Trial Date Set for Apr 22nd for the 5 Canadian World Junior Players

[bossram]

How do you know what I acknowledge. Its bizarre you think you know me.

It is innocent. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I come from a country where its "INNOCENT until proven guilty."

Where are you from? In your country are you also innocent until proven guilty or is it different there?

Here you can read where I am from in Canada its a protected right. Does your country not have protected rights like this?

Since the trial is in Canada are you refusing to admit they are innocent until proven guilty?

If they are found not guilty then they are INNOCENT. Please learn the judicial system in Canada.
View attachment 991588

Lmao, you're embarrassing yourself.

In Canada, there is no verdict called "innocent" in a criminal trial. It is guilty or not guilty (and some others for different circumstances).

A not guilty verdict is not a declaration of "innocence". A not guilty verdict does not unequivocally mean there is no wrongdoing. It means the Crown cannot prove the defendant committed a crime beyond all reasonable doubt.

You clearly don't know anything about the legal system.

I have a feeling its the young people who grew up with social media that think we are guilty until proven innocent. Somehow it flipped over the last 20 years.

Read the one guy's post. He thinks just because you are found not guilty doesn't mean you are innocent. Its difficult to converse with these people. The sheer ignorance here is breathtaking.
View attachment 991601

It factually does not mean you are innocent. It means you are not guilty. They are not the same.

What's hilarious is you think you know anything about the legal system.

 

[My3Sons]

I have a feeling its the young people who grew up with social media that think we are guilty until proven innocent. Somehow it flipped over the last 20 years.

Read the one guy's post. He thinks just because you are found not guilty doesn't mean you are innocent. Its difficult to converse with these people. The sheer ignorance here is breathtaking.
View attachment 991601

To be fair, these are somewhat abstract concepts that people have written books about. If you aren't a lawyer it can be tricky and even then if you don't practice in a particular arena you will miss much of the nuance. For example, is the standard the same in the US? The prima facie terms seem to be based on what you've posted, but as always the devil is in the details and unless you read the explanatory materials and court opinions you cannot be sure. Social media gives anyone who wants it a platform and there is a reason the US founders wanted to balance things and avoid tyranny of the majority. You have to forgive the youngsters that have grown up almost exclusively in the social media world. Hopefully they learn as they mature.

 

[toddkaz]

Lmao, you're embarrassing yourself.

In Canada, there is no verdict called "innocent" in a criminal trial. It is guilty or not guilty (and some others for different circumstances).

A not guilty verdict is not a declaration of "innocence". A not guilty verdict does not unequivocally mean there is no wrongdoing. It means the Crown cannot prove the defendant committed a crime beyond all reasonable doubt.

You clearly don't know anything about the legal system.


It factually does not mean you are innocent. It means you are not guilty. They are not the same.

What's hilarious is you think you know anything about the legal system.

Can you explain why a not guilty verdict is not a declaration of innocence? Its your statement. Can you explain it?

 

[SEALBound]

Acquitted people should be treated as innocent, regardless of the truth. Otherwise, there’s no point in trials, just go from accusation to sentencing.

I 100% agree; however, when people are ideologically or emotionally driven, that's asking way too much of the average person, especially with our ability to manufacture outrage and consent online via targeted social media efforts.

 

[toddkaz]

Lmao, you're embarrassing yourself.

In Canada, there is no verdict called "innocent" in a criminal trial. It is guilty or not guilty (and some others for different circumstances).

A not guilty verdict is not a declaration of "innocence". A not guilty verdict does not unequivocally mean there is no wrongdoing. It means the Crown cannot prove the defendant committed a crime beyond all reasonable doubt.

You clearly don't know anything about the legal system.


It factually does not mean you are innocent. It means you are not guilty. They are not the same.

What's hilarious is you think you know anything about the legal system.

This is 100% factually incorrect.

If you are found not guilty it 100% means you are innocent and thats protected under the Canadian Bill of Rights.

And do you know why when you are found "not guilty" it means you are innocent?

 

[bossram]

Can you explain why a not guilty verdict is not a declaration of innocence? Its your statement. Can you explain it?

It is not. There is no legal verdict called "innocent". The judge doesn't declare the defendant "innocent". Not guilty simply means that a crime cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt. You could take the same case to a civil court and the defendant could be found to have committed some wrongdoing based on the balance of probabilities, and be forced to payout the plaintiff. Does this mean the defendant is "innocent"?

 

[toddkaz]

It is not. There is no legal verdict called "innocent". The judge doesn't declare the defendant "innocent". Not guilty simply means that a crime cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt. You could take the same case to a civil court and the defendant could be found to have committed some wrongdoing based on the balance of probabilities, and be forced to payout the plaintiff. Does this mean the defendant is "innocent"?

You didn't answer the question. If you are found not guilty you understand this means you are innocent?

You understand this right?

 

[bossram]

You didn't answer the question. If you are found not guilty you understand this means you are innocent?

You understand this right?

No, it does not from a legal perspective. Why are you mixing words? Being found not guilty means you are not guilty. It does not mean anything else. Or do you think the judge says to the defendant, "you are found innocent"? Is that what the verdict is? Answer the question.

Again, the situation I presented of criminally not guilty but found liable in a civil court directly contrasts this. Why don't you answer the question. If you are not guilty in a criminal court, but are found liable of wrongdoing in a civil court, are you innocent?

 

[Hotep Numminen]

You didn't answer the question. If you are found not guilty you understand this means you are innocent?

You understand this right?

man

 

[Paper]

Interested to see how they're compensated for essentially losing their livelihood if they are indeed found not guilty.

For what? By whom?

Their contracts were honoured, they made the money they were owed by the NHL right? Some of them have chosen to play in the KHL as an option but the NHL is under no more obligation to hire them than you are to hire them to mow your lawn right now.

The only real issue is if an NHL team wants to sign them while the NHL has them banned. That would likely fall under an internal arbitration. We'll just have to wait and see who the Oilers sign.

The alleged victim never made any public comments so it's not like she can be going after.

And then the rest is the Crown. You don't get compensation for a failed prosecution. They would need to claim some type of malicious prosecution and intended defamation that would likely be struck down quickly presumably. It would require malfeasance on the level of like the Crown editing the videos. Just nothing that's been accused yet.

Besides some of them can't work because of their mental health problems. Get better soon Dube.

 

[toddkaz]

No, it does not from a legal perspective. Why are you mixing words? Being found guilty means you are not guilty. It does not mean anything else. Or do you think the judge says to the defendant, "you are found innocent"? Is that what the verdict is? Answer the question.

Again, the situation I presented of criminally not guilty but found liable in a civil court directly contrasts this. Why don't you answer the question. If you are not guilty in a criminal court, but are found liable of wrongdoing in a civil court, are you innocent?

Ok so you literally don't understand the basic foundations of the Canadian judicial system.

You are innocent until proven guilty. This is protected under the Canadian bill of rights.

So if you are found not guilty that means you are i________t

Fill in the blank.


To answer your question. Yes, in the eyes of the law you are considered innocent, if you are found not guilty. Thats why on forms they have a spot to fill out for criminal CONVICTIONS and they don't ask about civil court rulings anywhere when it comes to any applications, border crossing etc.

man

woman

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend???

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Given that this is going to trial and has been years in the making I think it’s safe to say those players didn’t put themselves in an appropriate position.

 

[Some Other Flame]

Welp, Alex Formentonsomeone sure is desperate to be found innocentnot guilty. Probably wanna spend that time preparing for the trailtrial instead of arguing online based on AI results.

Actually, I can totally see all 5 players using AI to draft their defense. It's gonna be hilarious

 

[Wretched Oil]

We're really gonna get bombarded with this shit in the media over the first round of playoff hockey, aren't we?

Poor us

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

That squirrel is batshit crazy!!!

I look forward to confirmation of who the pizza guy is

 

[ratbid]

Ok so you literally don't understand the basic foundations of the Canadian judicial system.

You are innocent until proven guilty. This is protected under the Canadian bill of rights.

So if you are found not guilty that means you are i________t

Fill in the blank.


woman

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend???
View attachment 991625

View attachment 991626

Y'all are arguing unnecessary semantics and both saying the same thing.

Presumption of Innocence extends to all people - correct.

But due to the burden of proof in criminal trials in Canada, the Court is not there to determine innocence. They are there to determine if someone is Guilty or Not Guilty. This is necessary due to how proof is structured: you're not required to prove your innocence, there simply has to be an absence of proof of guilt. So to the original point, it's correct, the court determines Guilty vs Not Guilty. That is a very fundamental and explicit part of how the procedure works to protect the presumption of innocence. You do not need to prove your innocence in court.

Now you can extrapolate that by the presumption of innocence and as a society say they are proven innocent, but technically that is not what the court does nor will it ever be.

Congrats you're both right and both wrong. Move on.

 

[toddkaz]

Y'all are arguing unnecessary semantics and both saying the same thing.

Presumption of Innocence extends to all people - correct.

But due to the burden of proof in criminal trials in Canada, the Court is not there to determine innocence. They are there to determine if someone is Guilty or Not Guilty. This is necessary due to how proof is structured: you're not required to prove your innocence, there simply has to be an absence of proof of guilt. So to the original point, it's correct, the court determines Guilty vs Not Guilty. That is a very fundamental and explicit part of how the procedure works to protect the presumption of innocence. You do not need to prove your innocence in court.

Now you can extrapolate that by the presumption of innocence and as a society say they are proven innocent, but technically that is not what the court does nor will it ever be.

Congrats you're both right and both wrong. Move on.

Point being is if you are presumed innocent and the courts rule you not guilty then you are still innocent. That doesn't change.

Court of public opinion or social media doesn't dictate what the eyes of the law sees.

People here say,"Just because you are found not guilty doesn't mean you are innocent"

Why yes it does because you were innocent to begin with in the eyes of the law.

 

[Paper]

You are innocent until proven guilty.

No you are presumed innocent.

Let's look at the word presumed. Presumed: an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.

What does it mean for the Canadian judicial system. You're right. It means the onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty before they are (should be) convicted on criminal charges. It provides protection in the hearing. The ultimate purpose of it is to ensure that no innocent people are convicted and punished criminally. Of course that isn't 100%, but because of it's nature the reverse is also equally true; guilty people being found not guilty. The burden isn't reached. It happens everyday.

It does not label you innocent anymore than it would before or after a trial or to someone who is or isn't charged of something. Of course a trial and verdict will shift the public opinion on one's innocence.
But yes, everyone should understand that simply being found not guilty does not mean you definitely didn't do it. It means the Crown couldn't prove it beyond the stringent requirement beyond a reasonable doubt. And then you can get into civil cases where the burden is only on a balance of probabilities.

Ivan Henry is in the news. He was alleged to have rape people, ultimately he was acquitted on the charges (and that's cutting it very short). Later 5 of his victims sued him. He made a similar argument to you, but the court struck it down in its verdict in favour of the plantiffs:

“The Court of Appeal addressed the matter that was before it and found that Mr. Henry was not guilty of the criminal offences of which he was convicted. The Court did not find that he did not sexually assault any of the complainants, of whom five are plaintiffs here. Mr. Henry was found not guilty of the criminal offences, but that does not mean that he cannot be found liable for damages in this civil proceeding."

So Ivan Henry was acquitted on the criminal charges, but still found liable in the civil case. Importantly and completely contradictory to your claim, because the judge and jury do not need to take him as innocent despite his acquittals.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

Y'all are arguing unnecessary semantics and both saying the same thing.

Presumption of Innocence extends to all people - correct.

But due to the burden of proof in criminal trials in Canada, the Court is not there to determine innocence. They are there to determine if someone is Guilty or Not Guilty. This is necessary due to how proof is structured: you're not required to prove your innocence, there simply has to be an absence of proof of guilt. So to the original point, it's correct, the court determines Guilty vs Not Guilty. That is a very fundamental and explicit part of how the procedure works to protect the presumption of innocence. You do not need to prove your innocence in court.

Now you can extrapolate that by the presumption of innocence and as a society say they are proven innocent, but technically that is not what the court does nor will it ever be.

Congrats you're both right and both wrong. Move on.

Oh shit, you’re in trouble now

 

[bossram]

Ok so you literally don't understand the basic foundations of the Canadian judicial system.

You are innocent until proven guilty. This is protected under the Canadian bill of rights.

So if you are found not guilty that means you are i________t

Fill in the blank.


To answer your question. Yes, in the eyes of the law you are considered innocent, if you are found not guilty. Thats why on forms they have a spot to fill out for criminal CONVICTIONS and they don't ask about civil court rulings anywhere when it comes to any applications, border crossing etc.

woman

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend???
View attachment 991625

View attachment 991626

Why can't you answer the basic questions I posed you? Why are you avoiding the questions?

Is "innocent" a verdict in a criminal trial? Is that what the judge declares?

If someone is not guilty in a criminal trial, but found liable in a civil court, are they innocent?

Very simple questions.

Y'all are arguing unnecessary semantics and both saying the same thing.

Presumption of Innocence extends to all people - correct.

But due to the burden of proof in criminal trials in Canada, the Court is not there to determine innocence. They are there to determine if someone is Guilty or Not Guilty. This is necessary due to how proof is structured: you're not required to prove your innocence, there simply has to be an absence of proof of guilt. So to the original point, it's correct, the court determines Guilty vs Not Guilty. That is a very fundamental and explicit part of how the procedure works to protect the presumption of innocence. You do not need to prove your innocence in court.

Now you can extrapolate that by the presumption of innocence and as a society say they are proven innocent, but technically that is not what the court does nor will it ever be.

Congrats you're both right and both wrong. Move on.

Except we are both not wrong. I am correct. He is incorrect.

He thinks a criminal court declares someone "innocent". He refuses to say otherwise. This is incorrect.

 

[toddkaz]

Why can't you answer the basic questions I posed you? Why are you avoiding the questions?

Is "innocent" a verdict in a criminal trial? Is that what the judge declares?

If someone is not guilty in a criminal trial, but found liable in a civil court, are they innocent?

Very simple questions.

Being found not guilty is not a declaration of innocence because you were innocent to begin with. People in Canada don't need a declaration because we are all innocent until a court proves otherwise and that does not change with civil court or the court of public opinion. Thats a right we are given under the Bill of Rights.

You seem to fail to understand this concept.

So I guess its not a declaration of innocence but a declaration of continued innocence.

Multiple times you said,"Just because you are found not guilty doesn't mean you are innocent"

When in fact thats exactly what it means. Anyone found not guilty is innocent under the eyes of the law.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

Being found not guilty is not a declartion of innocence because you were innocent to begin with. People in Canada don't need a declaration because we are all innocent until a court proves otherwise and that does not change with civil court or the court of public opinion. Thats a right we are given under the Bill of Rights.

You seem to fail to understand this concept.

So I guess its not a declaration of innocence but a declaration of continued innocence.

So if a guy murders 100 people and nobody finds out you think he is innocent

 

[toddkaz]

So if a guy murders 100 people and nobody finds out you think he is innocent

Under the eyes of the law he is innocent until proven guilty. Why is this concept hard to understand?

You understand the government gives us that right? Its not me given them that right. Its troubling people don't comprehend this.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

Under the eyes of the law he is innocent until proven guilty. Why is this concept hard to understand?

That’s not hard. But he’s not innocent

 

[toddkaz]

That’s not hard. But he’s not innocent

according to who? You? Or the law?