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

[mercury]

Even if the woman comes out and says something to the effect of "I wasn't raped, I gave my consent, they did nothing wrong", they still aren't playing in the NHL again. Like you said, it still comes off as scumbaggery and no teams will want to deal with it. 20 years ago, probably, but these days, no way.

If they are found not guilty and blackballed, while convicted predators like Tibbetts got to continue playing, that is gross injustice in the other direction.

It's there to manage how government behaves. Not regular people. I am not a government.


It's a smart way to live. Much smarter than waiting for someone to be found guilty of a crime to actually judge them for committing crimes. Per your thinking, if someone who enjoys peeling the skin off kids wants to hang out alone with my kids, I should let him if he hasn't been found guilty of it in court. After all, can't pass judgement according to you!

No, it really isn't. Your posts are getting increasingly absurd. You don't want to back off your initial tough stance, so now you are not even trying to make sense.

 

[mercury]

None of them are going to even be under contract when the trial occurs. They won’t need to be “banned.” They just won’t be offered employment which is perfectly within the NHL’s organizations rights to do so.

Like you said, they can go to the KHL if they want.

The only way this entire thing ends well for the players is if it’s proven that these acts never occurred. Anything short of that and this is going to stick with them. At least at this point that doesn’t seem like it’s going to be the defense and from what I can tell no one has denied that it occurred to this point.

It is illegal if the players can prove that the league is colluding to prevent them from being employed.

Suing teams or the league to play is ridiculous. Teams pick who they want. And let’s say the players did sue to play in the NHL; I’m sure that lawsuit would make them super popular with the league/team. Would they also be able to sue to get the contract they want? How would this even work? Lol

They would be suing for damages. I doubt any court would order specific performance (i.e., forcing the league and teams to employ the players), but they sure as hell could find that the league has cost them millions in lost wages by baselessly preventing them from playing.

 

[mercury]

Not going to go back and repeat the back and forth of our prior posts you saying I'm bad for forming an opinion and I say that's how opinions work, but what evidence do you want in order to form your opinion? What are you expecting to hear at a trial that is different than what we know? Unless I'm missing something no one is disputing that this actually happened, only whether or not it was consensual. We know about the video and we know what her allegations are. Are you expecting to find out about some confession from the victim that she's lying or text messages from the accused that they are guilty?

Is the only way you'll believe a victim is if there is a conviction? I'm not an attorney in Canada but the rules of evidence are similar to the US, in which some evidence may not even be admitted at trial. Are you only going on legal standards of the Canadian rules of evidence on what will allow you to form an opinion? What happens if there is evidence that would have changed your mind one way or another but was not admitted into evidence? Do you just not consider it? What happens if that evidentiary ruling gets reversed? Now can you change your opinion or do you have to wait for the judge to retry the case with the additional evidence? Or what if the reverse happens and something is admitted that shouldn't have been? Do you wait for an appeal to change your opinion? Do you even form an opinion before all appealable issues have been resolved and potential re-trials are completed?

"Not going to go back and repeat the back and forth of our prior posts you saying I'm bad for forming an opinion and I say that's how opinions work, but what evidence do you want in order to form your opinion? What are you expecting to hear at a trial that is different than what we know? Unless I'm missing something no one is disputing that this actually happened, only whether or not it was consensual. We know about the video and we know what her allegations are. Are you expecting to find out about some confession from the victim that she's lying or text messages from the accused that they are guilty?"

I already answered this question.

"Is the only way you'll believe a victim is if there is a conviction? I'm not an attorney in Canada but the rules of evidence are similar to the US, in which some evidence may not even be admitted at trial. Are you only going on legal standards of the Canadian rules of evidence on what will allow you to form an opinion? What happens if there is evidence that would have changed your mind one way or another but was not admitted into evidence? Do you just not consider it? What happens if that evidentiary ruling gets reversed? Now can you change your opinion or do you have to wait for the judge to retry the case with the additional evidence? Or what if the reverse happens and something is admitted that shouldn't have been? Do you wait for an appeal to change your opinion? Do you even form an opinion before all appealable issues have been resolved and potential re-trials are completed?"

Do you only ask disingenuous and/or repetitive questions? This just makes you look like you don't have a point.

 

[mercury]

I've barely posted in the thread, and haven't taken an especially adamant position on anyone's guilt or innocence. I haven't stated anything as fact, because after reading a few details I couldn't stomach reading further. I dislike the use of the phrase "as a father of a daughter" for many reasons, but as a father of a daughter...

I'm also the father of sons, and I do know that false or incorrect accusations happen, sometimes innocently, some times maliciously, and therefore some caution is generally advisable. That said, it can't be an excess of caution either, because that's why sexual assault has historically gone underreported. Rapists hide behind that. Presumption of innocence for the alleged perpetrators must not equal presumption of perjury on the part of the presumed victim. That some people seem to have a great deal of empathy for the alleged rapists, and little to none for the presumed victim, is creepy.

This is more incoherent rambling. What exactly am I wrong on? Rarity of false accusations? Even by your own unsubstantiated figures, around 9 out of 10 times accusations have merit. Meaning that false accusations are relatively quite rare. Meanwhile, I haven't staked out any other firm position other than some people should watch themselves, because it sure seems like they're re-litigating their own pasts in a very public and ill-advised way.

"I've barely posted in the thread, and haven't taken an especially adamant position on anyone's guilt or innocence. I haven't stated anything as fact, because after reading a few details I couldn't stomach reading further. I dislike the use of the phrase 'as a father of a daughter' for many reasons, but as a father of a daughter..."

Talk about "incoherent."

"I'm also the father of sons, and I do know that false or incorrect accusations happen, sometimes innocently, some times maliciously, and therefore some caution is generally advisable. That said, it can't be an excess of caution either, because that's why sexual assault has historically gone underreported. Rapists hide behind that. Presumption of innocence for the alleged perpetrators must not equal presumption of perjury on the part of the presumed victim. That some people seem to have a great deal of empathy for the alleged rapists, and little to none for the presumed victim, is creepy."

If you somehow think "I am reserving judgment until I see the evidence" is "empathy," then you are the creep here. Period.

"This is more incoherent rambling. What exactly am I wrong on? Rarity of false accusations? Even by your own unsubstantiated figures, around 9 out of 10 times accusations have merit. Meaning that false accusations are relatively quite rare. Meanwhile, I haven't staked out any other firm position other than some people should watch themselves, because it sure seems like they're re-litigating their own pasts in a very public and ill-advised way."

Again, there is nothing incoherent in my posts whatsoever. Go back and read through them. I know the law. I know the statistics, which are anything but unsubstantiated (I helpfully linked sources, including mentioning which ones seem abnormally high; even the National Sexual Violence Resource Center concurs, saying 2-10%). I am making sense in every single post. You can repeat the same nonsense over and over, but that doesn't make it true. And 2,500-10,000 times a year isn't "quite rare" to me. Maybe you have a different (insane) standard.

You don't get to dismiss the truth. I have been legally and substantively correct the entire time. You are WRONG. Do you understand?

I'm confused as to how anyone can read the known details and become absolutely enraged online at people not giving the perpetrators full benefit of doubt. I really, really hope they simply don't know.

You're definitely confused. That much is clear.

 

[Beef Invictus]

If they are found not guilty and blackballed, while convicted predators like Tibbetts got to continue playing, that is gross injustice in the other direction.



No, it really isn't. Your posts are getting increasingly absurd. You don't want to back off your initial tough stance, so now you are not even trying to make sense.

No, it makes complete sense. Per the standard you've set, we cannot use information or allegations to judge anyone. Only guilty verdicts from trials, which you seemingly believe are accurate for some reason. You clearly haven't thought your reasoning through.

Or does it only apply to sex criminals and nobody else? That would be weird.

 

[mercury]

No, it makes complete sense. Per the standard you've set, we cannot use information or allegations to judge anyone. Only guilty verdicts from trials, which you seemingly believe are accurate for some reason. You clearly haven't thought your reasoning through.

Or does it only apply to sex criminals and nobody else? That would be weird.

I never wrote any such thing, and you are getting tiresome. You are the most disingenuous person in this thread.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I never wrote any such thing, and you are getting tiresome. You are the most disingenuous person in this thread.

You have repeatedly stated we must presume they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. What do you think that means? Why are you only applying it to sex criminals?

 

[TheKingPin]

I don’t know the personality of the other accused. But “knowing” Hart, if he comes out as the ring leader, thats serial killer scary.

 

[Starat327]

Surprised this thread isn't at 100 pages but that may be because stupid people like me are getting their posts deleted.

I'm no expert here but I'd say if your posts are being deleted you probably need to look at the rules and then look at what you're typing?

 

[Crescent Street]

The commoners on this forum have an extremely difficult time engaging in legitimate discourse and are purely here to sit on their stump and never move from it. Then passive-aggressively berate others who come with a differing opinion, no matter how sound and reasonable it may be. Big time, weird energy, echo chamber stuff.

 

[Beef Invictus]

The commoners on this forum have an extremely difficult time engaging in legitimate discourse and are purely here to sit on their stump and never move from it. Then passive-aggressively berate others who come with a differing opinion, no matter how sound and reasonable it may be. Big time, weird energy, echo chamber stuff.

...He passive-aggressively berates at people who he disagrees with, while echoing those he agrees with

 

[mja]

"I've barely posted in the thread, and haven't taken an especially adamant position on anyone's guilt or innocence. I haven't stated anything as fact, because after reading a few details I couldn't stomach reading further. I dislike the use of the phrase 'as a father of a daughter' for many reasons, but as a father of a daughter..."

Talk about "incoherent."

"I'm also the father of sons, and I do know that false or incorrect accusations happen, sometimes innocently, some times maliciously, and therefore some caution is generally advisable. That said, it can't be an excess of caution either, because that's why sexual assault has historically gone underreported. Rapists hide behind that. Presumption of innocence for the alleged perpetrators must not equal presumption of perjury on the part of the presumed victim. That some people seem to have a great deal of empathy for the alleged rapists, and little to none for the presumed victim, is creepy."

If you somehow think "I am reserving judgment until I see the evidence" is "empathy," then you are the creep here. Period.

"This is more incoherent rambling. What exactly am I wrong on? Rarity of false accusations? Even by your own unsubstantiated figures, around 9 out of 10 times accusations have merit. Meaning that false accusations are relatively quite rare. Meanwhile, I haven't staked out any other firm position other than some people should watch themselves, because it sure seems like they're re-litigating their own pasts in a very public and ill-advised way."

Again, there is nothing incoherent in my posts whatsoever. Go back and read through them. I know the law. I know the statistics, which are anything but unsubstantiated (I helpfully linked sources, including mentioning which ones seem abnormally high; even the National Sexual Violence Resource Center concurs, saying 2-10%). I am making sense in every single post. You can repeat the same nonsense over and over, but that doesn't make it true. And 2,500-10,000 times a year isn't "quite rare" to me. Maybe you have a different (insane) standard.

You don't get to dismiss the truth. I have been legally and substantively correct the entire time. You are WRONG. Do you understand?


You're definitely confused. That much is clear.

1. If you think I'm being incoherent when I tell you that I can't bear to read the specific details of the incident because I have a daughter in college (and as a result of my relative ignorance, personally can't really speak to anyone's presumed guilt or innocence in this situation), then I don't know what to tell you. I can only assume you may have an issue with reading comprehension.

2. Reserving judgement is fine, good even, but that's not actually what you and a few others are doing, which is my point. You're hiding behind the notion of that, but your complete lack of concern for the presumed victim, laser focus on the potential injustice to the alleged perpetrators, and engagement in vicarious revenge fantasies on their behalf speaks volumes more than any half-hearted half-assed protestation that you are indeed reserving judgment.

3. If you can't see that 2-10% (that's quite the spread, btw) is relatively rare, as in overwhelmingly less common than the inverse, then I can only assume you may also have an issue with understanding statistics.

Finally, as I've said, I haven't and won't read up on the details of the allegations, the little I did read was terrifying to me. But I wonder, have you? I know GB did midway through this thread and then took a clear step back in his defense of the players in question.

 

[deadhead]

I've been told that if you judge me based only on allegations that society will collapse, or something.

Hey, did you guys know that OJ isn't guilty?

He was found not guilty, not the same as innocent.
I'm still giving him a wide berth, especially if he has access to kitchen knives.

 

[Beef Invictus]

He was found not guilty, not the same as innocent.
I'm still giving him a wide berth, especially if he has access to kitchen knives.

Per the logic here, it is a blow to society that you would judge him in any way. He was found not guilty in a court, you know. If you don't presume he is an innocent and safe angel then you're horrible.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I already answered this question.

Do you only ask disingenuous and/or repetitive questions? This just makes you look like you don't have a point.

If you did answer it, I can't find the answer other than when you said "much more evidence" to me, which doesn't really answer the question. Most of your responses are just saying people are bad or evil or insane, except one of the times you quoted stats to a study without a real citation and at least for me didn't respond when I asked about how that stats were formed or what constitutes a false allegation (i.e., is any non-conviction a false allegation or are those stats for people convicted of making a false allegation?; Do those stats include unreported sexual assaults?; and so forth and so on).

And yes I ask repetitive questions when I get dodgy answers, this whole board will vouch for me on that and if I need to do it to prove that point I will immediately start an argument with Beef about whether or not Michael Leighton is the reason we lost in 2010.

But maybe you can answer these questions like this. I will pose it again and even break it down for you so it is easier for you to respond in the weird way you quote posts:

1) What are you looking for here to sway you one way or the other?

2) What are you expecting to learn at this trial that might help you make up your mind?

3) Is it only a conviction or acquittal that will allow you to form an opinion?

4) Are you going to consider evidence that wasn't admitted at trial?

5) Are you going to not consider evidence that is admitted but you don't believe?

6) Do you have to wait for all appeals by either side to form an opinion or will your opinion change if an evidentiary ruling gets overturned and there is a new trial?

7) I don't know if they have this in Canada but we do in the US, what if there is a no contest plea where there isn't an admission of guilt?

8) Same caveat about not knowing if it exists in Canada but existing in the US, what if they have a stipulated trial where essentially the defendants submit an affidavit admitting to the FACTS of the case but not admitting guilt and the judge then "convicts" them on that affidavit?

9) Final question here, what if your wife/mother/daughter/sister/friend came to you and told you they were raped, would you tell them you need more information before believing them? Tell them not to go to the police because they may ruin someone's life?

 

[Beef Invictus]

If you did answer it, I can't find the answer other than when you said "much more evidence" to me, which doesn't really answer the question. Most of your responses are just saying people are bad or evil or insane, except one of the times you quoted stats to a study without a real citation and at least for me didn't respond when I asked about how that stats were formed or what constitutes a false allegation (i.e., is any non-conviction a false allegation or are those stats for people convicted of making a false allegation?; Do those stats include unreported sexual assaults?; and so forth and so on).

And yes I ask repetitive questions when I get dodgy answers, this whole board will vouch for me on that and if I need to do it to prove that point I will immediately start an argument with Beef about whether or not Michael Leighton is the reason we lost in 2010.

But maybe you can answer these questions like this. I will pose it again and even break it down for you so it is easier for you to respond in the weird way you quote posts:

1) What are you looking for here to sway you one way or the other?

2) What are you expecting to learn at this trial that might help you make up your mind?

3) Is it only a conviction or acquittal that will allow you to form an opinion?

4) Are you going to consider evidence that wasn't admitted at trial?

5) Are you going to not consider evidence that is admitted but you don't believe?

6) Do you have to wait for all appeals by either side to form an opinion or will your opinion change if an evidentiary ruling gets overturned and there is a new trial?

7) I don't know if they have this in Canada but we do in the US, what if there is a no contest plea where there isn't an admission of guilt?

8) Same caveat about not knowing if it exists in Canada but existing in the US, what if they have a stipulated trial where essentially the defendants submit an affidavit admitting to the FACTS of the case but not admitting guilt and the judge then "convicts" them on that affidavit?

9) Final question here, what if your wife/mother/daughter/sister/friend came to you and told you they were raped, would you tell them you need more information before believing them? Tell them not to go to the police because they may ruin someone's life?

Michael Leighton is the reason we lost in 2010

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

It is illegal if the players can prove that the league is colluding to prevent them from being employed.



They would be suing for damages. I doubt any court would order specific performance (i.e., forcing the league and teams to employ the players), but they sure as hell could find that the league has cost them millions in lost wages by baselessly preventing them from playing.

The league isn’t going to collude against them. That’s pure fantasy.

Their own actions will have deemed them unemployable in the NHL even if they’re found not guilty along with not playing professional level hockey for several years.

They’re done in the NHL, short of a complete exoneration (not just a not guilty ruling) and even then they’re done because of the length of time between playing.

They can feel free to sue the victim in that situation then but this whacky idea that the NHL is going to collude against them is just that, whacky.

The players put themselves in this situation. They only have themselves to blame.

 

[nacc BLOCC]

can we please stop saying gangbang in this thread and holy shit i can’t believe i’ve read the word train used like that here.

this is not craigslist missed encounters and none of you are rappers.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Michael Leighton is the reason we lost in 2010

False, it was the combined 6 points from three of our top 4 players unable to score against Antii Niemi and having Oskars Bartulis and Lukas Krajicek as real, actual players on the roster who played like 2 minutes a night.

 

[Jack Straw]

This thread has long outlived any useful purpose it might have served. Just people talking past each other.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I never thought 2010 blame talk would be a breath of fresh air.

P.S. It was Holmgren’s fault. All of the other potential causes fall on his head.

The commoners on this forum have an extremely difficult time engaging in legitimate discourse and are purely here to sit on their stump and never move from it. Then passive-aggressively berate others who come with a differing opinion, no matter how sound and reasonable it may be. Big time, weird energy, echo chamber stuff.

My last post in this thread was trying to help people find some common ground because we have gone orders of magnitude beyond exhausting at this point. I would like to continue to do that. Unfortunately, you’ve taken a shit in our collective living room in a desperate plea for ballyhoo. That’s not exactly helping anyone except you, is it?

 

[Cody Webster]

can we please stop saying gangbang in this thread and holy shit i can’t believe i’ve read the word train used like that here.

this is not craigslist missed encounters and none of you are rappers.

What are the proper terms you'd like used so that we can suit your needs?

 

[nacc BLOCC]

how cool would it be instead of like a podcast outing to a flyers game, there’s just an hf meetup at a south philly parking lot and everyone wears a tag with their username on it, gets after it for a couple few hours, and then goes their separate ways.

before anyone says this is a bad idea, to be clear, we will NOT actually be attending a flyers game.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

how cool would it be instead of like a podcast outing to a flyers game, there’s just an hf meetup at a south philly parking lot and everyone wears a tag with their username on it, gets after it for a couple few hours, and then goes their separate ways.

before anyone says this is a bad idea, to be clear, we will NOT actually be attending a flyers game.

Can you elaborate on the meaning of that?

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

I never thought 2010 blame talk would be a breath of fresh air.

P.S. It was Holmgren’s fault. All of the other potential causes fall on his head.



My last post in this thread was trying to help people find some common ground because we have gone orders of magnitude beyond exhausting at this point. I would like to continue to do that. Unfortunately, you’ve taken a shit in our collective living room in a desperate plea for ballyhoo. That’s not exactly helping anyone except you, is it?

Wrong, it was Beef's fault. It's always Beef's fault.