to sort through than just was it or was it not statutory rape.

Who said people aren't worried about smearing the victims identity? There are ways if reported properly to protect the victims identity and allow the accused to confront their accusers. If this is true, then Cole most likely already knows who it is. If its not, then I am not too concerned about protecting their reputation. But reporting it to the police or a journalist, that person would protect the identity of a minor by law in the case of the police or as source by ethics in the case of a journalist.

i'm saying that and would cite several posts here as prime examples. you can critique the method the victim chose to bring it to light and rightfully so, but to suggest it's enough to invalidate the claim altogether is unfair. hence the accusation that if you care about reputations, you should care about smearing the victim's too.

 

[TK 421]

if we're being fair, you have to take the claim seriously, even if it was presented in an unfair way. you're arguing you can abandon taking the claim seriously because of how the victim went about things and how much time has passed. i think that's clearly unfair. i don't think you're justified in throwing shade or removing the benefit of the doubt for these reasons, especially if you're concerned about doing things the "right way" or fairly. i dislike the anonymous approach the victim took as well, but that doesn't remove the seriousness of accusation or how seriously it should be taken.

Which is all fine, thank you for acknowledging the unfairness of it. I'm a cynic after following politics for a couple decades and can't help but call out deliberately ambiguous material like this. I look forward to her having to put herself out there the same way she put Cole on blast and I still say she's a coward for the way she chose to start this. Let's see where the investigation goes or even if she's willing to identify herself.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Which is all fine, thank you for acknowledging the unfairness of it. I'm a cynic after following politics for a couple decades and can't help but call out deliberately ambiguous material like this. I look forward to her having to put herself out there the same way she put Cole on blast and I still say she's a coward for the way she chose to start this. Let's see where the investigation goes or even if she's willing to identify herself.

Identity herself to police/nhl investigation? Or to the public? Because she don’t owe jack to the public. She’s been denigrated and dismissed by bros all over the internet who never believe women. Why would she subject herself to more personal ridicule?

 

[TK 421]

Identity herself to police/nhl investigation? Or to the public? Because she don’t owe jack to the public. She’s been denigrated and dismissed by bros all over the internet who never believe women. Why would she subject herself to more personal ridicule?

Why not identify herself? She identified him to the public on social media. Do you guys just not see the hypocrisy in giving her a pass while he's already had consequences including being suspended? This is a double standard, why no accountability for her? The second she chose to use social media as a weapon against him she opened herself up to criticism and again, we don't know her real name yet or really any pertinent details that are critical to rendering any type of judgement.

If she felt justified enough to name him and accuse him publically then she better be ready to give her name both to the police and to the public.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Why not identify herself? She identified him to the public on social media. Do you guys just not see the hypocrisy in giving her a pass while he's already had consequences including being suspended? This is a double standard, why no accountability for her? The second she chose to use social media as a weapon against him she opened herself up to criticism and again, we don't know her real name yet or really any pertinent details that are critical to rendering any type of judgement.

If she felt justified enough to name him and accuse him publically then she better be ready to give her name both to the police and to the public.

You couldn’t be more wrong. He is a public figure. She isn’t. But thanks for demonstrating why most sexual assault victims never come forward.

 

[TK 421]

You couldn’t be more wrong. He is a public figure. She isn’t. But thanks for demonstrating why most sexual assault victims never come forward.

She attacked him publically on social media thus making it public, had she come forward sooner and followed the normal procedure then I would be less inclined to disbelieve her. At this point I'd like to see how this progresses because Cole looks like he is eager to clear his name according to his statement.

 

[Xerloris]

You couldn’t be more wrong. He is a public figure. She isn’t. But thanks for demonstrating why most sexual assault victims never come forward.

I just don't care about this type of stuff when so much time has passed. An anonymous social media account took away all credibility imo. At least have a reporter verify identity and then write the story. The public doesn't need to know but someone the public "trusts" should.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I assume you consider yourself on the side of people who care about evidence, right?

So let's go through the evidence.
1) We have first person testimony from a woman claiming to be a victim.
2) We have Ian Cole denying it.
3) We have statistics that show that reports of sexual assault are false 2-10% of the time; so the vast majority are true
4) We have evidence that the Lightning found enough in their internal investigation to suspend Cole


No it isn't.

