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

[Rob Brown]

I get that, but still terrible phrasing and unnecessary for him to even comment

Sure, but I don't think he needs to be wrapped up into this mess.

 

[Ezekial]

Hes by far the most famous player from that 2018 team, he needs to expect questions on the incident. Its also quite easy to give a better answer than he did.

He has answered better than that for 5 years.

 

[OilersFanatics505]

I wouldn't read into it too much. Seems to me like he just meant he was lucky he wasn't at the event in London and didn't have more knowledge or exposure to what happened.

That is how I read it. Maybe he was supposed to attend but something held him back from it.

 

[Edgelord]

I agree with you and yes rape is about power and a feeling of entitlement, and seeing women as mainly sex object just take a look at social media and when you have guys like Andrew Tate spewing their misogynist bullshit to millions of young men its disgusting. I think as men and fathers we need to educate our sons to see women as human being and not our personal sex toy, and then of course we could get into the porn industry and the role it plays in distorting young men brains.

I agree, I was raised that sex involves a partner(s), and partner(s) is the key word, as in an equal member(s) of a team effort to reach a goal.

 

[thegazelle]

IMO this is deeper than the act of rape. This boils down to how the hell do 5-7 people make such bad choices?
How does no one stand up and stop it!?
Thats whats disheartening to me.
1 bad guy, not good but knowing there are bad people it makes sense, but 5?? Was it just bad odds that 5 bad people were in that room at the same time? or is it a deeper darker look into the human animal?

I think the reasons are complex and multi-faceted, but ultimately there is a certain negative power about group pressure and inability for many people to stand up to it and do the right thing. The presence of alcohol or drugs does not help. But throughout history, we have seen countless and repeated situations of people who normally would not engage in a certain behaviour or say/do certain things, end up being involved with awful actions.

In the case of young men and hockey, there is also the heightened sense of what they perceive to be masculinity, the power that they get in realizing they have reached an apex of athletic achievement many have not, and with anything for which they feel the power/prestige, etc., there is a sense that they are immune to consequences of their actions. We see this in the corporate world where powerful executives employ all sorts of things to evade/deny bad behaviour since their journey to the top of their profession likely involved stepping over people, using people, etc. I don't think sports is much different than any other facet of life where there are social hierarchies present.

Gone are the days when people would step in, buck the peer pressure and do the right thing, even if comes at personal and social cost. Integrity and character are far and few between within the populace, and you can see this in the amount of people who stand around filming people getting beaten up/assaulted or if someone is hurt they just whip out their phones. It's a certain apathy in the human condition, a darkness in the human heart, coupled with a group mentality. There are many other complex factors which affect why people behave the way they do. Ultimately, nothing surprises me anymore, sadly. The herd mentality is more prevalent than it ever has been.

 

[Edgelord]

I think the reasons are complex and multi-faceted, but ultimately there is a certain negative power about group pressure and inability for many people to stand up to it and do the right thing. The presence of alcohol or drugs does not help. But throughout history, we have seen countless and repeated situations of people who normally would not engage in a certain behaviour or say/do certain things, end up being involved with awful actions.

In the case of young men and hockey, there is also the heightened sense of what they perceive to be masculinity, the power that they get in realizing they have reached an apex of athletic achievement many have not, and with anything for which they feel the power/prestige, etc., there is a sense that they are immune to consequences of their actions. We see this in the corporate world where powerful executives employ all sorts of things to evade/deny bad behaviour since their journey to the top of their profession likely involved stepping over people, using people, etc. I don't think sports is much different than any other facet of life where there are social hierarchies present.

Gone are the days when people would step in, buck the peer pressure and do the right thing, even if comes at personal and social cost. Integrity and character are far and few between within the populace, and you can see this in the amount of people who stand around filming people getting beaten up/assaulted or if someone is hurt they just whip out their phones. It's a certain apathy in the human condition, a darkness in the human heart, coupled with a group mentality. There are many other complex factors which affect why people behave the way they do. Ultimately, nothing surprises me anymore, sadly. The herd mentality is more prevalent than it ever has been.

1 thing thats nice about being counter-culture is you are free from the fear of herd mentality.
Plus my whole life I have heard, never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.

