Teams expecting suspensions as 2018 Hockey Canada investigation concludes (update 7/13) up to 8 players from Team Canada to be named

[Mike C]

Again you're still missing the point, there's no evidence in 99 percent of these kinds of cases. Unless there was videos/photos, there is no possible way to present evidence. It's always just testimonies and character testimonies unless there's hard physical evidence.

That last bolded sentence is a joke dude. I can say a similar thing, people that have zero experience with these kinds of events should usually stay away as they cannot offer an insightful perspective. What a ridiculous comment.

Tonight on public flogging, an NHL all star. But first this word from McDonald's


Do it at prime time in the middle of the street. There's the needed punishment and deterrent all at once

 

[MXD]

Hasn't there been an extensive investigation by a very high profile law firm? Are we demanding more than that?

... Given the specifics, it was kinda like the mafia investigating on organized crime.

 

[jbeck5]

The players are not the victims here.

I didn't say that.

Next time you quote me try responding to the words I said instead of creating a strawman.

Rehabilitation generally involves prior sentencing, or some sort of consequences.

In theory or in practice?

I've done plenty of things wrong that I got away with that I wouldn't do again.

I've never been convicted of a crime, but I've sure as hell done illegal stuff in my youth that I wouldn't do again.

What do you call that and why doesn't it apply?

But also, if there's no crime, what rehabilitation is needed? If there's evidence of a crime, there will be punishment that satisfies your criteria.

 

[MXD]

I didn't say that.

Next time you quote me try responding to the words I said instead of creating a strawman.



In theory or in practice?

I've done plenty of things wrong that I got away with that I wouldn't do again.

I've never been convicted of a crime, but I've sure as hell done illegal stuff in my youth that I wouldn't do again.

What do you call that and why doesn't it apply?

But also, if there's no crime, what rehabilitation is needed? If there's evidence of a crime, there will be punishment that satisfies your criteria.

Rehabilitation involves a crime. Else, it's just growing up.

 

[jbeck5]

Hasn't there been an extensive investigation by a very high profile law firm? Are we demanding more than that?

And did they find sufficient evidence to warrant a trial or no?

I'm waiting for more information like everyone else. I'm just not understanding how everyone is coming to conclusions without sufficient evidence.

Why can't we just all be patient and wait before we try to call people innocent or guilty...or not guilty... We don't need to rush to any conclusions.

You can't just hear one side of a story with no evidence and make your decision.

 

[Edgelord]

could be interesting if its a few of the higher profile players from 2018

 

[jbeck5]

Rehabilitation involves a crime. Else, it's just growing up.

Right. So either they commited a crime and can be rehabilitated, or they are just like most of us and also generally grow up and stop doing as much stupid/dangerous/illegal stuff.

Which was basically my argument in response to not trusting individuals because they commited crimes years ago because you don't believe humans can change.

 

[NyQuil]

Right. So either they commited a crime and can be rehabilitated, or they are just like most of us and also generally grow up and stop doing as much stupid/dangerous/illegal stuff.

Which was basically my argument in response to not trusting individuals because they commited crimes years ago because you don't believe humans can change.

There's also a difference between egging a house and gangbanging a drunk girl who is in no position to do much about it.

 

[AvroArrow]

Right. So either they commited a crime and can be rehabilitated, or they are just like most of us and also generally grow up and stop doing as much stupid/dangerous/illegal stuff.

Which was basically my argument in response to not trusting individuals because they commited crimes years ago because you don't believe humans can change.

Strange take. People are suggesting they should face the appropriate consequences for their crimes. Committing a crime 10 years ago doesn't make you exempt from the punishment.

 

[NyQuil]

Strange take. People are suggesting they should face the appropriate consequences for their crimes. Committing a crime 10 years ago doesn't make you exempt from the punishment.

Not to mention, even when people go through the formal process of criminal justice, that crime is on their record permanently.

Even if we think they've "paid their debt to society", they aren't treated the same ever again by potential employers etc. as an "ex-con".

Whether one agrees with that or not, it's a fact. I don't think convicted felons will be let into the US for the rest of their lives. (apparently you need a US Entry Waiver)

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Whoever gets exposed is radioactive so it's unlikely they will ever have a NHL career. Won't mean some team won't try to pull a fast one ala Mitchell Miller though. There will be momentary hand wringing and teeth gnashing and then the outrage will subside.

 

[MXD]

Right. So either they commited a crime and can be rehabilitated, or they are just like most of us and also generally grow up and stop doing as much stupid/dangerous/illegal stuff.

Which was basically my argument in response to not trusting individuals because they commited crimes years ago because you don't believe humans can change.

They're being investigated for gangbanging a drunken girl who couldn't give a valid consent, not for mooning a cop.

 

[ohcomeonref]

I feel bad for the families for everyone involved. Obviously the victim and her family I feel awful for, but there's going to be huge ramifications to a lot of families connected to the perpetrators too. Awful all around.

 

[PK]

Again you're still missing the point, there's no evidence in 99 percent of these kinds of cases. Unless there was videos/photos, there is no possible way to present evidence. It's always just testimonies and character testimonies unless there's hard physical evidence.

That last bolded sentence is a joke dude. I can say a similar thing, people that have zero experience with these kinds of events should usually stay away as they cannot offer an insightful perspective. What a ridiculous comment.

You obviously have no idea what an evidence is and your statitics are completely made up. Still, if there really is no evidence, there should be no punishment. Always.

And yes, people personally attached to a case should stay away from it. I agree people with zero experience should stay away as well, that’s why legal professionals with formal training should deal with it. Thecriminal justice system makes sure of that. Mob doesn’t.

