Hockey Canada Scandal and Rape Trial

Genuinely curious as I don't have any sort of legal experience but are juries generally supposed to be closer to even/neutral between gender, race (as much as possible) etc. to ensure that it's as 'fair' and neutral as possible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kevistar
If these guys aren’t convicted will they get their careers back or are they done regardless of the trial result?
None of them are good enough for an NHL team to want to deal with the negative PR they'd get for it.
 
Genuinely curious as I don't have any sort of legal experience but are juries generally supposed to be closer to even/neutral between gender, race (as much as possible) etc. to ensure that it's as 'fair' and neutral as possible?

200w.gif


Start here
 
If these guys aren’t convicted will they get their careers back or are they done regardless of the trial result?
If they’re fully acquitted, I don’t see why they can’t play, will need some PR statements and actions.

However, the Voynov saga definitely doesn’t give them much potential in the success
 
In the civil settlement there were 8 players named that were in the room. We will find out who the other 3 players were in the room when they testify and their testimony could be crucial in the final verdict.

The list of players as listed on the witness list are the following Taylor Raddysh, Drake Batherson, Robert Thomas, Sam Steel, Maxime Comtois, Boris Katchouk, Brett Howden, Jonah Gadjovich, Dante Fabbro, Tyler Steenbergen, Conor Timmins, Jake Bean, and Cale Makar.

The players, whom are playing in the NHL playoffs, are not required to be present in person and are scheduled to testify remotely via Zoom
 
The fact that they entered the room without making sure the girl was ok with it first shows that they had bad intentions. If they genuinely thought the girl would be ok with it then they would've had the first guy ask her just to make sure. They were clearly hoping that the girl would feel pressured to just go along with it if they just walked in.

Yes and no. Obviously not great people, and very likely undereducated on the topic of consent. Not to give them a pass, none of them should ever play pro hockey again but it’s a symptom of our society and wait for it…it’s going to upset a lot of people… the patriarchy. They are ‘stars’ in society, consent doesn’t matter to them, everyone wants to be with them or at least that’s what they have been indoctrinated to believe.
 
Sue whom and for what? You can't just sue somebody because your a shit bag and got exposed as such.

Well I have not passed any Canadian legal classes, I have passed many in the US.

If you're (that's the spelling you were looking for bud) a shitbag, it doesn't preclude you from filing a suit.

But I would hope the Canadian legal system would allow someone who has been defamed publicly and in a court of law some sort of financial recourse. If found innocent and the accuser is proven to have been not truthful, then that would mean you're generally not a shitbag.

Once someone's name is cleared, I would encourage to file suit. To your main point though, as stated above, in general filing a lawsuit doesn't require someone to be saint. You'd be shocked how many people of immoral and unethical ilk file lawsuits.
 
Well I have not passed any Canadian legal classes, I have passed many in the US.

If you're (that's the spelling you were looking for bud) a shitbag, it doesn't preclude you from filing a suit.

But I would hope the Canadian legal system would allow someone who has been defamed publicly and in a court of law some sort of financial recourse. If found innocent and the accuser is proven to have been not truthful, then that would mean you're generally not a shitbag.

Once someone's name is cleared, I would encourage to file suit. To your main point though, as stated above, in general filing a lawsuit doesn't require someone to be saint. You'd be shocked how many people of immoral and unethical ilk file lawsuits.

lol at “accuser proven to be not truthful” and lmao at “if found innocent”

Also who are they suing for defamation?
 
Genuinely curious as I don't have any sort of legal experience but are juries generally supposed to be closer to even/neutral between gender, race (as much as possible) etc. to ensure that it's as 'fair' and neutral as possible?

In the US it's interpreted to mean ones "equals" essentially and to represent a part of the community.

There is no legal precedence that peer must make the races/genders similar. There is a legal precedence that means you cannot purposely dismiss a juror based on their race/gender though.

It's part of the 6th Amendment in the US and originally came from England and was to ensure people of royalty wouldn't be judging the peasants essentially.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arthuros
lol at “accuser found to be truthful” and lmao at “if found innocent”

Also who are they suing for defamation?

lol If you're going to quote someone, generally you should quote what they said. You didn't, and I stated if the accuser was found to be untruthful. And found innocent of what they are accused.

If this accuser is found to have acted in bad faith and thus maligned the public perception of these people, he/she would be the one subject to answer for potential libel/slander. I would argue that bad faith would equate to malicious intent which would surely set up for a lawsuit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FMichael and MCB
Can someone tell me why they focus on the 'Dark Suits' so much? I know Westend was the first to report all 5 defendents showed up to court wearing 'dark suits'. From there I've heard it reported verbatim among multiple media outlets that "the defendents showed up in dark suits." Why?
 
lol If you're going to quote someone, generally you should quote what they said. You didn't, and I stated if the accuser was found to be untruthful. And found innocent of what they are accused.

If this accuser is found to have acted in bad faith and thus maligned the public perception of these people, he/she would be the one subject to answer for potential libel/slander. I would argue that bad faith would equate to malicious intent which would surely set up for a lawsuit.
That’s what I quoted.

The case is guilty or not guilty. There is no determining of innocence or truthfulness, that’s ridiculous.

Where is the libel/slander from the victim? Is going to the police and settling a civil suit now libel/slander?
 
lol If you're going to quote someone, generally you should quote what they said. You didn't, and I stated if the accuser was found to be untruthful. And found innocent of what they are accused.

If this accuser is found to have acted in bad faith and thus maligned the public perception of these people, he/she would be the one subject to answer for potential libel/slander. I would argue that bad faith would equate to malicious intent which would surely set up for a lawsuit.
Could she really be held responsible for the court of public opinion though? Aren't these court documents public?
 
That’s what I quoted.

The case is guilty or not guilty. There is no determining of innocence or truthfulness, that’s ridiculous.

Where is the libel/slander from the victim? Is going to the police and settling a civil suit now libel/slander?

It's not.

And so not guilty doesn't equate innocence? Is the Canadian legal system that f'ed?

Could she really be held responsible for the court of public opinion though? Aren't these court documents public?

I'm not sure how that works in Canada really in reference to court documents.

If her accusations and official reports could be tied to lack of employment among other things, a lawsuit could certainly be generated. Her information provided that directly led to someone losing money or some occupation, you could easily tied that together for a case. Not saying it's a guaranteed win, but it's something to be looked at.

The Duke Lacrosse case saw many lawsuits filed after their accuser admitted to lying. Though she had no money and was later jailed, they went after the school among others.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Rodgerwilco
Even if innocent? I haven't been following this at all so I don't really know whats going on but if they are deemed innocent would they still not have a chance to come back?
Is anyone of them good enough to risk this PR shitstorm that is coming? I don´t know. I would say maybe Hart but he did not play in almost one and a half year, the others are just not good enough to take on that nightmare. But who knows, the NHL is a show business
 
Is anyone of them good enough to risk this PR shitstorm that is coming? I don´t know. I would say maybe Hart but he did not play in almost one and a half year, the others are just not good enough to take on that nightmare. But who knows, the NHL is a show business
How would it be bad PR if they never did it. Kane got accused and he came back. I'm not saying they did or didn't . I have not followed the case at all. But if someone is innocent they really should not have their life ruined.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad