Five members from Canada’s 2018 world junior team (Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote and Formenton) told to surrender to police, facing sexual assault charges

[Rich Nixon]

You can spare me lecture on the seriousness of their charges/allegations. And perhaps scrutinize the legal opinions of other posters who claim a plea deal is some auto career killer, never lets them enter the US states again, yada yada...etc.

I was invovled in an area of law for some time, i follow high profile and public cases and how they end up, it interests me. I gave an opinion based on that, i've seen similar cases receive deals where they avoid jail time and a permanent and public criminal record.

if that opinions offends you and you think it's crazily far fetched or that it's some lack of empathy, i think youre the one who should take a break and perhaps look into it with less emotion and more logic.

I think it's fair to back this up a lot and go "well, what are the charges going to look like." We don't have them announced and we may not even have them all in when the police hold their presser a week from today. Based on available reporting, it seems highly unlikely, however, that the scenario you're describing unfolds.

I never assumed a lack of empathy on your behalf, I just assume a lack of facts. On that note, can you point me to some of the similar cases that resulted in a record-free plea from your history following high profile and public cases?

 

[Number8]

I hear ya, and agree, but I was arguing off of the classic definition of violence and I wasn't trying to insinuate that rape was somehow preferable to violence

I understand. And I'm not having a go at you. It's just that there are too many people in here trying to victim blame or explain shit away.

We'll find out the facts.

IF, emphasis on IF, this young lady ended up going home with some guy and having sex and THEN against her wishes she ended up getting trained -- that is f***ING unacceptable.

Doesn't matter who drank what. Who said what. Whether her parents warned her appropriately. Whether is was technically "violent".

Again, IF that is true, f*** those 8 and f*** their NHL career -- and some of you in this thread, go apologize to you sister, girlfriend, wife, daughter, or mother and tell them you're working on being a better son/boyfriend/brother/etc.

 

[Edgelord]

I think it's fair to back this up a lot and go "well, what are the charges going to look like." We don't have them announced and we may not even have them all in when the police hold their presser a week from today. Based on available reporting, it seems highly unlikely, however, that the scenario you're describing unfolds.

I never assumed a lack of empathy on your behalf, I just assume a lack of facts. On that note, can you point me to some of the similar cases that resulted in a record-free plea from your history following high profile and public cases?

I still think this gets pleaded out.
It just seems like the trial will be hell for E.M and the crown will want to avoid it.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

This thread is an amazing archive of the worst legal opinions ever published, good work everyone

 

[Mrb1p]

you lost me,
women are physically weaker, so it seems to me to be a disservice not to teach them to avoid certain situations. Now thats not in any way saying young men are not responsible either.

They are physically weaker on average, as some men are and most kids are.

We happen to also not live in a game of throne universe where everyone carries swords and daggers and has to fight for some fooking chicken. Them being weaker shouldnt be even in conversation.

"Protecting" women is just another form of hating on women, its the same as blaming the player that has its back to the play and gets plastered. The player shouldnt be blamed, the one that hits him should have the respect and the wits to not try to drive him through the boards.

In both situations, its not necessarily about bad people, its about suspect morals and institutions that leads to the play/accident.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

I know we aren’t allowed to speculate names but are we allowed to speculate why the 3 bystanders didn’t take part in it? I’m curious if any info on their role has come out

 

[Edgelord]

I understand. And I'm not having a go at you. It's just that there are too many people in here trying to victim blame or explain shit away.

We'll find out the facts.

IF, emphasis on IF, this young lady ended up going home with some guy and having sex and THEN against her wishes she ended up getting trained -- that is f***ING unacceptable.

Doesn't matter who drank what. Who said what. Whether her parents warned her appropriately. Whether is was technically "violent".

Again, IF that is true, f*** those 8 and f*** their NHL career -- and some of you in this thread, go apologize to you sister, girlfriend, wife, daughter, or mother and tell them you're working on being a better son/boyfriend/brother/etc.

there really isn't any version of events that sits well with me .
If she fully consented and the boys treated her the way its alleged, that's brutal
If the boys held her in the room and raped her thats soo horrible
If she is a sex worker hired to entertain and then she was raped thats even worse IMO because it now brings ethics of many people into question.

 

[Rich Nixon]

there really isn't any version of events that sits well with me .
If she fully consented and the boys treated her they way its alleged, that's brutal
If the boys held her in the room and raped her thats soo horrible
If she is a sex worker hired to entertain and then she was raped thats even worse IMO because it now brings ethics of many people into question.

You can read the available reporting on the topic, and the reason people are hammering away at you now is you frequently demonstrate that you have not done so and are deep in a discussion you are not prepared for.

She is not a sex worker. There's no "if" there. There is plenty of reporting that details the allegations, in many places corroborated by witness statements, investigative details, and electronic communications. We don't have the full picture. We have enough to not be inventing "if" scenarios that are completely unrelated.

 

[Edgelord]

They are physically weaker on average, as some men are and most kids are.

We happen to also not live in a game of throne universe where everyone carries swords and daggers and has to fight for some fooking chicken. Them being weaker shouldnt be even in conversation.

"Protecting" women is just another form of hating on women, its the same as blaming the player that has its back to the play and gets plastered. The player shouldnt be blamed, the one that hits him should have the respect and the wits to not try to drive him through the boards.

In both situations, its not necessarily about bad people, its about suspect morals and institutions that leads to the play/accident.

I disagree with the bold, we protect children and that doesn't mean we hate them.

You can read the available reporting on the topic, and the reason people are hammering away at you now is you frequently demonstrate that you have not done so and are deep in a discussion you are not prepared for.

She is not a sex worker. There's no "if" there.

that comes from the line of "take care of him" also so what if she was, it changes nothing
even if a sex worker is raped they are still a victim.
do we know 100% she wasn't working?
hypothetically it being illegal means it wouldn't be disclosed upfront.

 

[4thline]

I mean what you are quoting here is valid but eight drunk guys in a room on top of someone is reeeeeally straining the definition of a confusing causal hookup. Unless you are passed out in a corner pissing your pants, common sense would tell you that's not a room you should be in.

Had you taken the time to read the conversation before mounting up to ride in and insinuate that I'm a barely contained closet rapist you would have seen that my comment was made in the context of discussing the general premise of men getting drunk and hooking up, the situation they are putting themselves in, and the risks they are taking- not of 2018 case.

 

[Rich Nixon]

that comes from the line of "take care of him" also so what if she was, it changes nothing

Dude, there is no "if" or "so what if she was." There is absolutely 0 reason to be invoking that scenario. It's not related.

Don't come into a discussion with nothing to offer but the thoughts bouncing around in your own head and then complain that "the mechanism of discussion is broken." It breaks when people don't take it seriously enough to know what they're talking about. Brush up.

 

[Mrb1p]

I disagree with the bold, we protect children and that doesn't mean we hate them.


that comes from the line of "take care of him" also so what if she was, it changes nothing

It means we see them as inferior.

 

[Edgelord]

Dude, there is no "if" or "so what if she was." There is absolutely 0 reason to be invoking that scenario. It's not related.

Don't come into a discussion with nothing to offer but the thoughts bouncing around in your own head and then complain that "the mechanism of discussion is broken." It breaks when people don't take it seriously enough to know what they're talking about. Brush up.

ok fair enough

It means we see them as inferior.

no not really. physically weaker doesn't mean inferior.

 

[Strangle]

Technically, this is all semantics, because "semantics" refers to discussions about words and their meanings. But you're participating, and you're showing your ass.

You're literally operating off of definitions of crimes and legal concepts you've made up in your mind in the total absence of any real information about them. You hinged one misconception (that sexual assault is not inherently viewed as a violent crime) on another misunderstanding (that police departments have something called a "violent crimes unit" whose participation in an investigation was the determinant of whether an alleged crime constituted a "violent" one).

You don't escape that by going "well THAT part is semantics!" This whole conversation is semantics. You're participating in a lot of semantics yourself. Really badly.

Legal definitions are not necessarily colloquial definitions of words. Legal definitions can’t be moved over to daily speech and assumed to mean the same things.

Legal definitions of ‘violence’ isn’t the same outside of the legal system

 

[Mrb1p]

ok fair enough


no not really. physically weaker doesn't mean inferior.

Bud you just compared women and children.

I mean, if you cant see it you wont ever see it.

 

[GeoRox89]

Are we really debating the sensibility of going off to a previously unknown location with stranger and especially after drinking now?

You know a lot women already do things like making sure their car doors are locked if they’re sitting in it, avoiding pumping gas alone at night, avoiding underground parking alone especially at night, without having to be told? Women also often let their friends know when they’re going out with a guy they haven’t met before and where and when they expect to be back and check in with them. A lot of women nowadays will make sure that a first date (and possibly more after) is in public and that they meet there.

Many women spend more time taking precautions and worrying about potential threats than most men will ever realize. That doesn’t mean that any abuser or attacker is somehow less blameworthy and anything short of 100% at fault. Should they have to do these things, no of course not. It’s depressing that it’s a prudent and debatably necessary thing to do. When one woman asks her friend for the details of her date and reminds her of how to minimize risk and is checking it, she’s doing it because she cares not because she’s secretly sexist and going to blame her friend for being assaulted if she doesn’t follow the plan

 

[Strangle]

100%
its like point out how alcohol is a major contributing factor
then there is always people coming back with
"why do you hate women!?"
its like the whole mechanism of debate and discussion is broken

These types of people, who talk like that, are the same types of people who love talking about rape and feminism and I wouldn’t let my daughters within 100 yards of irl

 

[Chainshot]

This thread is an amazing archive of the worst legal opinions ever published, good work everyone

Having used it to complete your legal degree, will you be using this thread to start your own law library?

 

[Melrose Munch]

If the court finds one 'not guilty' and NHL does not allow them back then I hope they sue the league and anyone who treats them with prejudice.
Player 1 or not..if you aren't convicted you get to live 'normally'

There is no right to play in the NHL. They can play overseas or find another job.

100%
its like point out how alcohol is a major contributing factor
then there is always people coming back with
"why do you hate women!?"
its like the whole mechanism of debate and discussion is broken

It's not. The issue isn't alcohol. It's the assault.

 

[Edgelord]

Bud you just compared women and children.

I mean, if you cant see it you wont ever see it.

yes, in the purely physical sense, what am I missing here?
are soldiers protecting civilians hating on the civilians?
I don't get your connection to seeing objective reality and hating on women

 

[Rich Nixon]

Legal definitions are not necessarily colloquial definitions of words. Legal definitions can’t be moved over to daily speech and assumed to mean the same things.

Legal definitions of ‘violence’ isn’t the same outside of the legal system

Yes, that's more or less central to the point I was making.

 

[Edgelord]

There is no right to play in the NHL. They can play overseas or find another job.


It's not. Why distract from the issue? The issue isn't alcohol. It's the assault.

of course but a just society looks at an incident and thinks ok what can we do to prevent this from happening in the future?

And not seeing how alcohol factored in is a disservice to the plan to keep things like this from happening again.

 

[Mrb1p]

Are we really debating the sensibility of going off to a previously unknown location with stranger and especially after drinking now?

You know a lot women already do things like making sure their car doors are locked if they’re sitting in it, avoiding pumping gas alone at night, avoiding underground parking alone especially at night, without having to be told? Women also often let their friends know when they’re going out with a guy they haven’t met before and where and when they expect to be back and check in with them. A lot of women nowadays will make sure that a first date (and possibly more after) is in public and that they meet there.

Many women spend more time taking precautions and worrying about potential threats than most men will ever realize. That doesn’t mean that any abuser or attacker is somehow less blameworthy and anything short of 100% at fault. Should they have to do these things, no of course not. It’s depressing that it’s a prudent and debatably necessary thing to do. When one woman asks her friend for the details of her date and reminds her of how to minimize risk and is checking it, she’s doing it because she cares not because she’s secretly sexist and going to blame her friend for being assaulted if she doesn’t follow the plan

Why are we doing it in this thread then? You had the right intention but missed the mark.

 

[Melrose Munch]

of course but a just society looks at an incident and thinks ok what can we do to prevent this from happening in the future?

And not seeing how alcohol factored in is a disservice to the plan to keep things like this from happening again.

Well, they'll probably ban the open bar next time. Questions, some guys might do this again while sober, or not that drunk. How does society prevent THAT issue from happening again?

 

[Edgelord]

Well, they'll probably ban the open bar next time. Questions, some guys might do this again while sober, or not that drunk. How does society prevent THAT issue from happening again?

thats the million dollar question, and 1 I wish we could solve