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

[MXD]

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

I don't know why you thought I'd bother about your ramblings.

 

[Statto]

Never happens in these cases, if you were gonna do that you’d have done that right away, not years later. It’s possible they used a tactic often used by investigators where they might have scared them into thinking they had evidence they didn’t actually have in order to get a reaction from the suspected party or parties. It’s perfectly legal, at least here in the US to falsely tell a suspect you know something you don’t in order to see if they’ll talk and or change their behaviors indicating they have committed the crime. I’m sure it’ll all come out at some stage

False claims about evidence by police is a contributing factor as to why there are no many miscarriages of justice in the US. Many countries have stopped/banned the police using those techniques as they are not that effective and can lead to false confessions and unsafe convictions. It’s certainly not permitted in the UK any longer and plenty of countries have moved past those techniques. The evidence is that other techniques tend to bring more information to the fore and allow prosecutors to build better cases. Anyway! I’m digressing.

 

[Danarqhy]

Again, I'm not defending the behavior, all I'm arguing is that there is a big difference between immoral and illegal. She gave consent. Several times, and also confirmed she was sober. Should these young men face public scrutiny for a questionable behavior? Perhaps. Should they be facing jail time after doing their due diligence to ensure she was a willing participant? It could be argued that they should not.

You are missing the point that consent for the "gangbang" wasn't originally given, ie the girl never authorized the 7 other players to join them in the hotel room before they came there. She gave consent after the fact on video, but could have easily been badgered into it. That is what this case is about.

Can you call 7 of your buddies to join in on a gangbang after the girl gave you consent but no one else? I don't think you can, but I'm not lawyer. Yes the lawyers will argue that consent was given on video, but if the girl never authorized the 7 other players to join her in the hotel room from the beginning I think this will be a very problematic case for the defense.

 

[LesCanadiens]

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

No I did not. That is the point. If someone gets drunk on a date and agrees to sex, that is consent. Under the influence or not. This isn't my opinion. It's the law in Canada. Now, someone spiking a drink or the punch bowl with 100 proof booze, or dropping a drug in a drink in order to incapacitate them so they can have sex with them, that's another story.

 

[MXD]

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.

I personally know people who make shit up on the Internet.

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

Retroactive consent isn’t a thing.

But retroactively revoking consent is.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

When people ask "why don't women come forward when they get sexually assaulted," this thread is a perfect example of why: because way too many people instantly refuse to believe them because this one time, at band camp, someone made an accusation but it was totally false, and so this one could just as easily be false as well - I need to see real, complete, total proof before I decide whether to believe this claim.

That's why scores of sexual assaults never get reported: because females get questioned in all kinds of uncomfortable ways, are you really sure this happened, are you really sure you didn't consent, can you give me [more] proof so we maybe will do something? and even where assaults really do occur, way too many people are still dismissive - yeah, it really didn't happen ... she put herself in that situation ... she should have known it would happen - and it completely excuses the attacker, leaving them free to do it again (and again ... and again).

 

[HBK27]

If someone grudgingly "consents" while under duress/ in a compromising situation, did they consent?

This seems to be the crux of the case, right? Whether or not she actually consented or was coerced.

Even then, seems like there may be some grey area in there - by the little we do know, (I believe) the alleged victim never claimed (at least based on public reporting) to have strongly stated "No", "Stop" or anything along those lines, right?

Based on some of the text messages that were released, it seems she had regrets afterwards but it is unclear (and will be for a jury to figure out) just how (if?) this was expressed at the time of the events that took place that night.

Of course, not saying any of those things (if that were the case) doesn't mean that she wasn't coerced or did consent to it.

The Athletic article mentions that she "acquiesced to the sexual acts" because the "sheer number of them and the presence of the clubs made here feel intimidated and threatened" - so, this would suggest that there may not have been any direct threats from the players or direct pleas from the alleged victim to stop.

The article does also state though that "at one point, she started crying and tried to leave the room" and that she was then "directed, manipulated and intimidated into remaining" - so maybe there were direct threats from the players? It is unclear though if there was any further sexual activity after she allegedly was crying and tried to leave the room, which would be a surefire sign that she was not OK with what was happening.

