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

[Sasha Orlov]

Civil cases are such a sham...the victim usually spends crazy amounts of cash and time and usually ends up never seeing a cent. I am also not a fan that at least here in the US a 7-5 verdict is enough in a civil case...I am not sure that unanimous is necessarily needed but would like to see the rules be at least 9-3.

It’s also much much easier to sue in the US vs Canada

Legal culture is way more litigious there than here

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

Civil cases are such a sham...the victim usually spends crazy amounts of cash and time and usually ends up never seeing a cent. I am also not a fan that at least here in the US a 7-5 verdict is enough in a civil case...I am not sure that unanimous is necessarily needed but would like to see the rules be at least 9-3.

I guess that your experience as a trial attorney has been different than mine.

 

[andora]

Everyone citing the video.. is the video actually out there or is everyone just taking what has been written and interpreting it without any visual context

 

[abax44]

We have criminal charges. That’s enough to think that a crime may have occurred.

"Think" " May have occured"... pretty solid evidence.

Like I said, we (you, me, HFB) have no proof that any rape occurred. If proof conclusively shows they did in fact rape her, I'm all for them getting punished to the full extent of the law.

 

[Ezekial]

Someone who types $$$$ instead of money every single time doesn't seem like someone with valid opinions. Maybe that's shallow of me.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Her saying it’s consensual on video means little IMO as there is a strong likelihood she was under duress. People have lied their ass off when they’ve thought themselves in danger. Recording multiple times is shady in itself. They knew they were doing something wrong and running a risk

 

[Sasha Orlov]

I guess that your experience as a trial attorney has been different than mine.

For real, I’m out here handing out settlements to people who would get demolished at trial just to avoid the expense/hassle

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

"Think" " May have occured"... pretty solid evidence.

Like I said, we (you, me, HFB) have no proof that any rape occurred. If proof conclusively shows they did in fact rape her, I'm all for them getting punished to the full extent of the law.

We’re pre-trial. I’m not gonna say that I know anything for sure. But they will be arrested for a crime. And that’s enough to let people think about the possibility that they committed a crime. I’m not convicting anyone. And no one should absolve them until the facts are out.

 

[Leonardo87]

Just came to revisit this thread after an evening off and a good nap to see how many of the Mods survived.

 

[KnightofBoston]

Her saying it’s consensual on video means little IMO as there is a strong likelihood she was under duress. People have lied their ass off when they’ve thought themselves in danger. Recording multiple times is shady in itself. They knew they were doing something wrong and running a risk

there's also a massive difference between the mind of an 18-21 year old and that that mind many years later. You recognize things you did not have the experience to fully understand at the time.


Teaching young people about how to navigate sex and relationships is really a critical piece of preventing harm in the future

 

[super6646]

In lots of cases, primarily those that take time and require additional resources, charges are not laid right away. This is because once the information is laid (aka charges), it begins the Jordan clock (See R. v Jordan case law).

Once a charge is laid, trial must happen within 18 months. If police are unable to gather the evidence in time, it is not a good idea to get charges laid right away. In some cases it makes sense if a victim’s safety is in jeopardy, such as domestic violence.

An example of something taking time would be the following:

Police execute a search warrant and electronic devices are seized. Now either the search warrant includes the search of the actual device or a second search warrant must be granted. Now let’s say that part was done. The electronic devices along with the warrant must be sent to the appropriate parties to extract the data. After that, the data must be analyzed. This all takes several months to complete in many cases.

Many people complain why the police aren’t doing anything and/or are slow, but that’s an explanation for everything to ensure things are done properly and lawfully. Should the 18 months elapse and trial does not happen, all charges are dropped.

This is my simple quick explanation.

Source: I am a Canadian Police Officer.

Was a pretty precedent-setting case, and from what I've been told a total pain in the ass for law enforcement to deal with.

 

[rec28]

How are you able to say that it was grudgingly? And then explain how these guys are supposed to know the difference.

Retroactive consent isn’t a thing.

 

[JIMVINNY]

Retroactive consent isn’t a thing.

All the evidence points to her giving consent both before and after. What absolutely SHOULDN'T be a thing is the retroactive retraction of consent.

 

[AlphaLackey]

I understand what you are saying and agree that in principle it can be the case. However, let's be fair.

David Pastrnak scores a lot of goals in the NHL.

I dress for one game by some ridiculous freaky odd set of circumstances. Even more freaky, as I'm standing frozen in panic in front of the goal, a shot off Connor McDavid's stick ricochets off my ass and past an unsuspecting and much surprised Igor Shesterkin into the net.

I raise my stick in celebration, disbelief, and awe over the fact that I am now just like David Pastrnak.

Except of course I'm not. And your example, although technically correct, is about a grounded in reality and likelihood as mine.

The reason why I would disagree with that is because the situation I describe compares two people who really are equals in the situation, and far from being a rare case, it's probably the single most common one on American campuses. Part of gender equality means shedding the double standard that sex is only for men to enjoy and only for women to provide access to.

And let me be crystal clear, I am not talking about cases like Brock Turner. Only a very poorly worded California law -- one that was changed immediately after -- prevented him from receiving a much larger sentence. Just to add another case to my "it REALLY IS important how a law is worded" pile.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

All the evidence points to her giving consent both before and after. What absolutely SHOULDN'T be a thing is the retroactive retraction of consent.

You’ve seen literally none of the evidence lmfao you just read a report

 

[rec28]

All the evidence points to her giving consent both before and after. What absolutely SHOULDN'T be a thing is the retroactive retraction of consent.

What evidence? Are you a member of the LPD? A member of a parties’ legal team? Have you reviewed the disclosure materials?

 

[LesCanadiens]

Innocent unless proven guilty. We'll find out in due time.

I worked for years as a nightclub doorman back in the day. And have witnessed or was told about all sorts of situations from many sides. And not every situation is cut-and-dry. And sometimes people twist the truth for various reasons. If the evidence is there that this was rape, then I hope the law is applied as it should be. Alternately, if the evidence shows that these are clearly false accusations, then I hope the players have a path to legal recourse.

 

[sh724]

All the evidence points to her giving consent both before and after. What absolutely SHOULDN'T be a thing is the retroactive retraction of consent.

Its not retroactively retracting consent when you are under the influence at the time you gave consent. There is not a grey area here its black and white. If someone is drunk/high/etc they cannot consent to you doing anything to them, hard stop.

 

[mr figgles]

Are you even vaguely familiar with the concept of an investigation or what lol

Of course he is! He did his own research.

 

[oldunclehue]

You’ve seen literally none of the evidence lmfao you just read a report

I can understand his mind on it....because it's happened often in Canadian criminal trials. I had a friend growing up who in highschool broke up with his girlfriend. She then went and made a claim she was sexually assaulted by him prior to the break up. From her statement he was arrested and charged....in Canada we have domestic violence laws that basically say if there is any evidence (statements count) then charges are to be sought.

His family ran a restaurant and had to sell the business and their home to cover lawyer fees over the 2 years it took to fight the charge and he was found not guilty at trial. Meaning it was proven a false accusation.

- nothing happened to her, his family lost everything.

Consent is a HUGE issue in sexual assault cases and often when it is word against word the charges end up dropped as it can't be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" as required.

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

... What comforts me is that it's ALL YOUR TAX MONEY that was used for this.

The show has become the show now!

This is not about who said yes and who said no and when…

This is not about protecting the victim …. She’s all ready been paid 3.5 million and was happy to leave it at that.

This is now about the show! Real life Tv / real life characters / millionaires athletes / politicians / me too/ you too / whoever matters…

71 pages of show me the $$$ and who is morally right / who’s a degenerate/ how many careers and life’s can be disturbed… or destroyed.

Sad to see

 

[JIMVINNY]

What evidence? Are you a member of the LPD? A member of a parties’ legal team? Have you reviewed the disclosure materials?

We have reports of evidence. I haven't personally seen the videos, but we have transcripts of the video and the texts. If you want to ignore all that and use pure speculation to convict them before there's even a trial, go right ahead, but don't pretend you have some moral high ground here.

 

[LesCanadiens]

Its not retroactively retracting consent when you are under the influence at the time you gave consent. There is not a grey area here its black and white. If someone is drunk/high/etc they cannot consent to you doing anything to them, hard stop.

That's incorrect. And thank goodness it is. Otherwise, everyone is vulnerable to rape charges if having sex on a date. Both males and females.

 

[MXD]

That's incorrect. And thank goodness it is. Otherwise, everyone is vulnerable to rape charges if having sex on a date. Both males and females.

You missed the super crucial "under the influence" part. Unless you end up drunk at all of dates, which I personally do not suggest.

 

[JIMVINNY]

I can understand his mind on it....because it's happened often in Canadian criminal trials. I had a friend growing up who in highschool broke up with his girlfriend. She then went and made a claim she was sexually assaulted by him prior to the break up. From her statement he was arrested and charged....in Canada we have domestic violence laws that basically say if there is any evidence (statements count) then charges are to be sought.

His family ran a restaurant and had to sell the business and their home to cover lawyer fees over the 2 years it took to fight the charge and he was found not guilty at trial. Meaning it was proven a false accusation.

- nothing happened to her, his family lost everything.

Consent is a HUGE issue in sexual assault cases and often when it is word against word the charges end up dropped as it can't be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" as required.

I personally know two young men whose lives were ruined by false accusations that were later disproven. In one case, it didn't matter that the girl later retracted and admitted to making it all up, people still call him a rapist years later. In the other case, she retroactively retracted consent, he went to jail, and will be affected by this for the rest of his life. Oh, and he was more drunk than she was.