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

[Bcap88]

That confirms McLeod is player 1 hence the two charges

 

[Melrose Munch]

I wasn’t splitting hairs , just trying to read about what you said, then poster told me that wasn’t what was said.

All you had to do, was say what was actually said in the report. Would of saved me 5 minutes of posting.

There were golf clubs in the room, she was scared, and they were drunk and demanding unsavoury things. What did you think would happen?

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

Um if guilty it’s gonna be a hell of a lot more than being banned from a hockey league… You think so? There is certainly jail time implications for anyone convicted of sex assault. But, a whole slew of sentencing principals need to be applied in order to come to that conclusion. Take a seat...

forums.hfboards.com

But I guess this is the answer. You are splitting hairs.

That confirms McLeod is player 1 hence the two charges

I had a bad feeling about this. I think most people thought Formenton was the ringleader but based on what reports have said, too much made sense here. I guess McLeod is done regardless of the outcome of the trial.

 

[Atoyot]

The delivery on the whole "if she says no, obviously means no, but she's not gonna say no because of the (More ominous tone) Implication" is fantastic.

I was going to say the same thing, the drop had me rolling the first time I saw it.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Yes he could get convicted of both because it’s likely a different subsection to the statute.
Not too familiar with Canadien law but that’s how American law normally works

No actually. If you've been found guilty of two more offences that are fundamentally the same thing, one charge will by "stayed" while the conviction goes against the other charge.

Kienapple v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729

The one that always sticks with me is driving while impaired, and driving with over 80 mg of alcohol in your blood. Different sections numbers, proven different ways, but fundamentally the same thing so you only get convicted of one.

That being said - there's nothing wrong here with charges both sex assault, and party to sex assault.

 

[HolyCrap]

The delivery on the whole "if she says no, obviously means no, but she's not gonna say no because of the (More ominous tone) Implication" is fantastic.

My favourite part is the older gal was watching and listening to them the entire time and they don’t give a puck. It’s a great show btw.

 

[Bcap88]

No actually. If you've been found guilty of two more offences that are fundamentally the same thing, one charge will by "stayed" while the conviction goes against the other charge.

Kienapple v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729

The one that always sticks with me is driving while impaired, and driving with over 80 mg of alcohol in your blood. Different sections numbers, proven different ways, but fundamentally the same thing so you only get convicted of one.

That being said - there's nothing wrong here with charges both sex assault, and party to sex assault.

You are right I was getting conviction and charged swapped in my head.

They likely charged two for the greater chance of conviction

 

[Melrose Munch]

You are right I was getting conviction and charged swapped in my head.

They likely charged two for the greater chance of conviction

No actually. If you've been found guilty of two more offences that are fundamentally the same thing, one charge will by "stayed" while the conviction goes against the other charge.

Kienapple v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729

The one that always sticks with me is driving while impaired, and driving with over 80 mg of alcohol in your blood. Different sections numbers, proven different ways, but fundamentally the same thing so you only get convicted of one.

That being said - there's nothing wrong here with charges both sex assault, and party to sex assault.

My question is, would the "a party to" change be easier to convict?

 

[McJC]

Is there a way to read the court documents?

 

[Gregor Samsa]

I suppose I owe Formenton an apology of sorts as I was certain he was player 1 and the king scumbag. I had him marked all wrong, he’s simply a stooge, follower, and sexual deviant

 

[Bcap88]

My question is, would the "a party to" change be easier to convict?

Yes the burden of proof would be easier to prove. A text message would basically be all you need. That sentence for that charge is likely the same if not close to the same as actually the other charge
If I’m not mistaken the text messages were provided to police by their lawyers

 

[Yukon Joe]

My question is, would the "a party to" change be easier to convict?

Tough to say. Fundamentally sex assault is kind of easy to prove - you sexually touched another person, and they didn't consent. Once you've proven that - guilty.

Party to the offence - you have to prove that someone sexually touched another person without their consent - but now you also have to prove that someone else did a thing (or omitted to do a thing) that aided or abetted that first person in committing the offence.

In terms of the evidence itself - I wouldn't want to speculate. But party to the offence has more elements to it.

 

[Edgelord]

I bet this is all thats being talked about at the all star game this weekend, among the players I mean.

 

[T REX]

This seems like quite a bit of speculation, both about the entire Team Canada organization knowing and the assumption every GM knew this. Doubt Poile of all guys would not only trade for but also play Foote on his roster.

The onus is on every GM to find out and do their own investigations. This is PR 101. You don't want something from someone's past blowing up in your face. IMHO, the culture of hockey is at full display here. Don't ask, don't tell.

It's pretty pathetic actually. And now...any GM that iced one of these guys is going to end up resigning. The storm hasn't even started yet.

It's pretty much heads in the sand...or the little kid with their fingers in their ears...I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!

The reckoning is coming.

How is it deflecting to simply point out that other sports has as many if not much more problems than hockey and the NHL does? You can acknowledge that hockey has issues, but also look outside your own bubble to take a look at your competition and see that you're not doing badly at all.

How do you know if you're doing well or not if you're not comparing yourself to others? If you're just looking at yourself there's no perspective or context as to how well or poorly you're doing. You need to compare how you're doing to others around you and by that measure the NHL and hockey is doing better than most other sports.

So yeah hockey has its problems that it needs to deal with, but relatively speaking they're not massive and it has far fewer issues than other sports has like the NFL or soccer does for example.

Covering up an alleged gang rape isn't massive?

Uhhhh...yeah. Good luck with that. See how well that goes over.

Heads are gonna roll. Watch.

 

[Jee]

I suppose I owe Formenton an apology of sorts as I was certain he was player 1 and the king scumbag. I had him marked all wrong, he’s simply a stooge, follower, and sexual deviant

Uh ?! He still assaulted a gang raped a drunk girl...

 

[oldunclehue]

Tough to say. Fundamentally sex assault is kind of easy to prove - you sexually touched another person, and they didn't consent. Once you've proven that - guilty.

Party to the offence - you have to prove that someone sexually touched another person without their consent - but now you also have to prove that someone else did a thing (or omitted to do a thing) that aided or abetted that first person in committing the offence.

In terms of the evidence itself - I wouldn't want to speculate. But party to the offence has more elements to it.

I'd disagree with you on proving sex assault is easy....in court it is usually one of the hardest things to get convictions on due to there often being minimal evidence (unless full sex assault kit/DNA and injuries are observed), witnesses or video/photos. In my experience in court often those charged are acquitted as it turns into a "he said she said" involving consent or the actual action. "I did not grab her butt" - "He grabbed my butt" well if there is nothing else to say it happened then most times the charges are stayed or the accused is acquitted as beyond a reasonable doubt is easy to bring into question.

I don't know much about this situation other than a video was taken involving consent, text message afterwards etc....but it will be a complicated one as a defense lawyer as from what I can see so far is from her texts she felt pressured and was intoxicated....that will hold weight to a jury or judge when surrounded by 5-8 hockey players.

I am disgusted with Hockey Canada in all of this....covering up something like this and allowing these players to get away with it for years is awful. They went on to NHL contracts and life all thinking they got away with what happened.....and us who pay our hockey registration fees PAID for them to sweep this under the rug. Its AWFUL

 

[Yukon Joe]

I'd disagree with you on proving sex assault is easy....in court it is usually one of the hardest things to get convictions on due to there often being minimal evidence (unless full sex assault kit/DNA and injuries are observed), witnesses or video/photos.

Of course in practice sex assaults are hard. I specified "Fundamentally" - there's only a couple of elements to prove, while party to the offence has more.

It would be like me saying murder is easy to prove. All you need to prove is one person assaulted the other, they meant to kill the second guy and the second person died as a result. All of which is true - but in a real courtroom it's usually not that easy.

 

[robertmac43]

Even if they don’t have to surrender their passports, other countries can simply refuse them entry.

For sure. These guys won't be playing pro hockey for a long, long time.

 

[MXD]

That involves being able to leave the country, there is a chance the charges lead to them losing their passports for the time being.

Not only that, but there's also a chance that the country in which the player is moving to simply refuses to give him the right of entry.

 

[T REX]

Look, this is not untrue, but when we're fans of hockey and we're talking on a hockey forum about alleged misbehavior by hockey players that was subsequently covered up by Hockey Canada, we're talking about a hockey problem.

The "yeah well it happens in other sports" is no different than being confronted over alcoholism and going "well, I'm not the only alcoholic." Just because it's a societal problem doesn't mean it isn't also a you problem in that scenario.

And even though there is awful behavior in most monied, male-dominated lanes, hockey's manifestation of this problem has its own specific odor based on the culture and class the athletes are almost universally rooted in. Hockey's problem is the same toxic bullshit with even more expected impunity and even less perspective. We don't have to go down that rabbit hole and probably shouldn't, but "hockey culture" is a distinct thing unto itself, and this problem has its own context within it.

Boom. Mic drop. The "but what about the other leagues" is a disgusting rebuttal.

 

[nowhereman]

I suppose I owe Formenton an apology of sorts as I was certain he was player 1 and the king scumbag. I had him marked all wrong, he’s simply a stooge, follower, and sexual deviant

Eh, they're all scumbags. You don't owe Formenton an apology for being a complicit scumbag.

 

[T REX]

Nobody is touching these guys with a ten foot pole.

They are done.

They need to investigate the whole team and see who knew what and who was silent all these years. I'm not joking one bit...they are all complicit. It's like that thin blue line. Vow of silence. Anyone who knew...banished. No matter how big of a star they are right now.

Edit: It will be very easy to go back and check cell phone texts and see who texted who about this. Anyone with knowledge...indefinite suspension. No matter how big of star they are...banished.

 

[Xirik]

What's weird to me is that the closer this got to charges being filed the better Mcleod got, He was on track for a career year and getting close to a faceoff % record.

Meanwhile Hart was regressing and losing his starter position and Dube was on track to have his worst season.

Does he just have nerves of steel?

You would think he'd be a twitchy mess and accidently shooting pucks into the stands.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

I hate the fact that I ever cheered for Mike McLeod, king f'n scumbag

 

[T REX]

This seems more relevant today than before...every point she makes...can be applied to this situation. If you haven't watched this before...wow...to even try to say that hockey doesn't have a serious culture problem...you are in major denial.

 

[theVladiator]

No actually. If you've been found guilty of two more offences that are fundamentally the same thing, one charge will by "stayed" while the conviction goes against the other charge.

Kienapple v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729

The one that always sticks with me is driving while impaired, and driving with over 80 mg of alcohol in your blood. Different sections numbers, proven different ways, but fundamentally the same thing so you only get convicted of one.

That being said - there's nothing wrong here with charges both sex assault, and party to sex assault.

But in these case, it seems that each charge corresponds to a separate act. For example, he could have invited the others (incitement charge), but not participate in the assault (assault charge).