 

[catnip]

“It was a very fortunate bounce to not obviously be a part of something like that"

He's saying it was lucky that his non-involvement was so obvious. Which it was. If you want to see a badly formed statement, move the "obviously" to the beginning.

 

[Yukon Joe]

In Canada consent after the fact is not consent. So that would be inadmissible. On top of that there's the second video where she was coerced

I don't know what "consent after the fact" even means. The only question is did the complainant consent at the time.

If the complainant says on the stand "I did not consent", but in the videos she is saying "I consented" then it's a prior inconsistent statement and it 100% would be allowed to be used on cross-examination.

 

[Otto]

I don't know what "consent after the fact" even means. The only question is did the complainant consent at the time.

If the complainant says on the stand "I did not consent", but in the videos she is saying "I consented" then it's a prior inconsistent statement and it 100% would be allowed to be used on cross-examination.

It means she used a past tense when commenting on the video.. therefore after the fact

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/world-junior-hockey-sexual-assault-london-1.7096096

 

[roon]

Lucky bounce? Ya, I'd say he misspoke horribly......but I don't think he needs to be dragged into this.

It's pretty common phrasing in hockey. "Lucky Bounce"...all the kid meant was he very well could have been at the event and it was lucky that he wasn't and therefore avoided being drug into this mess.

 

[Yukon Joe]

All kinds of serious crimes include a small portion of false accusations. Sexual crimes are in the class of their own in that how many perpetrators get off totally scot-free, over 90% of them don't even end up in court. So, yes, this is the overwhelming concern here. The unspeakable tragedy of this safest of all crimes.

Just be careful though - each case has to be judged on its own merits. We don't go "well the large majority of sexual assaults go unpunished, so we have to make sure you guys are, whether you committed the crime or not".

 

[Edgelord]

Just be careful though - each case has to be judged on its own merits. We don't go "well the large majority of sexual assaults go unpunished, so we have to make sure you guys are, whether you committed the crime or not".

This sentiment fits on soo many levels with soo many current issues.

 

[Ail]

Lmao we now live in a world where someone can not even express gratitude that he was not involved with something of this nature without people finding a reason to be upset about it. NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T SAY IT LIKE THAT!!!!

 

[Edgelord]

Lmao we now live in a world where someone can not even express gratitude that he was not involved with something of this nature without people finding a reason to be upset about it. NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T SAY IT LIKE THAT!!!!

There seems to be a correlation between expressing moral superiority and someone's self-worth.
I personally find it a sign of social insecurity.
For instance a situation like this, I assume we all feel its a heinous act, yet we have people essentially saying, well I find it more heinous than you do, making me the better person. And that is what reeks of social insecurity IMO.

 

[llwyd]

Just be careful though - each case has to be judged on its own merits. We don't go "well the large majority of sexual assaults go unpunished, so we have to make sure you guys are, whether you committed the crime or not".

Well, I haven't actually taken any strong stand on this case though the details so far don't appear very good for the accused.

Though I will go as far as to say that the reasonable doubt threshold (as justified as it is) will actually let also some guilty people go free (many more, I bet, than there are genuinely false allegations) - that's the price we pay for due and impartial process. Trials are not about the truth but about the proof.

 

[Djp]

Wondering about the other 3. Original accusation had 8 accused.

 

[thegazelle]

This discussion has hit on so many facets of our culture, human behaviour, the legal system, guilt and innocence, power and entitlement, and procedural nuance and shortcomings.

I think if I was younger, I would have a slightly different perspective, but with being older now, having kids of my own, including a daughter, I see things under a different lens than the younger me.

For those who intimate that the victim here is making stuff up, lying, etc., is pretty appalling. Does it happen? Absolutely. But I have lived life long enough to realize that in the sheer bulk of the cases, accusations and particularly charges are not without merit. The average person does not get hit with these accusations and subsequent charges. The context of accusations, however, are important to consider.

When I was going through my divorce many years ago, my now ex-wife got hooked up with someone she met on Facebook (a big reason why I tend to avoid social media platforms in which you have to sacrifice some privacy), and ultimately smuggled this guy into Canada in the trunk of her car and tried to get him to live with us (we were separated at the time). Looking back, I would not have believed it myself if I didn't have to live through it.

