Confirmed with Link: Carter Hart Officially Charged With One Count Of Sexual Assault (Per His Lawyers); Non-roster, salary cap info in OP

[MayonnaiseOreo]

The 4 others are all 1998, but starting to get a horrible feeling about which one it was

Same here. We know Formenton is ruled out as Player 1 but the other 4 are all possible yet I have a sinking feeling about which one it is.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

The best way I can describe it is that this thread makes me long for the time I had shingles.

Can you tell us about that time? Please make it as vivid as possible.

 

[BillDineen]

From what I have read, they are almost certainly guilty, but the lawyers will say they only pressed charges because of the publicity and politics once it was revealed. London Police messed this up badly and had to charge someone no matter how strong the case is now.

I think it is a coin flip whether they win or lose. Time will tell. If Hart is found not guilty, he can enjoy the KHL

 

[Embiid]

Drunk women, amirite?!

Had a beer in her hand in her social media profile pic....questionable character apparently.

 

[DancingPanther]

The best way I can describe it is that this thread makes me long for the time I had shingles.

I'd tear my other rotator cuff before subjecting myself to this thread again

 

[Beef Invictus]

We don't know what Hart himself did though. That's an important distinction. We know what the group did in a general sense.

We don't know who Player #1 is that invited the other players into the room but had consensual sex with the victim to start. We don't know who Player #2 was that performed a sex act without even speaking to the victim, etc.

Now that doesn't absolve Hart for putting himself in a position like this but we don't yet know the exact thing that he did.

He participated in a criminal fashion in a sexual assault where there are apparently cooperating witnesses.

I don't need much else.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Can you tell us about that time? Please make it as vivid as possible.

Absolutely. My doctor tried to prescribe me Valaciclovir, but I reminded him that the giant rash going up my side could technically be anything, lectured him for 30 minutes on the concept of presumption of innocence, and spent my week off reading about the benefits of raw liver for my coat.

 

[wankstifier]

Absolutely. My doctor tried to prescribe me Valaciclovir, but I reminded him that the giant rash going up my side could technically be anything, lectured him for 30 minutes on the concept of presumption of innocence, and spent my week off reading about the benefits of raw liver for my coat.

Do Italians call their layer of body hair a "coat"

 

[MayonnaiseOreo]

Can you tell us about that time? Please make it as vivid as possible.

I had some weird form of shingles right between my shoulder blades when I was 10. That shit suuuuuuucked. Doctors had no clue what caused it but it thankfully went away after a few months.

 

[Beef Invictus]

"you'll ruin their lives!?" sobs the guy who only recently insisted nobody reads this place because of me specifically. This is hilarious to me.

Do I have the power to ruin lives by what I say here about a criminal case in another f***ing country, pertaining to people whose employ I don't control? Or am I an insignificant blip that nobody notices on purpose?

I bet the truth is closer to the latter!

 

[Flyerfan4life]

Same here. We know Formenton is ruled out as Player 1 but the other 4 are all possible yet I have a sinking feeling about which one it is.

#maximumpain

#brace4it

 

[Beef Invictus]

I had some weird form of shingles right between my shoulder blades when I was 10. That shit suuuuuuucked. Doctors had no clue what caused it but it thankfully went away after a few months.

A baby at New Child's daycare has chicken pox. They're all too young for the vaccine. That baby's older sibling is vaccinated and didn't have the pox. Nobody understands where this came from.

I now wait to see if I will have The Agony.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I had some weird form of shingles right between my shoulder blades when I was 10. That shit suuuuuuucked. Doctors had no clue what caused it but it thankfully went away after a few months.

MONTHS?! Holy crap. I’m so sorry you had to deal with that.

 

[ponder719]

"you'll ruin their lives!?" sobs the guy who only recently insisted nobody reads this place because of me specifically. This is hilarious to me.

Do I have the power to ruin lives by what I say here about a criminal case in aother f***ing country, pertaining to people whose employ I don't control? Or am I an insignificant blip that nobody notices on purpose?

I bet the truth is closer to the latter!

Don't bet, Beef. Gambling could have a negative outcome. Be positive the truth is closer to the latter!

 

[philly_28]

One thing that always irks me is that the 'presumed innocent' crowd always acts like a guilty verdict in a criminal case is the only line to base your moralites on.

Criminal law is designed to be the very last line. The ultima ratio. It's very much designed to say "a lot of horrible stuff can happen up to this point, but this thing is so wrong, we really have no other option but to dish out this penalty because that's just too much." So a lot of shitty stuff, morally wrong stuff can happen before criminal law even gets involved.

Another thing working for the defendants here is the in dubio pro reo maxime. We'd rather have 100 guilty people in freedom than 1 innocent person behind bars. So when there is reasonable doubt what happened (happens often in he said/she said cases of sexual assault) there has to be a not guilty verdict. (We can all see that's not always what happens in practice, but in theory that's how it's done.)

So if you base your moralities solely on a guilty verdict in a criminal case, your moralities are shit.

They will have their day in court and that will determine if there is enough evidence to prove that there was wrongdoing that warrents a penalty. But one can look at what's publicly available now, the things/actions that aren't really disputed and come to the conclusion that those actions were morally wrong even if they don't lead to a conviction.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Don't bet, Beef. Gambling could have a negative outcome. Be positive the truth is closer to the latter!

When I bet it is a form of optimism. It is a positive activity. I'm cheering people on.

It isn't degenerate at all. Hell, I should bet more. I should bet on everything. I should bet on plane flights.

 

[MayonnaiseOreo]

MONTHS?! Holy crap. I’m so sorry you had to deal with that.

Coincided with my class taking drown proofing and having swim so that was good for my mental psyche. Had to wear a shirt but I preferred getting made fun of for that rather than everyone seeing me succumb to the greyscale.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

These women need to learn to leave the drinking to the men, whom know how to behave on the sauce

You should check with Benny before you use "whom" again.

 

[Alex K]

So you have done no research, then. Because what they did is well known.

The details are revealed sufficiently. You look like shit right now.

So kind of you. I see you don't need much too s--t on people.

 

[Kermit the Prog]

I should bet on plane flights.

I'm flying to South Dakota on Monday. Gimme the odds.

 

[wankstifier]

I'm flying to South Dakota on Monday. Gimme the odds.

Is it a Boeing?

 

[Beef Invictus]

One thing that always irks me is that the 'presumed innocent' crowd always acts like a guilty verdict in a criminal case is the only line to base your moralites on.

Criminal law is designed to be the very last line. The ultima ratio. It's very much designed to say "a lot of horrible stuff can happen up to this point, but this thing is so wrong, we really have no other option but to dish out this penalty because that's just too much." So a lot of shitty stuff, morally wrong stuff can happen before criminal law even gets involved.

Another thing working for the defendants here is the in dubio pro reo maxime. We'd rather have 100 guilty people in freedom than 1 innocent person behind bars. So when there is reasonable doubt what happened (happens often in he said/she said cases of sexual assault) there has to be a not guilty verdict. (We can all see that's not always what happens in practice, but in theory that's how it's done.)

So if you base your moralities solely on a guilty verdict in a criminal case, your moralities are shit.

They will have their day in court and that will determine if there is enough evidence to prove that there was wrongdoing that warrents a penalty. But one can look at what's publicly available now, the things/actions that aren't really disputed and come to the conclusion that those actions were morally wrong even if they don't lead to a conviction.

Thank you.

I have ample information to decide that Hart's participation in what happened makes him a piece of shit, that's my judgement to make, I don't deserve to be guilted for it, and anyone who disagrees can swallow an egg whole.


I'm sad and concerned for the souls who think what he did is fine and he shouldn't be judged for it.

 

[Beef Invictus]

So kind of you. I see you don't need much too s--t on people.

Need much? THERE IS A SHITLOAD. This isn't a mystery situation.

I do shit on people who've done what these players did, yes. Weird that you defend them.

 

[swami24]

He isn't a court of law. He is under no such obligation. Ample evidence exists. You do not, as a regular person, have to assume someone is innocent until a court says otherwise. "Presumption of innocence" applies to how the government system will behave. It isn't a mandate upon the populace of a society, who are allowed to form whatever opinion they want with the information available.

Problem with that is that the media no longer prints all the facts, only the ones that suit their storyline. The courts are bound to listen to all sides and facts. Trial by media is a very real thing, and has ruined a ton of innocent people's lives. I just prefer to wait until someone is convicted to blame them.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Problem with that is that the media no longer prints all the facts, only the ones that suit their storyline. The courts are bound to listen to all sides and facts. Trial by media is a very real thing, and has ruined a ton of innocent people's lives. I just prefer to wait until someone is convicted to blame them.

Bullshit. No evidence anything like this has happened.

Do you people straight up not know what is known or how it is known? This ain't a media lynching.