Hockey Canada Scandal and Rape Trial

I didnt say a did not belive women, i said my default was to be very sceptical, see the differnce?
1745455956019.png

"to the point that i by default does not believe women"
next you're going to tell me this wasn't you?
 
So taking someones word is solid evidence?
Cant you see the problem?

39% are judged on words alone - surprising facts about the law of consent

View attachment 1021153
Often it is to me, yeah. Obviously you can judge it on a case by case basis, because sometimes false accusations do happen. But in the grand scheme of things, sexual assault happens so much more frequently than you seem to believe. I couldn't imagine one of my friends confiding in me that they were assaulted and my response being "well show me your evidence to prove it before I believe you". I wouldn't give anybody I know that response, and I don't think I should treat the woman in this case any differently until there's a reason to.

And the fact of the matter is, it does actually require evidence to prove it in court. If it didn't, the justice system would be flooded by similar cases, but people for reasons such as that (and others) don't bring it past maybe their friends or social sphere.
 
I'm really not interested in the legalese or even what happened particularly (my sympathies to the victim, obviously), but for anyone who's a bit knowledgeable in these things: What is the "best-case" and "worst-case" scenarios for the hockey players involved? Like, aside from accumulated bad press and so on, is there actually any chance that current NHL players will see jail time?
 
Often it is to me, yeah. Obviously you can judge it on a case by case basis, because sometimes false accusations do happen. But in the grand scheme of things, sexual assault happens so much more frequently than you seem to believe. I couldn't imagine one of my friends confiding in me that they were assaulted and my response being "well show me your evidence to prove it before I believe you". I wouldn't give anybody I know that response, and I don't think I should treat the woman in this case any differently until there's a reason to.

And the fact of the matter is, it does actually require evidence to prove it in court. If it didn't, the justice system would be flooded by similar cases, but people for reasons such as that (and others) don't bring it past maybe their friends or social sphere.
For Gods sake, its not about what i feel or think, its about what the legal courts should uphold a standard.
See my previous comment 39 procent of cases in Sweden are based on words alone. Cause we have people like you(your mindset)
push for a change in law
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nfumass
For Gods sake, its not about what i feel or think, its about what the legal courts should uphold a standard.
See my previous comment 39 procent of cases in Sweden are based on words alone. Cause we have people like you(your mindset)
push for a change in law
From what I understand this case isn't happening in Sweden, I'll have to double check though
 
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.
You clearly didn't pay attention in your legal courses.

In all common law countries, including the US, a defendant is found guilty or not guilty. Proving innocence is not actually the object.

If someone is found not guilty and wanted to sue for defamation they could, but the not guilty verdict does not really help. You would actively have to prove that the accused lied intensionally.

Most states and countries have a very high burden of prove for this type of defamation suit. Promotion of victims rights.

It more likely to see situations where people are found not guilty criminally but liable in civil court.

OJ Simpson is the prime example of this. He was found not guilty under the "reasonable doubt" standard in his criminal trial. He was then found liable under the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in the civil case.
 
And that was my point. He’s declaring people innocent without seeing the testimony. That’s wrong, isn’t it?
thats not your point your all over the thread saying that a rape happened ...
There are a lot of people trying to excuse rape because they need goaltending.
That was 40 years ago. There is no way the oilers sign an alleged rapist to play goalie. They’ll stick with Skinner until a better non-rapist goalie becomes available.

So, you don’t believe in trials? And also believe that rape victims were begging for it.
lmao fact is you dont know that a rape happened or that there is a rapist or a rape victim. your playing at being objective but just own it its very obvios what your position is. if someone thinks the players are innocent they need to wait for the trial but you can say the players are guilty because you got the cape. just dont pretend you didnt decide what happened already
 
Awful situation all around. For better or worse, glad the trial is on the way.

My guess is that they are rich white men, with an army of lawyers and going to court in London, Ontario so they will probably be proven 'not guilty'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devonator
the context is your literal words. if you meant something else say it. its not difficult.
okey, i give you context( when i see in the media women accusing men, and specifically
famous men i tend to be very skeptical, dont belive them) that doesnt mean i dont
belive women per se.
 
From what I understand this case isn't happening in Sweden, I'll have to double check though
No it isnt, all i was saying is this is a serious serious matter, a man who is accused for rape is
ruined for life by men and women, so there cant be guilty verdict based on words alone, but
it is happening here in sweden cause of the laws that has been pushed and the
tendancy to belive victims always.
 
okey, i give you context( when i see in the media women accusing men, and specifically
famous men i tend to be very skeptical, dont belive them) that doesnt mean i dont
belive women per se.
the amount of false claims is much much smaller than claims found to be true, and also much much smaller than unreported cases.
its very unfortunate that these claims happen, but to decided to discredit everyone because of that is asinine, and will only succeed in perpetuating the issues people have with coming forward.
 
the amount of false claims is much much smaller than claims found to be true, and also much much smaller than unreported cases.
its very unfortunate that these claims happen, but to decided to discredit everyone because of that is asinine, and will only succeed in perpetuating the issues people have with coming forward.
Your fabricating that claim
In sweden 39 procent are judged on words alone, is that a small number, and do you think its ok?

 
Your fabricating that claim
In sweden 39 procent are judged on words alone, is that a small number, and do you think its ok?


first of all i can't understand swedish. second of all yes i do think thats okay.
39% of cases judged on words alone does not mean that 39% are false accusations. the implication here is that because a case is judged on words alone than it must not be true.
if the number of cases that go unreported were instead reported that number would be much higher and it would still be okay.
its not okay for people to make false accusations but that does not mean we should ignore all cases or give the accused the benefit of the doubt because there is no "solid evidence"
What kind of solid evidence would you deem to be acceptable?
And again you never answered my initial question, would you believe a family member if they came to you and told you this happened but all i have is my word vs theirs?
 
When a woman is smiling along, begging men to perform sex acts on them, not physically trying to stop them in any way shape or form, smiling and saying it's all consensual on video, and then leaving...at what point do you admit the players did nothing wrong? She made no complaint and was consistently asking them to have sex with her that night.

She might not be at fault, but how are they? When you make no effort to put a stop to something....

I dont think its a stretch for a jury to understand how one girl might be afraid to say no or physically resist in a situation where shes out numbered 5 to 1.

The whole open invitation for anyone to come up to the room is going to be crucial in the case. The text he sent out essentially promised sex to anyone who would come to the room....did she really give blind consent to that? Like no matter who walked through that door? Im not sure if a jury is going to buy that.

This goes beyond a normal two person consent question. The group dynamic makes it a lot more complicated.

Guess I shouldnt judge...but still cant wrap my head around why all these guys would wanna share one girl...esp without thinking about how itd feel for her.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad