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

[Czechboy]

Yeah I agree. I think I danced around it a bit as "implied consent" is more so the ongoing actions that accompany the original consent that note it's still okay. Again, this is why it isn't necesarily used in court to prove it one way or another due to subjective nature of it, as you alluded to.



Important to note "not guilty" =/= "innocent"

OJ Simpson is the best example of that.

If they were truly innocent and this was witch-hunt level stuff, in order to recoup lost wages/income, they would have to countersue civilly to any and all parties who they feel caused that.

Our systems aren't perfect. All you can say about these things.

I said innocent the first time and not guilty the second time... Totally agree there is a difference. Especially for people with money and good lawyers. Chris Rock has a great bit on Johnny Cochrane about it...



NSFW - 9:20 to the end.lol

 

[Czechboy]

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

From what I can tell.. HF is a place where people with no knowledge of the law come to conclude that people are guilty or innocent?lol Definitely not a court room.lol

 

[theVladiator]

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

So, what do you think is going to happen if you dare to have an opinion of the facts as you know them as of today? The only thing I can think of possibly happening is new information coming out (not necessarily going to happen), and changing your mind (also, not necessarily happening either). But that's just life, man.

The judge (or jury) simply speaks and makes decisions on behalf of the judicial system, and his/her opinion is what carries as far as criminal punishment is concerned (or lack thereof). Nothing really stops you from having an opinion of your own. You also aren't really required to make up your mind "beyond reasonable doubt". Anyway, I do not think you need a judge to tell you what's right and what's wrong.

 

[T REX]

Looking for more info on the Junior Hockey Bible...saw it mentioned then was absolutely disgusted when I saw what it was about. Who has a link or a link to information about this "junior hockey bible"?

 

[Melrose Munch]

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.

Don't even pay attention to those guys. This isn't a court, you have a right to your opinion and frankly, you're right. If they believe what the say, they're probably doing the same, which you're right, it's scary.

 

[ozzie]

When you throw in intoxication or possibly intemediation, consent starts to become very blurry and difficult. The one thing that strikes me about this all, it doesn't seem like a random occurance or opportunity. If you believe in the existence of a 'playbook' and this is just normal behaviour for these players. They may have been on a mission from the start, if not this person, someone else. Not a great look.

 

[Korpse]

When you throw in intoxication or possibly intemediation, consent starts to become very blurry and difficult. The one thing that strikes me about this all, it doesn't seem like a random occurance or opportunity. If you believe in the existence of a 'playbook' and this is just normal behaviour for these players. They may have been on a mission from the start, if not this person, someone else. Not a great look.

They were on a mission. The athletic released an article detailing the events that occurred and they had approached another women that night and asked her to go back with them. She wasn’t interested.

One night in London: Allegations of sexual assault and a reckoning for Hockey Canada

The Parliament of Canada is scrutinizing what the organization did and didn't do upon learning of the allegations.

theathletic.com

 

[MikeK]

So Bettman said he'd be surprised if these players played during judicial proceedings. So that's 2 years until trial and who knows how long for a conclusion. They can Kiss their careers goodbye.

 

[ozzie]

So Bettman said he'd be surprised if these players played during judicial proceedings. So that's 2 years until trial and who knows how long for a conclusion. They can Kiss their careers goodbye.

They will always have the KHL, Hello Siberia!

 

[T REX]

They were on a mission. The athletic released an article detailing the events that occurred and they had approached another women that night and asked her to go back with them. She wasn’t interested.

One night in London: Allegations of sexual assault and a reckoning for Hockey Canada

The Parliament of Canada is scrutinizing what the organization did and didn't do upon learning of the allegations.

theathletic.com

Wow, this flew under the radar. That group text stream is going out a lot of players spared so far. The good, the bad, and the ugly. There will be pressure for all 5 to plead out before that text stream is made public. Probably promises of payoffs after jail time. I hope someone leaks it so they can't save anyone from public backlash and the truth. If I was an innocent player I would want my name cleared.

 

[MikeK]

They will always have the KHL, Hello Siberia!

Are they even allowed to leave the country?

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

They were on a mission. The athletic released an article detailing the events that occurred and they had approached another women that night and asked her to go back with them. She wasn’t interested.

One night in London: Allegations of sexual assault and a reckoning for Hockey Canada

The Parliament of Canada is scrutinizing what the organization did and didn't do upon learning of the allegations.

theathletic.com

Here's another alarming sentence from the article:

Hockey Canada officials’ testimony in front of Parliament also revealed that the organization deals with multiple sexual assault allegations every year.

 

[MikeyMike01]

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.

What’s the point of acquittals, if the individual is going to be punished regardless?

 

[T REX]

What’s the point of acquittals, if the individual is going to be punished regardless?

What do you mean? Playing in the NHL is a privilege not a right.

There's not a team in any league...NFL, NBA, MLB etc that will play any person accused of sexual assault...excuse me...charged...not just accused. The state has brought charges against them. And apparently...many things that were NOT done in the 1st investigation were done this time including interviewing ALL the witnesses and access to the team group text stream. I'm going to go out on a limb...again...IMHO...the state has a slam dunk case or they would not go through all this. And the way Bettman and Co are playing chickenbleep...I'd say these guys are fooked and there are more bodies to be uncovered.

 

[Bread and Circuses]

They will always have the KHL, Hello Siberia!

Ryan Whitney's Players Tribune article on playing in the KHL is amazing.

 

[PunchImlach is Alive]

Looking for more info on the Junior Hockey Bible...saw it mentioned then was absolutely disgusted when I saw what it was about. Who has a link or a link to information about this "junior hockey bible"?

The blog it was hosted on is gone. But this article has a decent summary: Rape Culture Has Poisoned Junior Hockey

 

[T REX]

The blog it was hosted on is gone. But this article has a decent summary: Rape Culture Has Poisoned Junior Hockey

Anyone that doesn't think hockey culture needs a huge reset...read that and then tell me there's not a huge problem. Can you do that if you can?

 

[Oak]

Anyone that doesn't think hockey culture needs a huge reset...read that and then tell me there's not a huge problem. Can you do that if you can?

It's not just hockey culture but fratboy / jock culture. This problem wont end here. Countless incidents like this happen in Colleges around the country every year they just get covered up because there is more money involved than in Canadian junior hockey.

 

[Oscar The Grouch]

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.

Frank Drebin said:
If I walk into a hotel room and a gangbang is in process, if the woman acknowledges my presence without asking me to leave, I would interpret that as consent to be there. Pretty sure the law would as well.

That was easy.

 

[Oscar The Grouch]

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

Sorry, was Jian vindicated? Dude was a gross sketch-bag who got off because Marie Heinen.

 

[Sanderson]

What’s the point of acquittals, if the individual is going to be punished regardless?

You are conflating different things. Just because you do not get punished by the state because a judge (or jury) has decided there wasn't enough evidence to convict you for a crime, doesn't mean that other entitites cannot find your behaviour still off-putting enough to want nothing to do with you. People aren't forced to form their opinion based on a rule made in court. A court-decision just means you don't face prison or a fine, it does not mean everyone must pretend you did nothing wrong. A behaviour can still be deemed morally wrong, even if not enough evidence could be found that a crime has been committed.

Look at freedom of speech and the whining of certain people about getting "silenced". Just because the state may not punish you for what you are saying, doesn't mean that people are barred from making their own judgement. They are in fact free to do so, and thus decide whether they want anything to do with you or not. Which shows the issue with the people clamoring for "total freedom of speech". It's an impossibility, because if you say that there may not be any repercussions at all for what one person has said, you automatically would take away other people's right to say what they want. Which is why this law could only possibly apply to the state and not individual people.

Or to use a hockey example: the NHL suspends players for actions on the ice even though no court has found them guilty of committing these acts. It's an internal decision by the league that certain acts will cause a punishment. So, to take this further, if the league decides that a player's behaviour violated the code of conduct, they are free to suspend / ban him for said actions, even if a court finds there wasn't enough evidence to find them guilty of a crime.

 

[BB79]

From what I can tell.. HF is a place where people with no knowledge of the law come to conclude that people are guilty or innocent?lol Definitely not a court room.lol

Pretty much

 

[MikeyMike01]

You are conflating different things. Just because you do not get punished by the state because a judge (or jury) has decided there wasn't enough evidence to convict you for a crime, doesn't mean that other entitites cannot find your behaviour still off-putting enough to want nothing to do with you. People aren't forced to form their opinion based on a rule made in court. A court-decision just means you don't face prison or a fine, it does not mean everyone must pretend you did nothing wrong. A behaviour can still be deemed morally wrong, even if not enough evidence could be found that a crime has been committed.

Look at freedom of speech and the whining of certain people about getting "silenced". Just because the state may not punish you for what you are saying, doesn't mean that people are barred from making their own judgement. They are in fact free to do so, and thus decide whether they want anything to do with you or not. Which shows the issue with the people clamoring for "total freedom of speech". It's an impossibility, because if you say that there may not be any repercussions at all for what one person has said, you automatically would take away other people's right to say what they want. Which is why this law could only possibly apply to the state and not individual people.

Or to use a hockey example: the NHL suspends players for actions on the ice even though no court has found them guilty of committing these acts. It's an internal decision by the league that certain acts will cause a punishment. So, to take this further, if the league decides that a player's behaviour violated the code of conduct, they are free to suspend / ban him for said actions, even if a court finds there wasn't enough evidence to find them guilty of a crime.

I understand that position, yes. It's one I would deeply disagree with. I do not want to live in a society of vigilante justice.

 

[4thline]

I understand that position, yes. It's one I would deeply disagree with. I do not want to live in a society of vigilante justice.

So your opinion of everyone you meet and interact with is completely the same? No change at all based on your judgement of their character, non-criminal actions, choices etc?

I call bullshit

 

[Ezekial]

So your opinion of everyone you meet and interact with is completely the same? No change at all based on your judgement of their character, non-criminal actions, choices etc?

I call bullshit

I don't see race... or gender, or friend, or foe, or family, or good people, or bad people. Humanity is one homogenous blob.