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

[Voight]

Were any plea deals offered at any point?

If the Defense are pushing for trial they expect to win. These guys have money and top tier lawyers.

I expect all of them to be acquitted.

If/when they do, it will be interesting to see if they are still backballed from the league.

Carter Hart was playing fairly well so I can 100% see a goaltending needy team sign him at least to a PTO at camp.

Formenton was already out of the league ands from what I understand is now working in construction.

Dube had a career high in points (45) the season before his last so he might get a shot too.

Foote is likely done, McCleod is TBD.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

Tell me this.

If you are presumed innocent, and that right is given to us by the government under the bill of rights and you are found not guilty why would you not still be presumed innocent after the trial? If you are innocent before the trial why would you not be innocent after the trial if you are found not guilty?

In the eyes of the system that messed up you would be presumed innocent, but if you did it you are factually guilty of doing it.
If the legal system fails one way or the other it doesn’t mean the person is innocent or guilty. An innocent man can go to jail. Is he guilty to you??

Carter Hart was playing fairly well so I can 100% see a goaltending needy team sign him at least to a PTO at camp.

Formenton was already out of the league ands from what I understand is now working in construction.

Dube had a career high in points (45) the season before his last so he might get a shot too.

Foote is likely done, McCleod is TBD.

Agreed, Hart has the best chance

 

[toddkaz]

In the eyes of the system that messed up you would be presumed innocent, but if you did it you are factually guilty of doing it.
If the legal system fails one way or the other it doesn’t mean the person is innocent or guilty. An innocent man can go to jail. Is he guilty to you??

Ok here is an example and I believe the scenario happened in real life.

I man shoots another man, you witness this and think wow he just murdered that person.

It goes to court and we find out the man who was shot was asked to be shot because he has terminal cancer and he wants his family to get life insurance.

Its no longer murder but assisted suicide.

Thats why its important to wait to get all the facts and not just assume its murder.

You asked me the question,"What if he murders someone is he innocent?" but its not so simple, thats why we have a judicial system and don't go straight to the hanging.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

But if they were presumed innocent before the trial as the rights given to us by the bill of rights and they are found not guilty are they still not innocent after the trial?

What changed in their innocence before and after the trial since they were found not guilty?

This is basic stuff.

The evidence from the trial....

Ok here is an example and I believe the scenario happened in real life.

I man shoots another man, you witness this and think wow he just murdered that person.

It goes to court and we find out the man who was shot was asked to be shot because he has terminal cancer and he wants his family to get life insurance.

Its no longer murder but assisted suicide.

Thats why its important to wait to get all the facts and not just assume its murder.

You asked me the question,"What if he murders someone is he innocent?" but its not so simple, thats why we have a judicial system and don't go straight to the hanging.

It's murder because the intent of the shooter.

 

[toddkaz]

The evidence from the trial....


It's murder because the intent of the shooter.

The intent of the shooter is not murder. Its assisted suicide. The definition of murder is unlawful killing of another human without justification. It was lawful by the person asking to be killed.

If you feel different then you also feel the Canadian government is now murdering people.

The Canadian government is offering to kill you if you want to die. So under the same scenario you must also believe the Canadian government is murdering its citizens.

You cannot say that its murder but the Canadian government is not murdering people. Its both the same thing.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

The intent of the shooter is not murder. Its assisted suicide. If you feel different then you also feel the Canadian government is now murdering people.

The Canadian government is offering to kill you if you want to die. So under the same scenario you must also believe the Canadian government is murdering its citizens.

You cannot say that its murder but the Canadian government is not murdering people. Its both the same thing.

Intent is literally the key element to differentiating murder from manslaughter. The intent is needed, crucial.

If you shoot someone with the intent of killing them, even if it's to end their pain, then that's murder.

 

[toddkaz]

Intent is literally the key element to differentiating murder from manslaughter. The intent is needed, crucial.

If you shoot someone with the intent of killing them, even if it's to end their pain, then that's murder.

You never answered my question. Then you must believe the Canadian government is murdering people, also Switzerland is doing the same.

The definition of assisted suicide and the definition of murder is almost identical.

The death penalty is also murder.

Unless you believe governments have the right to sanction murder against its own citizens.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Whatever the outcome, this has started a conversation amongst a lot of young, privileged guys about the dangers (to themselves and others) of borderline, risky, aggressive, and/or coercive sexual behaviour.

 

[Paper]

The intent of the shooter is not murder. Its assisted suicide. The definition of murder is unlawful killing of another human without justification. It was lawful by the person asking to be killed.

What? WHAT?

You've jumped the shark my friend. You're now beyond arguing merely semantics and are now making up complete bullshit.

There would be nothing lawful about shooting your friend in the head in Canada. At best you would argue for aiding suicide.

Counselling or aiding suicide

• 241(1) Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not,
  • (a) counsels a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or
  • (b) aids a person to die by suicide.
• Marginal note:Exemption for medical assistance in dying
  
  (2) No medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if they provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.2.

Also we've got the Kenneth Law case to see how the court wants to differentiate between murder and assisted suicide. In any case, it's not lawful unless you're a medical practitioner acting in accordance with 241.2

Kenneth Law provided suicide kits for sale. He never administrated them. He was never present. He never labeled them as anything but suicide kits. He is currently charged with 14 first-degree murder charges and is awaiting trial. So your premise that shooting your friend in the head is lawful doesn't have any legal backup clearly.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

You never answered my question. Then you must believe the Canadian government is murdering people, also Switzerland is doing the same.