The Athletic article mentions that these acts occurred "while she was incapable of consent", so there's also that angle - was she too drunk to consent and should the players have realized this? - which might make the rest of this all moot. I'm guessing the videos may shed some light on this.

The whole thing is a messed up situation and I still don't understand the allure or motivation of the original player inviting other players into the room, let alone what was going on even if the alleged victim did consent to it. Is it possible that she felt pressured to go further than she was comfortable with by a combination of alcohol clouding her judgement and intimidation (whether intended or not) by the players and some of them may not have realized she was uncomfortable with what was happening? I would like to believe that maybe that was the case versus several players knowingly sexually assaulting someone as others also observed it, but who knows. Hopefully the court system in Canada can get to the bottom of it and justice is served.

 

[MXD]

No I did not. That is the point. If someone gets drunk on a date and agrees to sex, that is consent. Under the influence or not. This isn't my opinion. It's the law in Canada. Now, someone spiking a drink or the punch bowl with 100 proof booze, or dropping a drug in a drink in order to incapacitate them so they can have sex with them, that's another story.

If you drink one beer/drink and plead that you couldn't consent, it probably won't be received (unless it was spiked). Past a certain point, no, the consent isn't valid. I strongly suggest you don't waste your time arguing this.

Spiking the punch is another count.

 

[4thline]

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

She is saying that it was grudgingly by virtue of stating that she was crying and wanting to leave, but was "directed, manipulated and intimidated into remaining,"

The police report also states that she was wiping her eyes and slurring her words in the video. Her own words suggest that she was being pressured into it.

But really my post was a hypothetical question to you, in response to your own.

 

[Golden_Jet]

no it wasnt. I was in Europe when I first heard about the investigation. a few days later Canadian media picked it up. There are a total of 3 DIFFERENT investigations going on right now. Canadian media is down playing it already

lol, no their not, and I doubt you saw it first, it was a CDN journalists that first reported it.

 

[LesCanadiens]

When people ask "why don't women come forward when they get sexually assaulted," this thread is a perfect example of why: because way too many people instantly refuse to believe them because this one time, at band camp, someone made an accusation but it was totally false, and so this one could just as easily be false as well - I need to see real, complete, total proof before I decide whether to believe this claim.

That's why scores of sexual assaults never get reported: because females get questioned in all kinds of uncomfortable ways, are you really sure this happened, are you really sure you didn't consent, can you give me [more] proof so we maybe will do something? and even where assaults really do occur, way too many people are still dismissive - yeah, it really didn't happen ... she put herself in that situation ... she should have known it would happen - and it completely excuses the attacker, leaving them free to do it again (and again ... and again).

I really don't see anyone refusing to believe them. I see people saying innocent unless proven guilty. Rapists should be dealt with as harshly as the laws allow. If and when PROVEN guilty. There is a massive difference. People lie on all sides. So why should anyone take her "word" for it and persecute another person before the courts have done their thing?

 

[LesCanadiens]

If you drink one beer/drink and plead that you couldn't consent, it probably won't be received (unless it was spiked). Past a certain point, no, the consent isn't valid. I strongly suggest you don't waste your time arguing this.

Spiking the punch is another count.

You can't tell me what I can or cannot "waste my time" to argue, dude. I know what the actual law is on this. So, feel free to find me the law that says if someone willingly gets drunk out of their mind, and jumps into bed with someone, that this constitutes rape.

Can an intoxicated person consent to sex?

Under Canadian criminal law, a person who is drunk or high can consent to sexual activity as long as they retain the mental capacity to do so.

robichaudlaw.ca

 

[Statto]

Again, I'm not defending the behavior, all I'm arguing is that there is a big difference between immoral and illegal. She gave consent. Several times, and also confirmed she was sober. Should these young men face public scrutiny for a questionable behavior? Perhaps. Should they be facing jail time after doing their due diligence to ensure she was a willing participant? It could be argued that they should not.

If she was drunk enough to pass out which is what happened as far as I understand she was too drunk to consent. The level of intoxication is very relevant.

 

[hangman005]

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.

Not Civil but Criminal... if you can even qualify for a jury trial you don't even need the full jury to convict. 11 jurors is enough. It's kinda really stupid.

 

[LesCanadiens]

If she was drunk enough to pass out which is what happened as far as I understand she was too drunk to consent. The level of intoxication is very relevant.

That's likely the very key point. If you bang someone who so incapacitated, they CANNOT consent. Then it IS rape. And if that's what the evidence shows, then a conviction is more than likely. And well deserved, IMO.

 

[HBK27]

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

I think this will be a big part of the court case, as the jury will be able to get a better understanding of her state of mind when those statements were made by seeing the actual videos versus just reading the text as we have.

She is saying that it was grudgingly by virtue of stating that she was crying and wanting to leave, but was "directed, manipulated and intimidated into remaining,"

The police report also states that she was wiping her eyes and slurring her words in the video. Her own words suggest that she was being pressured into it.

But really my post was a hypothetical question to you, in response to your own.

The timeline of when she was allegedly crying and wanted to leave is also important - did they actually commit further sexual acts after that clear sign of discomfort with the situation or did they stop by that point and just wanted to calm her down before leaving?

 

[hoglund]

I mean, its similar in that theyre athletes that have been accused of a sexual offence in a group setting.

Other than that I have to question if you were awake for the documentary

What do you mean?

 

[Ezekial]

When people ask "why don't women come forward when they get sexually assaulted," this thread is a perfect example of why: because way too many people instantly refuse to believe them because this one time, at band camp, someone made an accusation but it was totally false, and so this one could just as easily be false as well - I need to see real, complete, total proof before I decide whether to believe this claim.

That's why scores of sexual assaults never get reported: because females get questioned in all kinds of uncomfortable ways, are you really sure this happened, are you really sure you didn't consent, can you give me [more] proof so we maybe will do something? and even where assaults really do occur, way too many people are still dismissive - yeah, it really didn't happen ... she put herself in that situation ... she should have known it would happen - and it completely excuses the attacker, leaving them free to do it again (and again ... and again).

One of my coworkers said he "would need to know the whole story" if a girl passed out drunk having sex with multiple people and they continued. As if the consent she may or may have not gave right before she passed out was important.
Pretty cut and dry without any more context.

 

[HBK27]

If she was drunk enough to pass out which is what happened as far as I understand she was too drunk to consent. The level of intoxication is very relevant.

Where have you seen that she passed out? I don't recall that being part of any of the stories on this case.

 

[inthewings]

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

I can’t believe there are people in here arguing that it’s perfectly normal to get (drunk) women on camera to say that the (gang) sex they just had was definitely consensual.

 

[MXD]

You can't tell me what I can or cannot "waste my time" to argue, dude. I know what the actual law is on this. So, feel free to find me the law that says if someone willingly gets drunk out of their mind, and jumps into bed with someone, that this constitutes rape.

Can an intoxicated person consent to sex?

Under Canadian criminal law, a person who is drunk or high can consent to sexual activity as long as they retain the mental capacity to do so.

robichaudlaw.ca

LOL you copy-pasted some stuff I wrote myself.

 

[LesCanadiens]

LOL you copy-pasted some stuff I wrote myself.

Are you that lawyer? If so, then why are you arguing with yourself

 

[4thline]

The timeline of when she was allegedly crying and wanted to leave is also important - did they actually commit further sexual acts after that clear sign of discomfort with the situation or did they stop by that point and just wanted to calm her down before leaving?

Not only that, but if there were other signs of hesitance/reluctance, and how they reacted to them.

This seems to be the crux of the case, right? Whether or not she actually consented or was coerced.
.......
Is it possible that she felt pressured to go further than she was comfortable with by a combination of alcohol clouding her judgement and intimidation (whether intended or not) by the players and some of them may not have realized she was uncomfortable with what was happening? I would like to believe that maybe that was the case versus several players knowingly sexually assaulting someone as others also observed it, but who knows.

My personal and premature opinion is that something very close to this happened- but that they did realize it and bullied/cajoled her through the hesitance. Then the voice in the back of someone's mind starting making noise about the wrongness of what they did so they went into full CYA mode.

 

[Ezekial]

Where have you seen that she passed out? I don't recall that being part of any of the stories on this case.

At this point the passed out thing and the video of consent thing are just stories, no one knows what is real.