Canadian Government Freezing Hockey Canada Funding- (2018 Canada World Jr Team Alleged Sexual Assault)

[pcruz]

Personally? No, I don't litigate myself I leave that to the real esquires.

Yes I know it's not under oath. But it was a publicly filed statement made in a court setting. It's a statement made in court.

The implication of your posts is that if the victim did not make these allegations under oath then she cannot be believed. I disagree I think that commencing formal litigation is about as big of a step as a rape victim can take.

Wrong.

See that's the problem with people who make up their minds before the facts.

Nobody, at any time, should be believed beyond a doubt when the claim they make is as serious as the one being made - where the consequences are that another person (or persons) will end up in prison for a long period of time.

At the same time.

Nobody, at any time, should have their serious allegations dismissed without all efforts being made to verify the allegations.


Seeing as the threshold for punishing a person on a criminal act is "beyond a doubt", I would say that whether I am inclined to believe the alleged victim or not, I couldn't possibly feel comfortable in convicting the defendants without doing my due diligence and ascertaining their guilt.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

Not necessarily.

http://www.westcoastleaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/v5-FAQs-on-law-of-consent.pdf

Since this is such a big story, people should use it as a reason to educate themselves about consent laws. It's important stuff to know, and there's so much ambiguity out there.

The very thing you quoted works against you if the reports of her needing help to walk are true.

 

[pcruz]

So you won't believe her unless she testifies under oath?

It doesn't matter if people believe her or not.

It only matters whether the perpetrators (who are still, 4 years later, not known) can be proven beyond a doubt to have committed the crime.

This place is filled with people whose entire legal experience is reading Harry Potter apparently.

 

[JoeCool16]

This whole debacle is making me want to watch Spotlight again

 

[Maplebeasts]

Not necessarily.

http://www.westcoastleaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/v5-FAQs-on-law-of-consent.pdf

Since this is such a big story, people should use it as a reason to educate themselves about consent laws. It's important stuff to know, and there's so much ambiguity out there.

Ok so it's not necessarily illegal but is highly discouraged. That is terrifying. What John Doe 1 did though was mislead her about the nature of the full sexual encounter when he brought in his friends who had golf clubs.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

It doesn't matter if people believe her or not.

It only matters whether the perpetrators (who are still, 4 years later, not known) can be proven beyond a doubt to have committed the crime.

This place is filled with people whose entire legal experience is reading Harry Potter apparently.

It feels like you're arguing against nobody on legal process. Nobody is saying charge, convict and sentence the people involved tomorrow.

It does matter if people believe her or not.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

The very thing you quoted works against you if the reports of her needing help to walk are true.

Works against me? I'm not trying to claim anyone's innocence.

Yes, if the victim was intoxicated to the point of not being able to walk under her own strength, that would be a significant reason for investigators and a court to believe that she was not legally able to consent.

But "can't give consent when drunk" is not true, and you hear people throw that out a lot.

Like I said, people should take the time, instead of arguing about every rumour, to educate themselves on the laws that currently exist. You might read them and think to yourself, "Holy shit, that seems like an impossibly high standard for police or prosecutors to meet and significantly favours the offender, maybe I should lobby my representatives to change them". But you can't do that if you don't understand what the laws are.

 

[pcruz]

Ok so it's not necessarily illegal but is highly discouraged. That is terrifying. What John Doe 1 did though was mislead her about the nature of the full sexual encounter when he brought in his friends who had golf clubs.

It may not be illegal, but it is not only "highly discouraged".
It's completely immoral and absolutely reprehensible.

I don't have boys, but if I did and I ever found out they had engaged with someone who was inebriated, I would be furious with them.

It's a line I never crossed even when I was stupid young punk with raging hormones and despite having drank myself.

 

[Mingus Dew]

Wrong.

See that's the problem with people who make up their minds before the facts.

Nobody, at any time, should be believed beyond a doubt when the claim they make is as serious as the one being made - where the consequences are that another person (or persons) will end up in prison for a long period of time.

At the same time.

Nobody, at any time, should have their serious allegations dismissed without all efforts being made to verify the allegations.


Seeing as the threshold for punishing a person on a criminal act is "beyond a doubt", I would say that whether I am inclined to believe the alleged victim or not, I couldn't possibly feel comfortable in convicting the defendants without doing my due diligence and ascertaining their guilt.

I'm a lawyer, not a judge.

I'm talking about whether you or I or whomever else believe the victim. Forget convictions and sentencing.

You either believe her or you don't. You will have reasons either way.

I don't need to wait until a criminal verdict is rendered in order to have an opinion or pass judgement. I see evidence and details, I analyze them and I come to a conclusion.

In no world do I need to hear this victim's allegations made under oath in order to believe that they are truthful.

 

[MXD]

It doesn't matter if people believe her or not.

It only matters whether the perpetrators (who are still, 4 years later, not known) can be proven beyond a doubt to have committed the crime.

That is indeed the only thing that matters before a criminal court of law. Doesn't mean the players in question didn't commit a sexual assault. It just means that it wasn't proven BARD.

It's also relevant, and probably more important, to note that the criminal court of law isn't the only forum that matters here.

Especially as we're talking about the tip of the iceberg of a serious systemic issue.

 

[JeffreyLFC]

I don't think that's true, unfortunately.

Based on some comment I have read you are right.

 

[PostBradMalone]

This place is filled with people whose entire legal experience is reading Harry Potter apparently.

Yeah, like people claiming you can knowingly file false Statements of Claim and not face any repercussions. Who would do that and then try to assert any factual standing in a legal discussion?

 

[Mingus Dew]

It doesn't matter if people believe her or not.

It only matters whether the perpetrators (who are still, 4 years later, not known) can be proven beyond a doubt to have committed the crime.

This place is filled with people whose entire legal experience is reading Harry Potter apparently.

That only matters in the context of a criminal trial. This is an internet forum.

Yeah, like people claiming you can knowingly file false Statements of Claim and not face any repercussions. Who would do that and then try to assert any factual standing in a legal discussion?

Love getting told I got my legal experience from Harry Potter.

My law degree may be worthless but it's not THAT worthless.

 

[pcruz]

It feels like you're arguing against nobody on legal process. Nobody is saying charge, convict and sentence the people involved tomorrow.

It does matter if people believe her or not.

It matters when someone starts referring to the alleged perpetrators as rapists.

 

[PostBradMalone]

Love getting told I got my legal experience from Harry Potter.

My law degree may be worthless but it's not THAT worthless.

It is if you went to Cooley

 

[Mingus Dew]

It is if you went to Cooley

American law schools - shaping dreams one $50,000 semester at a time.

 

[Maplebeasts]

It may not be illegal, but it is not only "highly discouraged".
It's completely immoral and absolutely reprehensible.

I don't have boys, but if I did and I ever found out they had engaged with someone who was inebriated, I would be furious with them.

It's a line I never crossed even when I was stupid young punk with raging hormones and despite having drank myself.

Good man.

 

[Deuce22]

That only matters in the context of a criminal trial. This is an internet forum.



Love getting told I got my legal experience from Harry Potter.

My law degree may be worthless but it's not THAT worthless.

I think that morality and legality are getting intermingled here. I would say that the players were in the wrong morally even if the woman was consenting. However, my moral stance holds no standing criminally. The question is whether moral failure is worthy of penalty, if indeed no criminal trial ever takes place.

 

[pcruz]

I'm a lawyer, not a judge.

I'm talking about whether you or I or whomever else believe the victim. Forget convictions and sentencing.

You either believe her or you don't. You will have reasons either way.

I don't need to wait until a criminal verdict is rendered in order to have an opinion or pass judgement. I see evidence and details, I analyze them and I come to a conclusion.

In no world do I need to hear this victim's allegations made under oath in order to believe that they are truthful.

That only matters in the context of a criminal trial. This is an internet forum.



Love getting told I got my legal experience from Harry Potter.

My law degree may be worthless but it's not THAT worthless.

Law degrees are never worthless.
How the knowledge is applied or not is what makes the degree valuable or not.

"I see evidence and details, I analyze them and I come to a conclusion." - What evidence have you seen exactly?

Who are the alleged defendants in this case even?

The general public has, to this point, not been privy to any actual information.
We have nothing but conjecture and vague allegations.

What is the exact statement of claim made by the victim in this case?
Do we even know what her actual words were in the civil case that was settled out of court?


Edit:

You claim to be a lawyer.

I have no reason to doubt you.
I also have no reason to believe you.

What I can't do is make some sort of claim in front of a judge that:

"According to a lawyer with the user name Mingus Dew, from a hockey forum gave me this legal opinion and because he's a lawyer I believe him to be correct in his interpretation of the facts".

Because....


I don't actually know if you're a lawyer or not. If I want to use your advice in a court room, I really ought to do a little bit of digging and prove to myself beyond a doubt that you actually are a lawyer and that your legal opinion is valid.

Until then, you are both:

A lawyer with a valid legal opinion.
Not a lawyer and do not possess a legal opinion.

 

[Mingus Dew]

I think that morality and legality are getting intermingled here. I would say that the players were in the wrong morally even if the woman was consenting. However, my moral stance holds no standing criminally. The question is whether moral failure is worthy of penalty, if indeed no criminal trial ever takes place.

The thing is few people are claiming that these folks should be convicted of rape and sentenced immediately on only the facts that have been made available to the public. That's largely a straw man.

I think a lot of people have decided that they believe the victim and they have some conviction that these players, whoever they may be, sexually assaulted her. I don't mean in the criminal, BARD sense. I mean in the sense of what they as individuals think about this situation.

That's OK. People having conviction about stuff like this is what promotes awareness and, ultimately, change. Another poster up top has done a great job of pointing out that current Canadian sexual assault laws are pretty messed up and biased towards the offender. If we accept that no judgement can be passed and nothing can be done until a justice system that is purposefully designed to do nothing about something like this does something then how can anything be accomplished?

 

[Mingus Dew]

Law degrees are never worthless.
How the knowledge is applied or not is what makes the degree valuable or not.

I disagree. If I can stop one person from going to law school then an angel will have earned its wings.

"I see evidence and details, I analyze them and I come to a conclusion." - What evidence have you seen exactly?

The reporting on the case that is the subject of this thread? Same as you.

Who are the alleged defendants in this case even?

Semi-professional and professional hockey players.

The general public has, to this point, not been privy to any actual information.
We have nothing but conjecture and vague allegations.

We have reporting on what was alleged by the victim and what occurred on the night in question. We have text messages that have been volunteered to the press. Your characterization is not accurate.

What is the exact statement of claim made by the victim in this case?
Do we even know what her actual words were in the civil case that was settled out of court?

No. We know what the substantive claims were based on reporting and discussion that has occurred around the situation.

I will grant you that yes if this is all "fake news" and none of this ever happened as reported then we're all wasting our time here and can move on.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

It matters when someone starts referring to the alleged perpetrators as rapists.

They're (whoever the players are) alleged rapists. I believe they did it - cause I believe the victim.

 

[Mingus Dew]

Edit:

You claim to be a lawyer.

I have no reason to doubt you.
I also have no reason to believe you.

What I can't do is make some sort of claim in front of a judge that:

"According to a lawyer with the user name Mingus Dew, from a hockey forum gave me this legal opinion and because he's a lawyer I believe him to be correct in his interpretation of the facts".

Because....


I don't actually know if you're a lawyer or not. If I want to use your advice in a court room, I really ought to do a little bit of digging and prove to myself beyond a doubt that you actually are a lawyer and that your legal opinion is valid.

Until then, you are both:

A lawyer with a valid legal opinion.
Not a lawyer and do not possess a legal opinion.

Schrodinger's lawyer. Please don't open the box lest you disbar me!

Again, we're not in court. Definitely do not use anything I say here in a criminal trial.

This is not legal advice my friend.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Law degrees are never worthless.
How the knowledge is applied or not is what makes the degree valuable or not.

"I see evidence and details, I analyze them and I come to a conclusion." - What evidence have you seen exactly?

Who are the alleged defendants in this case even?

The general public has, to this point, not been privy to any actual information.
We have nothing but conjecture and vague allegations.

What is the exact statement of claim made by the victim in this case?
Do we even know what her actual words were in the civil case that was settled out of court?


Edit:

You claim to be a lawyer.

I have no reason to doubt you.
I also have no reason to believe you.

What I can't do is make some sort of claim in front of a judge that:

"According to a lawyer with the user name Mingus Dew, from a hockey forum gave me this legal opinion and because he's a lawyer I believe him to be correct in his interpretation of the facts".

Because....


I don't actually know if you're a lawyer or not. If I want to use your advice in a court room, I really ought to do a little bit of digging and prove to myself beyond a doubt that you actually are a lawyer and that your legal opinion is valid.

Until then, you are both:

A lawyer with a valid legal opinion.
Not a lawyer and do not possess a legal opinion.

In that case, we can all assume you don’t work in law enforcement and don’t have a valid legal opinion

 

[pcruz]

I disagree. If I can stop one person from going to law school then an angel will have earned its wings.



The reporting on the case that is the subject of this thread? Same as you.



Semi-professional and professional hockey players.



We have reporting on what was alleged by the victim and what occurred on the night in question. We have text messages that have been volunteered to the press. Your characterization is not accurate.



No. We know what the substantive claims were based on reporting and discussion that has occurred around the situation.

I will grant you that yes if this is all "fake news" and none of this ever happened as reported then we're all wasting our time here and can move on.

Specifically which players?

We have pages and pages of players' names and accusations of them being rapists.

We don't even know who the players are, and yet we have a crowd of people ready and willing to sewer anyone they believe may have been a culprit.

You're a lawyer and therefore must see the danger in perpetuating that kind of vigilante justice.