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

[I am toxic]

You are the one that said the pizza player didn't receive consent.

He didn't touch the victim, so what exactly did he need consent for other than existing in the room?

You have no idea what I am talking about, just as you have no idea what consent to sex means.

 

[Frank Drebin]

You have no idea what I am talking about, just as you have no idea what consent to sex means.

You're right, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a fairly good idea what consent to sex means. If you can find one post in my history that contradicts that, go ahead and show me.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Normally I’d agree with that, however, there are examples when not true, I learned.

Supreme Court of Canada upholds acquittal in sex assault case revolving around consent - The Globe and Mail

A key piece of evidence in the trial was a video recording of the complainant saying she consented to the sex

www.theglobeandmail.com

Not familiar with that case,

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc1/2024scc1.html

Is the decision itself.

I think I can say this - this was a decision of a military court martial. It was appealed to the Court Martial Appeal's Court, where there was a split decision. As a result the SCC has to take the case.

That being said, the SCC found there was no error of law by the lower court and declined to intervene. This, as a result, shouldn't be taken as having any great precedential value.

But the facts in the Globe article? Yikes.

 

[OG Eberle]

Cool, did you read the article I posted on consent, where I quoted you on the previous page, post 4898.

I did. And that doesn't change anything about what I said.

It's the first time someone was aquitted ever on sexual assault charges where the accuser was inebriated. First time. Happy to show you hundreds/thousands of instances where it wasn't acquited if you like?

By my calculations, it seems like a VERY risky proposition to use that single ruling to justify/as precedent for one to have sex with someone who's drunk and consented while drunk to the act.

But hey, to each their own.

 

[Yukon Joe]

It's the first time someone was aquitted ever on sexual assault charges where the accuser was inebriated. First time. Happy to show you hundreds/thousands of instances where it wasn't acquited if you like?

By my calculations, it seems like a VERY risky proposition to use that single ruling to justify/as precedent for one to have sex with someone who's drunk and consented while drunk to the act.

But hey, to each their own.

I can assure you it's not the first time.

But yes - just because one person, one time got away with something on a particular set of facts, don't take that as a rule to live by. Much better to make sure you never wind up being charged in the first place.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

I remember my wife and I discussing these style of consent rules and for fun we tried and it was outright laughable how they expect couples to be intimate. I am sure we may have overdone it on consent requests but we followed the law to the letter and its silly.
It removed all intimacy and turned something erotic into a tit for tat clinical exercise

A mutual friend ruined his chances with an attractive girl in our social circle because he approached early parts of dating like that. She thought he straight up couldn’t read social cues I remember.

 

[TopC0rner]

Eg. Hart is UFA and makes 4 million. He was going to get a raise and bigger contract for sure. Does he get paid till end of year and then what? Sit and wait for 2 years? Play in KHL? Backyard rink?
If he's proven guilty.. good. However, if he's found not guilty...

Maybe he should have thought about that before gangbanging a girl that didn't want to.

 

[I am toxic]

You're right, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a fairly good idea what consent to sex means. If you can find one post in my history that contradicts that, go ahead and show me.

Your post #4751, which OG quoted and explained it to you.

And of course you don't understand what I am talking about. You want to build a straw man about consent to be in a room, and it completely blinded you to what I was saying.

But here it is again, it clearly needs repeating. If you are not sure whether you are witnessing a gang bang or a gang rape, DO default to the latter (and DON'T make straw man bs).

 

[Czechboy]

Maybe he should have thought about that before gangbanging a girl that didn't want to.

I must've missed the trial and the guilty verdict. Or you missed the part that said 'what if he is not guilty'.

I'm waiting till a judge decides personally.

 

[TopC0rner]

Let’s say it was a reluctant yes because it was 5+ guys and just her. Does the whole under duress thing go away if she said stop during it and they stopped? They could claim she could have said no from the start

Just because non-consent is indicated at a later point doesn't mean consent was given previously. Imo, in terms of what they did, they still would be scum. In a court of law, a defense that it was an honest mistake might be more believable.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I did. And that doesn't change anything about what I said.

It's the first time someone was aquitted ever on sexual assault charges where the accuser was inebriated. First time. Happy to show you hundreds/thousands of instances where it wasn't acquited if you like?

By my calculations, it seems like a VERY risky proposition to use that single ruling to justify/as precedent for one to have sex with someone who's drunk and consented while drunk to the act.

But hey, to each their own.

No idea why you are so testy, especially when I said I agreed with you, but found this article. Relax dude it’s Friday.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Gary: "An informed journalist is asking me questions about something I want to keep hush hush? Let's move on to the next reporter so I can talk about how much fans love the digital ads on boards."

Today’s trial is sponsored by Draft Kings

 

[Melrose Munch]

Cool, did you read the article I posted on consent, where I quoted you on the previous page, post 4898.

What is with your need to play devil's advocate?

I think we all understand no means no - why these 5 players didn't is beyond me.

 

[Golden_Jet]

What is with your need to play devil's advocate?

I think we all understand no means no - why these 5 players didn't is beyond me.

No devil’s advocate, I just wait until a court decides, and all the facts come out.
As opposed to guilty before innocent,
Prefer to talk about facts we know, vs speculating. Like yesterday someone posted some BS about pizza guy, and then proven wrong.

But you do you, if you prefer guilty before innocence. It doesn’t look good for the 5, but I prefer to let a jury decide.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

Where or when can we find out who the other 3 guys that the NHL is protecting are?

 

[Melrose Munch]

No devil’s advocate, I just wait until a court decides, and all the facts come out.
As opposed to guilty before innocent,
Prefer to talk about facts we know, vs speculating. Like yesterday someone posted some BS about pizza guy, and then proven wrong.

But you do you, if you prefer guilty before innocence. It doesn’t look good for the 5, but I prefer to let a jury decide.

The entire thread was speculation until we got the names! The facts are we have 5 guys, one has two charges now, and one lied to his team about why he needed to go on leave. Who cares about the pizza guy at this point until the trial, but there's no reason to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. At all. They shouldn't have been there to begin with.

 

[TopC0rner]

I must've missed the trial and the guilty verdict. Or you missed the part that said 'what if he is not guilty'.

I'm waiting till a judge decides personally.

Imo, what I said stands regardless of whether he's recognized as criminally guilty or not. No one forced Hart to participate in this event. He has only himself to blame. He should thank his lucky star that the police dragged it for so long that he's even been able to earn quite a bit of money.

I think many people confuse law and morality. One doesn't have to do something criminal for it to be morally reprehensible, and sometimes what's criminal may not be immoral either.

Take the Gomeshi case, he was "not guilty" in the criminal case, but what he did was still something the public deemed wrong and he won't be employed the way he did before. I don't have any pity for him, the way he acted is his responsibility alone too.

To add to that, our legal system is built in such a way that it's better to let 10 guilty individuals receive non-guilty verdicts if it can save 1 innocent individual from receiving a guilty verdict. So, the verdict that comes out is far from "proving innocence". A system where the burden of proof is placed on the accused does a better job at proving innocence but will give guilty verdicts to more innocents than ours.

 

[Czechboy]

Imo, what I said stands regardless of whether he's recognized as criminally guilty or not. No one forced Hart to participate in this event. He has only himself to blame. He should thank his lucky star that the police dragged it for so long that he's even been able to earn quite a bit of money.

I think many people confuse law and morality. One doesn't have to do something criminal for it to be morally reprehensible, and sometimes what's criminal may not be immoral either.

Take the Gomeshi case, he was "not guilty" in the criminal case, but what he did was still something the public deemed wrong and he won't be employed the way he did before. I don't have any pity for him, the way he acted is his responsibility alone too.

To add to that, our legal system is built in such a way that it's better to let 10 guilty individuals receive non-guilty verdicts if it can save 1 innocent individual from receiving a guilty verdict. So, the verdict that comes out is far from "proving innocence". A system where the burden of proof is placed on the accused does a better job at proving innocence but will give guilty verdicts to more innocents than ours.

Jian is exactly why I'm not rushing to judgment till the judge speaks.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Wait...so Hockey Canada has settled how many of these? 21? Spending over $9 million dollars?

For the record, $6.8 million of that was the Graham James case.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Bettman conviently 'just' completed the in house investigation and they were 'just' discussing how to move forward when the 5 were summoned.

OOOOOOKKKKKK. Right then

If you believe this, In related news, I have just come into possession of a brand new bridge! DM me if you're interested in buying it.

 

[T REX]

For the record, $6.8 million of that was the Graham James case.

Well, that certainly makes it appear so much better. My bad.

 

[OG Eberle]

No idea why you are so testy, especially when I said I agreed with you, but found this article. Relax dude it’s Friday.

Not sure where in my response was "testy" to you?

All I said was the number of convictions for sexual assault where the accuser was drunk/inebriated GREATLY outweights the number that are overturned. I proceeded to say that if your reasoning for having sex with someone who is drunk is based off that one overturned case you quoted me, that its your choice, but odds aren't in your favour for working out for you should the other party press charges.

If that set of statements offends you or comes off as "testy" (whatever that means in this context), I'm sorry facts make you uncomfortable? Perhaps you should self-reflect on why it makes you feel that way.

 

[OG Eberle]

What is with your need to play devil's advocate?

I think we all understand no means no - why these 5 players didn't is beyond me.

Further to this that seems to be going over many "devils advocate" minds;

not explictly saying "yes" also = no

Again, cause someone is bound to say I'm judging these 5 before the court, etc...,

All my posts are about consent and with a context to sex. I don't have an opinion on this specific case as I don't have specific facts outside of names of the accused and the allegations. But it seems there is a not-insignificant population here that seems clueless as to what "consent to sex" looks like initially and throughout the process. And many seem to have a very strong opinion on this in spite of that...

Scary shit if you ask me.

 

[333359]

I must've missed the trial and the guilty verdict. Or you missed the part that said 'what if he is not guilty'.

I'm waiting till a judge decides personally.

Is HF a court room? In the States and Canada that innocent until proven guilty thing is only in court.

 

[Alicat]

Also in the article is this

" ... Court documents obtained on Thursday by TSN and CTV National News show that McLeod was also charged with a second count of sexual assault for “being a party to the offence.”

Anyone convicted of sexual assault faces a maximum 10 years in prison according to the Canadian Criminal Code, although first-time offenders are more likely to be sentenced to around two years, said David Butt, who was a Crown attorney from 1989-2002 and now works as a defence lawyer in Toronto.

Butt said “being a party to the offence” is someone who “aids or abets” the commission of the offence. Butt said it’s unclear how much prison time McLeod might face if he’s convicted of both charges because multiple convictions may lead to sentences being served concurrently rather than consecutively."