I think your use of the 2-10% is bogus in this case, but let's stipulate that its accurate. If there is up to a 10% chance that Ian Cole is the victim of character assassination, I think its reasonable for people on a hockey forum to reserve judgement until/unless evidence on one side or the other comes to light.

You act like there is a movement here that are advocating for the incident to not be investigated. I think we all applaud the investigation. Its in the best interest of the truthful party. The accuser could certainly help this process, even maintaining anonymity through a 3rd party.

I have close experience with a false accusation that nearly destroyed a career. If the number of false accusations of sexual assault is not 0%, then due process should be conspicuously followed. If he was accused of murder and the electric chair, but there was a 2-10% chance he didn't do it....people would be outraged at the prospect of executing that guy.

 

[bluesfan94]

If he was accused of murder and the electric chair, but there was a 2-10% chance he didn't do it....people would be outraged at the prospect of executing that guy.

Except we aren't talking about the criminal justice system

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Except we aren't talking about the criminal justice system

I don't follow your point. He's either guilty or he is not. You're suggesting its OK to destroy his reputation if you're only wrong about it 10% of the time? I'm missing the nuance here.

 

[stl76]

If he was accused of murder and the electric chair, but there was a 2-10% chance he didn't do it....people would be outraged at the prospect of executing that guy.

Kind of off topic, but uhhh you might want to look up some stats on wrongful incarceration and the death penalty. There are very serious and credible studies showing that there is absolutely a 2-10% chance a person on death row didn't do it.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1306417111

 

[bleedblue1223]

Kind of off topic, but uhhh you might want to look up some stats on wrongful incarceration and the death penalty. There are very serious and credible studies showing that there is absolutely a 2-10% chance a person on death row didn't do it.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1306417111

Yeah, that's also why I'm against the death penalty. The only time I'm ever ok with it is with the individuals that are obvious no-brainers, but when put into practice, we know it's never reserved for those cases where they get caught red-handed doing a crime to that magnitude.

 

[Thallis]

I don't follow your point. He's either guilty or he is not. You're suggesting its OK to destroy his reputation if you're only wrong about it 10% of the time? I'm missing the nuance here.

Victims of sexual misconduct against public figures tend to go through things orders of magnitude worse than having their reputation destroyed, to the point that much higher than 10% of victims never report it. The point is that the criminal justice system is stacked against victims and the evidence required to convict is a lot higher than what would be enough to make most people think "this probably happened" (as it should be, but the justice system and its flaws are its own messy can of worms). As is so well displayed in this thread, men tend to empathize with the accused rather than the actual victim and look for reasons to disbelieve the allegations before a proper investigation is done(assuming the organization with a vested interest in not undergoing a second sexual assault scandal in as many years does a proper investigation). The consequences of people thinking badly of him on his life are significantly lower than the consequences of women being groomed as children is on theirs. The absolute least we can do as bystanders is not try to discredit a potential victim without an investigation or any evidence in front of us. We don't know squat about the situation, let's act like it.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Victims of sexual misconduct against public figures tend to go through things orders of magnitude worse than having their reputation destroyed, to the point that much higher than 10% of victims never report it. The point is that the criminal justice system is stacked against victims and the evidence required to convict is a lot higher than what would be enough to make most people think "this probably happened" (as it should be, but the justice system and its flaws are its own messy can of worms). As is so well displayed in this thread, men tend to empathize with the accused rather than the actual victim and look for reasons to disbelieve the allegations before a proper investigation is done(assuming the organization with a vested interest in not undergoing a second sexual assault scandal in as many years does a proper investigation). The consequences of people thinking badly of him on his life are significantly lower than the consequences of women being groomed as children is on theirs. The absolute least we can do as bystanders is not try to discredit a potential victim without an investigation or any evidence in front of us. We don't know squat about the situation, let's act like it.

What’s so objectionable about withholding my own judgement and acknowledging the lack of adequate information for me to take a side, while fully supporting investigation and judgement by an authority who seeks the complete set of facts? Punish the guilty. Give anonymity and support to the victim. But no reason to act on assumption when so much is at stake. Even the people throwing stones at Cole right now acknowledge that there is a percentage of false claims made.