The definition of assisted suicide and the definition of murder is almost identical.

The death penalty is also murder.

Unless you believe governments have the right to sanction murder against its own citizens.

What the f*** are you even talking about rn?

Medically assisted death is f***ed up ya. I mean I'm not gonna defend it.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

You are labelling them guilty even if they get acquitted. And again, that is a total disregard of the legal system. With that attitude there might as well be no legal system at all.

Not at all lol. Every individual has the right to make up their own mind.

The legal system designates whether someone is legally culpable but has no bearing on moral culpability. Besides, even if they are not found criminally liable they could be found civily liable. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very high bar, and it is set high for good reason, but it is not the bar that ANYONE uses in personal judgements of right and wrong.

 

[JPeeper]

You never answered my question. Then you must believe the Canadian government is murdering people, also Switzerland is doing the same.

The definition of assisted suicide and the definition of murder is almost identical.

The death penalty is also murder.

Unless you believe governments have the right to sanction murder against its own citizens.

Surely you can't be serious. You've doubled down about 17 times now and every single time you just dig a bigger hole.

Keep going, you've almost reached China!

 

[Byron Bitz]

Do you defend OJ Simpson like this? I mean, he was acquitted....

He’s also a huge Casey Anthony supporter.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

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

Lol, he’s right. Not only have I studied this shit at a graduate level but I have been the foreperson on a first degree murder trial. Any and every court room judge will stress that “not guilty” does not mean “innocent”.

You dont understand the law or what is being said at all. It’s really funny that you think youre the smart one here, and not at all surprising that you are struggling in this conversation.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

You can say that again. I myself was falsely accused of something horrendous and it could have destroyed my life. I even had to take a lie detector test at a police station to clear my name. The first test actually came back inconclusive and I took a second lie detector test by the police before I cleared my name.

I absolutely never put myself in a compromising position and was shocked when the police showed up at my door.

It could have destroyed my life so I do belief I have some experience in these situations.

you’d have thought yourself guilty if you’d been found guilty though

 

[toddkaz]

Lol, he’s right. Not only have I studied this shit at a graduate level but I have been the foreperson on a first degree murder trial. Any and every court room judge will stress that “not guilty” does not mean “innocent”.

You dont understand the law or what is being said at all. It’s really funny that you think youre the smart one here, and not at all surprising that you are struggling in this conversation.

I don't believe you because if you did study it then you would understand presumption of innocence. If you are found not guilty your presumption of innocence does not change.

But according to you it does.

 

[Byron Bitz]

During this trial we will likely find out who else was in the room and did nothing to stop what happened so we may see some more players in breach of the NHL code of Conduct.

 

[toddkaz]

you’d have thought yourself guilty if you’d been found guilty though

If I thought myself guilty I would have failed the test. Thats how it works.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

If I thought myself guilty I would have failed the test. Thats how it works.

You can fail a polygraph test because you have anxiety. Not at all reliable.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

If I thought myself guilty I would have failed the test. Thats how it works.

At that point cos there hadn’t been a trial you were innocent. Lucky escape

 

[toddkaz]

You can fail a polygraph test because you have anxiety. Not at all reliable.

Of course, its not 100%. You take a test a "psychological test" before you take the test or at least I did. This is Canada not USA. I do not know how its done in USA.

 

[freakydallas13]

I think the prosecution is toast if she doesn't testify. Pretty hard to convict without testimony since all the prosecution has is testimony. There is no DNA evidence or any physical evidence. I am pretty sure in one of the texts from her she says it was consensual.(she claims she was forced to text this)

Maybe you should wait until the trial before saying some of these speculative statements.

 

[toddkaz]

At that point cos there hadn’t been a trial you were innocent. Lucky escape

Very lucky, I went to a police station without a lawyer and was strapped into a machine run by the police for the police. I would never do that again and would suggest everyone get a lawyer. I was young and naive.

People who are innocent usually think this way. I am innocent so I have nothing to hide.

 

[Nut Upstrom]

I remember reading "Lord of the Flies" in school and thinking this is absurd no one acts this way.

It turns out I was wrong.

Lets stop equating having an opinion or sharing that opinion with the savage "civilization" depicted in Lord of Flies. If anything conjures images of the society depicted in that novel it is the alledged behavior of those on trial.

Having an opinion is human nature, no one is as open mined and free of judgement as you pretend to be; no one blindly judges when information is presented, even if most keep said judgements to themselves. If one has an opinion then one is free to speak it, even when it comes to a legal trial. Pretending you're above such things in such a superior and condescending manner is only a means of camouflaging your support of the likely rapists. No doubt you'll celebrate their acquital and point to them as victims then use them as a cautionary tale next time a female dares speak an accusation about a beloved sports figure.

If you weren't so transparent you might be dangerous.

 

[Paper]

The same BDSM guy who invented Wonder-Woman (notice the heavy BDSM themes in early Wonder-Woman with her lasso being used to tie, often finding herself captured) also invented the polygraph based on psuedo-science.

The court doesn't allow them because they are fraudulent devices used purely for psychological mean on suspects.

But they are no better than this: