Hart?

[BritainStix]

So do we need a board rule where you can only post about Hart if you've read and been tested on the evidence?

Well, you do just call anyone a rape apologist when they suggest people should probably wait for all the facts to be laid out at trial from both sides before condemning someone for life.

So it wouldn't be the worst idea.

 

[TB87]

No thank you. Ew

 

[Nizzle]

Yes

Does that mean - beyond reasonable doubt - that I’m a bot?

 

[Beef Invictus]

Well, you do just call anyone a rape apologist when they suggest people should probably wait for all the facts to be laid out at trial from both sides before condemning someone for life.

So it wouldn't be the worst idea.

That's because anyone who is aware of the facts and defends him is a rape apologist. This one is open and shut, we have the info needed to determine that without court, and your love of rapists is very negative behavior.

You obviously must consider Weinstein innocent now, right?

 

[freakydallas13]

Well, you do just call anyone a rape apologist when they suggest people should probably wait for all the facts to be laid out at trial from both sides before condemning someone for life.

So it wouldn't be the worst idea.

 

[Sombastate]

There was no one on this board a bigger fan of Hart than myself and the answer is very clearly "no." No, he should not be offered a QO, and this days in the NHL are more than likely over

 

[swami24]

Just saying he should be allowed to sign IF he is found innocent. Large IF.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Just saying he should be allowed to sign IF he is found innocent. Large IF.

Nah. OJ was found not guilty despite all the evidence. We know he did it. I would have never supported hiring him for any sports team.

Hart is the same. The evidence we have shows he is guilty. If the court fails, that doesn't change the fact that we should never hire him, because all the information we have for this particular situation is that he did it. Would you run out to hire Harvey Weinstein to manage media production now that his conviction was tossed on a technicality?

 

[swami24]

I have a friend with story right out of a bad movie. Neighbor teen girl hit on him, he said no. She got mad, went to the police claiming he molested her. Luckily the truth came out, but for a long time, people actually yelled and spat at him. Threw things at his house. Just wait until the allegations are proven in a court if law.

 

[Flybynite]

I don't effin care if he or the others are found innocent in a court of law. Even if you were able to take away any of the non-consensual aspects.

Someone who decided to participate in a group sex event where the lone female participant was given alcohol and then needed to be recorded and directed to say "I consent" to try and avoid future legal issues is disgusting as get all.

 

[swami24]

I get all of this, completely. I just my stock in legal courts, not the court of public opinion, in all cases.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I have a friend with story right out of a bad movie. Neighbor teen girl hit on him, he said no. She got mad, went to the police claiming he molested her. Luckily the truth came out, but for a long time, people actually yelled and spat at him. Threw things at his house. Just wait until the allegations are proven in a court if law.

That isn't what happened here. There are f***ing witnesses, my man. That situation isn't close to comparable to this.


This is why I think we should make sure anyone who discusses this subject has a grasp of the basic facts.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I get all of this, completely. I just my stock in legal courts, not the court of public opinion, in all cases.

So OJ Simpson and Harvey Weinstein were/are upstanding dudes and it's a pity their lives were/are wrecked, right? Since courts are so reliable and all.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Epstein was never found guilty in court of the vast majority of his crimes, so obviously he's innocent and it's wrong of everyone to say otherwise, right?

 

[Chicken N Raffls]

I get all of this, completely. I just my stock in legal courts, not the court of public opinion, in all cases.

But why though? The burden of proof is high in the court system because you don't want to send an innocent person to jail for 40 years. But it happens, as does guilty people getting off because of unconvinced juries, technicalities, etc.

I get not rushing to judgement just based on an accusation, but this is not like what happened to your friend. The event definitely happened and there is plenty of publicity available evidence to form an opinion. The fact that the guy made a video and says, "Say it" before her saying it was consensual is pretty telling to me.

At the end of the day, if you're worried about being setup for false allegations by the drunk girl you and your buddies just had sex with, maybe just don't put yourself in that position to begin with.

 

[mja]

Emotions aside. Innocent until proven guilty?!
If the league allows them to keep his rights it would be short sighted not to. They simply don't have a realy #1 goaltender and can't afford to just let him go.

But no, I don't want him anywhere near the locker room until everything is sorted out.

So what kind of reaction do you want if someone accuses you of sexual assault? Immediate pariah status, or do you want your day in court before people pour hate on you?

Well, you do just call anyone a rape apologist when they suggest people should probably wait for all the facts to be laid out at trial from both sides before condemning someone for life.

So it wouldn't be the worst idea.

Just saying he should be allowed to sign IF he is found innocent. Large IF.

I have a friend with story right out of a bad movie. Neighbor teen girl hit on him, he said no. She got mad, went to the police claiming he molested her. Luckily the truth came out, but for a long time, people actually yelled and spat at him. Threw things at his house. Just wait until the allegations are proven in a court if law.

I get all of this, completely. I just my stock in legal courts, not the court of public opinion, in all cases.

Can we not do this again?

Look, I get it. False rape allegations absolutely happen, and it is awful to be on that end of it. But we already have a shit ton of reporting on the particulars of this case, including events not in dispute and evidence "corroborating" the players' accounts which should give any reasonable person pause in wanting to rush to the players' defense or to argue for caution over what is a legal standard, not a moral one. I cannot believe that anyone who has delved into the details of this case can come to any other conclusion.

Hart's best argument is 1) the girl in question is some sort of jedi who was able to trick the players into getting her drunk and naked, and planning and then initiating her gang-rape as she slept so that she could sue them (note: that still wouldn't be consent, it's also not credible) or 2) that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that a drunk girl naked and sleeping in bed after sex was totally into the surprise bonus group sex despite no prior discussion about said group sex (note: still doesn't meet a reasonable standard of consent). I'm sure she could have just told a bunch of naked horny athletes that she wasn't really into it and they all would have sheepishly and apologetically let themselves out of the room.

 

[Beef Invictus]

It's also always a bad look that dudes only get so crusadey about the rights of the accused when it's sexual assault. Never have we had these lectures about the sacred status of presumed innocence when drugs or booze are in play. Impossible not to wonder about that.

 

[freakydallas13]

It's also always a bad look that dudes only get so crusadey about the rights of the accused when it's sexual assault. Never have we had these lectures about the sacred status of presumed innocence when drugs or booze are in play. Impossible not to wonder about that.

Yeah but what if someone has a profile picture on social media of them with an alcoholic beverage in their hand? All bets are off in that case.

 

[mja]

It's also always a bad look that dudes only get so crusadey about the rights of the accused when it's sexual assault. Never have we had these lectures about the sacred status of presumed innocence when drugs or booze are in play. Impossible not to wonder about that.

Drives me crazy.

What's not OK, is labelling people as rape apologists because they state that law should be followed, and he should get his day in court to mount whatever defense he has. But that's par the course for individuals with big mouths, usually it's a full on projection, seems to be a thing in the states with old creepy men who have daughters right now.

I have no idea what you are rambling on about here. Who has argued that the law shouldn't be followed, and that he shouldn't get his day in court to mount a defense? By all means, he gets his day in court. But we don't have to wait for that though before we can arrive at our own conclusions about his culpability based on the widely reported non-disputed facts of the case. The single most damning thing may well be the video the players recorded to cover their asses. It makes a mockery of consent and its very existence suggests strongly that the players themselves understood that consent was not obtained in any meaningful way.

 

[Magua]

Deadhead seeing this thread:

 

[orangey]

If he somehow made it back to the NHL after all of this then it will likely be with another org and number too for that matter. I can't see the Flyers making the business or PR decision to bring him back.

 

[Starat327]

Deadhead seeing this thread:

You forgot to have undertaker saying random Latin phrases to sound intelligent.

 

[Svechhammer]

Take the whole legal aspect of it away.

No team in North America is going to allow him to even practice with them until the trials are over. Even if he's found innocent, and that's a very large if, he's going to be so far removed from playing competitive sports that his athletic career will be shot.

He will never play in the NHL again. If found innocent, he still might not ever reach the AHL again. His career is toast

 

[ponder719]

The one thing I will say on the topic beyond my previous kind-of-a-joke-but-not-really is that the initial question shouldn't be one at the moment. The implicated players should be placed by the league on a reserve/ineligible list, they should not count towards their teams' cap or contract limit, and their status should be frozen pending the outcome of the trial. They should, for all intents and purposes, not exist until such time as the legal question is resolved. At that point, I would prefer the Flyers move on no matter what, for the very good reasons already established in the thread, but the team shouldn't be required to even consider the matter until the courts finish having their say.

 

[Fight4yourRight]

It’s a finding of not-guilty, not “innocent.”