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

[TheBeastCoast]

How do you feel about innocent Russians?

They should be playing. Have said this previously.

 

[Strangle]

They should be playing. Have said this previously.

You and I agree on both of these issues then!

 

[Bear of Bad News]

STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT - unless and until details warrant, we will be closing this thread 24 hours from right now (call it noon EST on February 7, 2024).

Get it out of your systems now, please.

 

[Yukon Joe]

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.

So friend, I don't know what jurisdiction you're in, and I don't practice family law...

but I'm going to suggest that you already said you won your court case, and there's the possibility your lawyer just didn't want to go down that road. Sometimes I have clients saying "well why didn't you call this piece of evidence" and I just try to gently say that it doesn't help us that much versus how long it will take and it risks the judge losing focus on what is the really good evidence for us.

Besides - setting up secret cameras to spy on your soon-to-be-ex isn't a really great look for you.

 

[llwyd]

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

Yeah, I think pretty philosophical. I would say that trials are a process to determine guilt or innocence (or non-guilt) as determined by a very complicated and often arcane criteria and executed within a mingbogglingly complex system of rules. The process is related to the question of truth but the law and all it's myriad procedures take the centre stage, not actual empirism. I would say that by far the purest method for aiming for truth and objectivity is natural science - and even there lots of philosophers would have reservations and criticisms.

Law is absurdly removed from any such aim for actual objectivity, it's all about a specific, absolutely complicated process for a specific purpose. Anyway, this is really way off-topic but a very interesting subject and so nice to be able to disagree respectfully and have a good discussion!

 

[Nut Upstrom]

Do you think the effects would be worse if she was assaulted or just lying about them?

The best scenario for all involved is that she lied. Unless you'd rather that she was telling the truth and assaulted. Think about it.

"Think about it." Gosh you're so clever. Should we join hands and send up prayers that she's lying so we can join you in talking bullshit circles around a woman being sexually assaulted?
Is this your response to every rape case? What sort of fantasy land lunacy is that?

When you get Amber alerts do you suggest that the child is just on a sleigh ride with Santa?

 

[Deadly Dogma]

Ummm.....what?

oops I thought I was typing to my daughter but I was on the wrong text window

 

[Leonardo87]

oops I thought I was typing to my daughter but I was on the wrong text window

Mighty Ducks is a good movie.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Yeah, I think pretty philosophical. I would say that trials are a process to determine guilt or innocence (or non-guilt) as determined by a very complicated and often arcane criteria and executed within a mingbogglingly complex system of rules. The process is related to the question of truth but the law and all it's myriad procedures take the centre stage, not actual empirism. I would say that by far the purest method for aiming for truth and objectivity is natural science - and even there lots of philosophers would have reservations and criticisms.

Law is absurdly removed from any such aim for actual objectivity, it's all about a specific, absolutely complicated process for a specific purpose. Anyway, this is really way off-topic but a very interesting subject and so nice to be able to disagree respectfully and have a good discussion!

So sure - the rules of evidence can be complex. There's a reason why I had to go to law school for three years, article and take bar admission courses for another year, and am still learning about them after almost 20 years of practicing.

But once you understand them - and the reason WHY we have them - it all boils down to "search for truth".

 

[Deadly Dogma]

Mighty Ducks is a good movie.

I've been vetoed, my wife said Sandlot lol

 

[Kane One]

I've been vetoed, my wife said Sandlot lol

Your wife is right. The Sandlot is easily the best sports movie ever. At minimum, it’s the greatest sports movie for children.

 

[TopC0rner]

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'm not so sure that the video helps in searching for the truth for several reasons:
- As far as I know, the recording device was wiped and couldn't be looked at
- The victim already said she was unaware that she was being recorded
- The videos are very short and lack general context
- These elements together are problematic, for there could have been multiple videos where the defendant picked/edited bits that he believes served him the best when others could have been even more incriminating (ie: she could have been asked a number of times about her consent where the only video kept was the one which answer was satisfying for the defendant)
- Convincing the victim that she did consent after the facts when she did not at the time the acts were committed is coercion. It's a common tactic by abusers and manipulators, but those types of arguments by the defense are often rejected from my reading of several cases I've seen (I'm not a lawyer though).

Because of those elements, I could see the video as being inadmissible as evidence if the Crown objects to it (which it may not for it may be a piece they want in to get a conviction).

 

[Deadly Dogma]

I was just doing a lil introspective thinking, and I know where my defensive instinct is coming from.
1st off, I want to make it clear that any posts that may seem defensive does not reflect my opinion of the people involved, I feel they should face justice, I feel that the allegations paint a nasty picture and justice will be served.
Saying that, I guess subconsciously I was associating some outrage as attacks on hockey in general, and I genuinely love the game so I got defensive.
Its why soo many of my posts had a theme of trying to shift blame from hockey culture to human nature.

 

[TropicOfNoReturn]

Yeah good luck with that

A pipe dream, I know.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I'm not so sure that the video helps in searching for the truth for several reasons:
- As far as I know, the recording device was wiped and couldn't be looked at
- The victim already said she was unaware that she was being recorded
- The videos are very short and lack general context
- These elements together are problematic, for there could have been multiple videos where the defendant picked/edited bits that he believes served him the best when others could have been even more incriminating (ie: she could have been asked a number of times about her consent where the only video kept was the one which answer was satisfying for the defendant)
- Convincing the victim that she did consent after the facts when she did not at the time the acts were committed is coercion. It's a common tactic by abusers and manipulators, but those types of arguments by the defense are often rejected from my reading of several cases I've seen (I'm not a lawyer though).

Because of those elements, I could see the video as being inadmissible as evidence if the Crown objects to it (which it may not for it may be a piece they want in to get a conviction).

To there's two ways to look at the admissibility of a piece of evidence: threshold reliability, and ultimate reliability.

Threshold reliability is: does this evidence meet the basic standards of reliability such that it should be considered at trial.

Ultimate reliability is: is this evidence so compelling that it decides the trial.

Actually - lets park threshold reliability for a moment. The complainant is going to be a witness at trial. He evidence on the stand is her evidence - not any prior statement. A statement is an out of court statement. Introducing an out-of-court statement for the truth of it's contents is the definition of hearsay. Hearsay is presumptively inadmissible (with tons of exceptions).

One of those exceptions is a prior inconsistent statement. So presumably the complainant takes the stand to say "I didn't consent". If there's a video of her saying "I consented" that is a prior inconsistent statement and would likely be admissible.

But that's where we get to threshold reliability. Just because the video is admissible doesn't mean it decides the matter. The complainant will be given an opportunity to view the video and to explain it. She might say she was so intoxicated she doesn't remember. She might say that wasn't her. She might say she was coerced into making it - who knows! The judge, at the end of the day, could very easily disregard that video in coming to the final decision (aka ultimate reliability).

But, unless the Crown can somehow demonstrate that the video has been altered in some fashion, I doubt very much a judge would exclude it entirely. Because (to go back to an earlier post) to do so would get away from the search for truth.

 

[Evilhomer]

To there's two ways to look at the admissibility of a piece of evidence: threshold reliability, and ultimate reliability.

Threshold reliability is: does this evidence meet the basic standards of reliability such that it should be considered at trial.

Ultimate reliability is: is this evidence so compelling that it decides the trial.

Actually - lets park threshold reliability for a moment. The complainant is going to be a witness at trial. He evidence on the stand is her evidence - not any prior statement. A statement is an out of court statement. Introducing an out-of-court statement for the truth of it's contents is the definition of hearsay. Hearsay is presumptively inadmissible (with tons of exceptions).

One of those exceptions is a prior inconsistent statement. So presumably the complainant takes the stand to say "I didn't consent". If there's a video of her saying "I consented" that is a prior inconsistent statement and would likely be admissible.

But that's where we get to threshold reliability. Just because the video is admissible doesn't mean it decides the matter. The complainant will be given an opportunity to view the video and to explain it. She might say she was so intoxicated she doesn't remember. She might say that wasn't her. She might say she was coerced into making it - who knows! The judge, at the end of the day, could very easily disregard that video in coming to the final decision (aka ultimate reliability).

But, unless the Crown can somehow demonstrate that the video has been altered in some fashion, I doubt very much a judge would exclude it entirely. Because (to go back to an earlier post) to do so would get away from the search for truth.

This is why I became a securities lawyer instead of a litigator. No emotions in IPOs.

 

[Yukon Joe]

This is why I became a securities lawyer instead of a litigator. No emotions in IPOs.

Curiously, that's the exact reason I became a litigator instead of a securities lawyer!

 

[theVladiator]

I keep coming back to an experiment done in the 70's or 80's. They took students who passed psychological tests and made some in total control of the others, IIRC it was supposed to last a set amount of time but had to be called off because the ones in control started to abuse the others and their safety was at risk.
This experiment implies that the power is what corrupts.
Then that leads to the question, are we all capable of horrific actions if given enough power?

Sounds like you are talking about Stanford prison experiment. I do not believe its results imply what you think they imply. Power imbalance was only part of the equation, but the it was also based on special dehumanizing tricks, and the participants were told to recreate notoriously abusive environment. Even so, behavior of many of the "guards" remained civil. I would say that "experiment" is more about institutional corruption, than it is about individuals. Applies to what we are seeing here with regards to HC and junior hockey.

 

[Melrose Munch]

I was just doing a lil introspective thinking, and I know where my defensive instinct is coming from.
1st off, I want to make it clear that any posts that may seem defensive does not reflect my opinion of the people involved, I feel they should face justice, I feel that the allegations paint a nasty picture and justice will be served.
Saying that, I guess subconsciously I was associating some outrage as attacks on hockey in general, and I genuinely love the game so I got defensive.
Its why soo many of my posts had a theme of trying to shift blame from hockey culture to human nature.

Well I mean we all love the game. Still, we recognize an issue with hockey specifically, because of the nature of the cover-ups, the deflections towards other sports/society, and the fact that management and authority figures participate in it.

We all love the game, but it needs clean-up. I've seen other sports fall off and become less popular, I don't want that for hockey.

 

[Deadly Dogma]

Well I mean we all love the game. Still, we recognize an issue with hockey specifically, because of the nature of the cover-ups, the deflections towards other sports/society, and the fact that management and authority figures participate in it.

We all love the game, but it needs clean-up. I've seen other sports fall off and become less popular, I don't want that for hockey.

It presents a conundrum in that you need that theme of toxic masculinity in sports if you want to be the best, yet that same toxic masculinity brings all the negatives we want to get rid of.

 

[AlainVigneaultsGum]

oops I thought I was typing to my daughter but I was on the wrong text window

Lmfaooooo awesome

 

[VivaLasVegas]

STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT - unless and until details warrant, we will be closing this thread 24 hours from right now (call it noon EST on February 7, 2024).

Get it out of your systems now, please.

Good call.

 

[AlainVigneaultsGum]

STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT - unless and until details warrant, we will be closing this thread 24 hours from right now (call it noon EST on February 7, 2024).

Get it out of your systems now, please.

Welp. It's been a slice, guys. Definitely one of the threads in HFBoards history.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

Your wife is right. The Sandlot is easily the best sports movie ever. At minimum, it’s the greatest sports movie for children.

you’re killing me, Smalls

 

[Andre Palot]

Your wife is right. The Sandlot is easily the best sports movie ever. At minimum, it’s the greatest sports movie for children.

The latter I could understand but disagree with still.

But the greatest sports movie of all time is Raging Bull.