 

[MasterofGrond]

Witness testimony IS evidence, just so that’s clear.

 

[MXD]

You obviously have no idea what an evidence is and your statitics are completely made up. Still, if there really is no evidence, there should be no punishment. Always.

And yes, people personally attached to a case should stay away from it. I agree people with zero experience should stay away as well, that’s why legal professionals with formal training should deal with it. Thecriminal justice system makes sure of that. Mob doesn’t.

First paragraph : There's already evidence; amount, quality and reliability to be determined.

Second paragraph : In other words, I can speak and everyone else just shut the f*** up. Nice.

 

[NyQuil]

Whoever gets exposed is radioactive so it's unlikely they will ever have a NHL career. Won't mean some team won't try to pull a fast one ala Mitchell Miller though. There will be momentary hand wringing and teeth gnashing and then the outrage will subside.

What will be bizarre will be the inevitable collective assessment of the relative level of responsibility on some kind of gradient.

"Well, Player X wasn't as responsible as Player Y, so he should just be suspended 15 games" or something to that effect.

I remember doing an exercise in a marriage course (we were required by the Minister before he would marry my wife and I) where 5 or 6 people all do a variety of horrible things to each other for different reasons, and we were supposed to discuss it with each other and the group in terms of relative levels of culpability.

There was deliberately no right answer, but I can see the same thing happening here.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Bold : No one cares : the state press charges, not victims.

Bigger Font : It definitely doesn't help the prosecution, though a version of her (potential) testimony would probably be found through the file, as the police can't possibly investigate without what she had to say. This would raise credibility questions towards the witness/victim. She'll very certainly be subpoenaed.

Thank you for the reply. I wasn't so sure.

 

[jbeck5]

There's also a difference between egging a house and gangbanging a drunk girl who is in no position to do much about it.

A difference in the severity of the crime, or a difference in the ability to learn/grow to not want to do it anymore?

I agree on the first part, but haven't seen any evidence to back up the second part.

I don't know of any relation between the severity of the crime and the ability to rehabilitate from it?

Unless they're deemed a psychopath, and they tend to commit severe crimes.

 

[PK]

First paragraph : There's already evidence; amount, quality and reliability to be determined.

Second paragraph : In other words, I can speak and everyone else just shut the f*** up. Nice.

I agree with you on the first paragraph. That’s why I said the guy I replied to doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says there’s no evidence in 99% of cases.

Everyone can talk, no one should take part in mob justice.

 

[Captain97]

Past a certain point of drunkeness (can'T come up with the right english word and too lazy to search for it), you can't legally give a valid consent.

Also worth pointing out that, it'S not because somebody is declared not guilty that the charged person didn't commit the infraction; it just means it couldn't be proven BARD.

Hell, with sexual assault, it's safe to go as far as saying that no charges being laid doesn't even mean the infraction hasn't been commited : it just means that there isn't more than a reasonable chance of conviction.

I agree hence the quotation marks on consent. The problem will arise where they will claim they were also too drunk.

And the point wasn't that it didn't happen rather if insufficient legal evidence is provided for even a charge it would be difficult for the NHL to terminate contracts without opening themselves up to further liability.

 

[jbeck5]

Strange take. People are suggesting they should face the appropriate consequences for their crimes. Committing a crime 10 years ago doesn't make you exempt from the punishment.

What do you mean strange take?

How is it strange to say that because someone did something in their youth doesn't mean they're a high risk of doing it again years later.

Wtf is "strange" about that???

 

[jbeck5]

They're being investigated for gangbanging a drunken girl who couldn't give a valid consent, not for mooning a cop.

You haven't said anything to show evidence to your argument.

The details of the crime or severity of it don't really have any barring on your ability to be rehabilitated unless you're deemed to have psychopathic characteristics.

People have been in gangs killing people and do time and come out at 50 and are not at risk of doing it again..they've learned and now live peacefully and don't want to harm anyone. So severity of the crime shouldn't effect your chances of rehabilitation? Do you have any evidence that shows that? Where are you drawing this conclusion from?

 

[Rabid Ranger]

What will be bizarre will be the inevitable collective assessment of the relative level of responsibility on some kind of gradient.

"Well, Player X wasn't as responsible as Player Y, so he should just be suspended 15 games" or something to that effect.

I remember doing an exercise in a marriage course (we were required by the Minister before he would marry my wife and I) where 5 or 6 people all do a variety of horrible things to each other for different reasons, and we were supposed to discuss it with each other and the group in terms of relative levels of culpability.

There was deliberately no right answer, but I can see the same thing happening here.

I don't think there's a way to be 100% sure so the book will be thrown at the lot of them that were present. Will that be equitable justice? No, but guilt by association will be the driving force. Ultimately, the players that were present for this failed in a multitude of ways and they will pay for it by losing out on a chance at a NHL career.

 

[MXD]

I agree hence the quotation marks on consent. The problem will arise where they will claim they were also too drunk.

And the point wasn't that it didn't happen rather if insufficient legal evidence is provided for even a charge it would be difficult for the NHL to terminate contracts without opening themselves up to further liability.

That is not a valid defense, unless they claim they drunk to the point of being very obviously unable to commit the infraction (aka, passed out).

You haven't said anything to show evidence to your argument.

The details of the crime or severity of it don't really have any barring on your ability to be rehabilitated unless you're deemed to have psychopathic characteristics.

People have been in gangs killing people and do time and come out at 50 and are not at risk of doing it again..they've learned and now live peacefully and don't want to harm anyone. So severity of the crime shouldn't effect your chances of rehabilitation? Do you have any evidence that shows that? Where are you drawing this conclusion from?

This wasn't what I was talking about.