I refused to let this guy into the house and she ended up, after a couple of days, putting him in a hotel and then they got into a fight, she called the cops on him and ultimately when the police showed up and found out who he was, it was determined that he should not be in Canada as he is a convicted US felon who spent more than 18 years in prison. You can imagine my consternation when I found this out later.

After he was deported, she continued to keep in touch with him, eventually driving 10+ hours on a regular basis, foregoing her responsible for our young kids, for ultimately months at a time.

I am mentioning all of this because of one reason: while this guy was no longer allowed to be in Canada, he did everything in power, in conjunction with her, to get me kicked out of my home, where I refused to abandon, after seeking legal advice. So what she ended up doing was calling the police on quite a normal basis, accusing me of the most dumbest of things, and in all cases, the police easily found holes in her story (not to mention they had all the police reports and previous history with the felon, etc.). Despite (and are you read for this?), 17-18 calls to the police accusing me of various things, not once was I charged. Not once.

The police understood the context that was underlying the accusations. Still it was extremely unpleasant to have to keep going into the police station to defend myself but I was prepared to do it as I had both the truth on my side, and my kids that I had to keep at the forefront. In the end, the kids ended up being assigned a provincial lawyer and they all clearly indicated they wanted to live with me. That to me, was vindication to some degree, though it didn't prevent the collateral damage that my reputation took for a short time. Thankfully character matters, and lots of people - friends, family, coworkers came to my defence and ultimately nothing went anywhere.

In this case, the context is very important. We have a single woman making accusations, young men clearly had a power imbalance due to their positions, a group herd mentality that almost can guaranteed was exacerbated with alcohol, and not only were they allegations but now criminal charges. Can they be found not guilty? Of course they can and thankfully we live in a country where there is a presumption of innocence. But normal people don't just get charged for no reason, and charges generally coincide with the presence of evidence. We're not talking 50 years ago where technology to produce / confirm evidence was scant and back then it relied on eyewitness accounts. Now, despite technology's shortcomings, the advent of the same have yielded some positive contributions to finding out what really happened. Can evidence be manipulated, tainted, etc. Yes, but there are more controls in place now than ever before. What I worry about mostly are people who are in positions of privilege or power who manipulate the legal system to take advantage of loopholes or technicalities to get away with it.

Despite my history of being falsely accused many times, I don't really have any reason not to believe EM, the victim here. She really has nothing else to gain at this point (except justice, which is absolutely the right thing to seek) and lots to lose, insofar as having to re-live it all. And for those five men whose NHL careers may likely be over as a result of this, ultimately in this whole sad situation, there are no winners.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Well, I haven't actually taken any strong stand on this case though the details so far don't appear very good for the accused.

Though I will go as far as to say that the reasonable doubt threshold (as justified as it is) will actually let also some guilty people go free (many more, I bet, than there are genuinely false allegations) - that's the price we pay for due and impartial process. Trials are not about the truth but about the proof.

There's a saying that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free that imprison one innocent person (although the number changes depending on the telling).

Disagree about the last sentence - trials are 100% a search for the truth.

 

[Edgelord]

There's a saying that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free that imprison one innocent person (although the number changes depending on the telling).

Disagree about the last sentence - trials are 100% a search for the truth.

I think it depends on the case, there has been too many examples of partisan behavior affecting who gets arrested, who is found guilty, if a person will get a fair trial depending on where the trial is etc

 

[llwyd]

Disagree about the last sentence - trials are 100% a search for the truth.

Nope, they really are about evidence: law is a very cumbersome, complicated and scary process. A good friend of mine, we were in our mid-20's then, actually did get falsely accused by totally deranged but very credible ex and was convicted for a short prison sentence. He thought he didn't really need to defend himself or spend money for a good lawyer as the whole thing was so absurd. And absurd it was, Kafkaesque. I lost my illusions back then.

Anyway, I think reasonable doubt is a very sensible hurdle - even if there can be even pretty obviously guilty people who go free (often because the case was botched for some reason or other). The process is solely about evidence and what is accepted as such, and the decisions are based on that, well, of course in common law systems also emotions come into play as there is an amateur jury. An upredictable, often inhumane and impersonal process.

 

[DingerMcSlapshot]

It's pretty common phrasing in hockey. "Lucky Bounce"...all the kid meant was he very well could have been at the event and it was lucky that he wasn't and therefore avoided being drug into this mess.

Kid lol.

 

[Strangle]

After posting in this thread the last few days and communicating/reading some mind-numbing takes that use a lot of words to try and come off "intelligent" or as the "devils advocate" to help disguise what they really want to say...

...I can't help but wonder if these same people would be posting these thoughts online if the veil of anonymity was lifted and their face, name, location, job were all readily availble to see next to their post.

If this was how the internet worked, it would only be filled with advertising.

No one would speak about anything online if you could threaten their job over it. Just like no one in their right mind would start a conversation around rape in the office itself

Kid lol.

There are kids and there are boomers. Theres nothing else

 

[thegazelle]

There's a saying that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free that imprison one innocent person (although the number changes depending on the telling).

Disagree about the last sentence - trials are 100% a search for the truth.

Generally agree, BUT the problem now is that our legal system can be bogged down in technicalities in which the truth may not be presentable, even if it can be compelling or conclusive.

Case in point, during my divorce, I installed a couple of hidden cameras around the house, recording outside the front doorway and then inside the front hallway. There was a point where I (through my lawyer) indicated she left for a prolonged period of time when she was supposed to have the kids. She of course denied that and said she was home the whole time. I am sure her passport would reveal otherwise, but when I presented the whole series of videos (the entire set) to my lawyer, she said it wouldn't be admissible in court as she was not aware that I was recording. I said the recording shows her leaving and not coming back - nothing was edited. She said I can't use it.

Similarly my oldest son at the time recorded on his phone audio and videos of several instances of her talking to the felon she met on Facebook and they had very graphic sexual discussions, in front of my other very young kids. When I first brought up this point through my lawyer as a way to show she did not have the kids' best interest in mind, she denied that and when I produced the video and audio, again I could not submit it due to my son not asking her permission to record her.

Lawyers can indicate the legal procedural reasons for this, but that has always left a bad taste in my mouth and frustration in my brain, insofar as being able to prove something, yet am not able to do.

So while I generally agree that the truth is what trials are after, between the existing system and slick lawyer tricks, getting to the truth can be circumvented.

 

[roon]

Kid lol.

Cale Makar is a kid...he is only 25 - still wet behind the ears.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Nope, they really are about evidence: law is a very cumbersome, complicated and scary process. A good friend of mine, we were in our mid-20's then, actually did get falsely accused by totally deranged but very credible ex and was convicted for a short prison sentence. He thought he didn't really need to defend himself or spend money for a good lawyer as the whole thing was so absurd. And absurd it was, Kafkaesque. I lost my illusions back then.

Anyway, I think reasonable doubt is a very sensible hurdle - even if there can be even pretty obviously guilty people who go free (often because the case was botched for some reason or other). The process is solely about evidence and what is accepted as such, and the decisions are based on that, well, of course in common law systems also emotions come into play as there is an amateur jury. An upredictable, often inhumane and impersonal process.

OK so this is getting philosophical, but still I maintain - trials are a search for the truth.

Note I didn't say they find the truth. I mean - there are whole philosophical treatises about what is Truth (with a capital T). But that's the point of the whole exercise.

The law of evidence is a process at how we attempt to arrive at the truth. We just don't allow any random shit to be flung at the wall to see what sticks.

But at the end of the day - the judge wants to get at the truth. No judge is going to sit on his or her hands to disallow otherwise valid and useful evidence just because it technically violates some narrow rule of evidence. And no judge is going to allow some complete horseshit just because it happens to comply with some narrow rule of evidence.

I'll let you all in on two basic principles in Canadian criminal law. First is the "principled exception to the hearsay rule". That is - evidence which might ordinarily be excluded can go in where it has been established that the evidence is both 1. Necessary and 2. Reliable. (established in R v Khan [1990] 2 SCR 531).

Second, is the trial judge always has the discretion to disallow a piece of evidence. They can do so when the prejudicial value of that evidence outweighs it's probative (or truth-finding) value.


Anyways like I said trials are a search for the truth. Clearly they don't always get it right, but that is the entire point of the exercise.