Rob Brown
Way She Goes
- Dec 17, 2009
- 16,839
- 14,948
None of them are good enough for an NHL team to want to deal with the negative PR they'd get for it.If these guys aren’t convicted will they get their careers back or are they done regardless of the trial result?
No way they get off they're done...stick a fork into themIf declared not guilty some of these players should sue someone for all the millions they potentially missed out on because of this.
Sue whom and for what? You can't just sue somebody because your a shit bag and got exposed as such.If declared not guilty some of these players should sue someone for all the millions they potentially missed out on because of this.
Not sure that's how the justice system works.No way they get off they're done...stick a fork into them
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?
Genuine question. Mods can delete it if they want.
If they’re fully acquitted, I don’t see why they can’t play, will need some PR statements and actions.If these guys aren’t convicted will they get their careers back or are they done regardless of the trial result?
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.
Sue whom and for what? You can't just sue somebody because your a shit bag and got exposed as such.
Pretty sure Forms has done / tried something like this.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.
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?
lol at “accuser found to be truthful” and lmao at “if found innocent”
Also who are they suing for defamation?
That’s what I quoted.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?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?
Could she really be held responsible for the court of public opinion though? Aren't these court documents public?
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?3 of the 5 have played this season, so they still have a career, just not in the NHL anymore. And I can´t see anyone of them ever playing in the NHL again.
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 businessEven 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?
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.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