I have some personal experience with a heinous false accusation, so I know the number isn’t 0. People who were so quick to believe the slander really hurt the accused person’s family. None of it was undone when the truth eventually came out. My point is that its simple-minded to act on a broad statistic as your justification for condemning a person without evidence. So I won’t do it. I’m not advocating giving shelter to predators.

 

[AVictoryDive]

Ian Cole did cheat on his wife with the Carolina Hurricanes reporter. This led her to calling off her wedding. Also Cam and Stick stated that Ian Cole wasn’t the most loved teammates with the blues. I’m not saying he’s guilty but this doesn’t look good for him.

 

[Thallis]

What’s so objectionable about withholding my own judgement and acknowledging the lack of adequate information for me to take a side, while fully supporting investigation and judgement by an authority who seeks the complete set of facts? Punish the guilty. Give anonymity and support to the victim. But no reason to act on assumption when so much is at stake. Even the people throwing stones at Cole right now acknowledge that there is a percentage of false claims made.

I have some personal experience with a heinous false accusation, so I know the number isn’t 0. People who were so quick to believe the slander really hurt the accused person’s family. None of it was undone when the truth eventually came out. My point is that its simple-minded to act on a broad statistic as your justification for condemning a person without evidence. So I won’t do it. I’m not advocating giving shelter to predators.

The objectionable part is the way you're framing the conversation. By focusing it around the would be perpatrator instead of the victim, you are priming yourself to dismiss it instead of being truly open to the truth. It's an easy to overlook portion of a cognitive bias.

Also keep in mind that some of us want to address the whole tone of the conversation and not necessarily your points specifically. There has been plenty on the last two pages that show people on this board are not simply witholding judgement, they are actively seeking to disbelieve the allegations without any evidence in same way it has been done to silence women for decades.

 

[ValHaller]

I used to be disappointed by people's poor epistemology around assessing whether something is true or not before making judgements or taking action, but humanity has shown me over and over that the performative virtue signaling matters way more than assessing truth does. I hope I never have to stand trial with a jury of my "peers" if it'll be filled with the type of people in this thread who choose not to wait for facts before taking a position.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

Ian Cole did cheat on his wife with the Carolina Hurricanes reporter. This led her to calling off her wedding. Also Cam and Stick stated that Ian Cole wasn’t the most loved teammates with the blues. I’m not saying he’s guilty but this doesn’t look good for him.

You can look at that a few ways, though. He’s been an a-hole that made enemies in deserved fashion, and that might provide support for the idea that he will be more apt to get an attack on social media that falls short of criminal.

 

[Frenzy31]

I assume you consider yourself on the side of people who care about evidence, right?

So let's go through the evidence.
1) We have first person testimony from a woman claiming to be a victim.
2) We have Ian Cole denying it.
3) We have statistics that show that reports of sexual assault are false 2-10% of the time; so the vast majority are true
4) We have evidence that the Lightning found enough in their internal investigation to suspend Cole


No it isn't.

The bolded are the only two forms of evidence at this point. A woman claiming to be a victim and Ian denying it.

THAT IS ALL WE HAVE. WE HAVE NO FACTS and no other evidence on what the Lightning know or don't know. I would expect any organization worth a damn to investigate the claim. And since this was released to the public, I would expect an organization to suspend him and investigate the claim BECAUSE OF OPTICS. which is complete bullshit, but whatever.

And percentages mean nothing - BECAUSE AGAIN NOT A FACT. Further, the % is reported cases, this is not YET a criminal case and no charges have been filed. So the real number should be how many false claims have been made anonymously via twitter that are false. I don't consider TWITTER A news source. Maybe you do, but most don't.

Further he could be part of the 10 % or part of the 90% - so that isn't a evidence at all.

So we have an anonymous woman making a serious claim against a player. She give some possible details, but they seem pretty intentionally vague. But one thing she is not claiming is Statutory Rape or Rape at all for that matter.

The claim is grooming. There should be plenty of evidence, text messages, other people coming forward (as she claimed she was to invite friends). To prove the grooming.