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

[red devil]

 

[tfwnogf]

here when it was Trail

 

[Filthy Dangles]

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.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

I am speculating so hard from the comfort of my home and @Bear of Bad News can do nothing about it!

 

[toddkaz]

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.

After seeing all the evidence I could find I expect them to be acquitted too.

 

[Three On Zero]

I am speculating so hard from the comfort of my home and @Bear of Bad News can do nothing about it!

 

[Nemesis Prime]

throw the book at em

 

[Melrose Munch]

After seeing all the evidence I could find I expect them to be acquitted too.

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.

You can thank the police for dragging their feet for so long if they get acquitted. There was no reason evidence collection should take years.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

I am speculating so hard from the comfort of my home and @Bear of Bad News can do nothing about it!

 

[toddkaz]

You can thank the police for dragging their feet for so long if they get acquitted. There was no reason evidence collection should take years.

Or that they are innocent? Is that not a possibility? There are multiple instances where athletes have been accused of sexual assualt only to be cleared years later or even after spending years in prison.

I always reserve my judgement until a trial plays out because its the moral thing to do.

 

[PB37]

 

[super6646]

Or that they are innocent? Is that not a possibility? There are multiple instances where athletes have been accused of sexual assualt only to be cleared years later or even after spending years in prison.

I always reserve my judgement until a trial plays out because its the moral thing to do.

Not guilty does not equal innocent. I don’t understand why this false dichotomy constantly gets paraded.

Ex: You can absolutely be found liable in a civil suit but “not guilty” in a criminal one because the barrier for conviction is far higher in the latter case.

 

[toddkaz]

Not guilty does not equal innocent. I don’t understand why this false dichotomy constantly gets paraded.

Ex: You can absolutely be found liable in a civil suit but “not guilty” in a criminal one because the barrier for conviction is far higher in the latter case.

Cool, just because you want someone to be guilty doesn't make it so. Unless you were there you don't know either.

You weren't there. So what makes you the judge of another human?

The moment someone accuses you of something I can then decide that is who you are?

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

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

 

[wickedwitch]

Cool, just because you want someone to be guilty doesn't make it so. Unless you were there you don't know either.

You weren't there. So what makes you the judge of another human?

The moment someone accuses you of something I can then decide that is who you are?

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

 

[Leonardo87]

I am speculating so hard from the comfort of my home and @Bear of Bad News can do nothing about it!

Don't poke the bear.

 

[toddkaz]

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

Did you have your pitch forks out for this? It goes 2 ways.

 

[super6646]

Cool, just because you want someone to be guilty doesn't make it so. Unless you were there you don't know either.

You weren't there. So what makes you the judge of another human?

The moment someone accuses you of something I can then decide that is who you are?

I never said anything about wanting someone to be guilty or anything; I simply stated that a trial can come up with a result that that they are not guilty even if they probably did the crime. Becuase probably is not enough in the eyes of the law in a criminal sense.

And as an aside to your second point: don’t worry, I will never put myself in a position in which I’ll find myself accused of drugging and raping someone with multiple other people.

 

[toddkaz]

I never said anything about wanting someone to be guilty or anything; I simply stated that a trial can come up with a result that that they are not guilty even if they probably did the crime. Becuase probably is not enough in the eyes of the law in a criminal sense.

And as an aside to your second point: don’t worry, I will never put myself in a position in which I’m accused of drugging and raping someone with multiple people.

I said I reserve my judgement until trial and then you accused me of some nonsense.

Now you are trying to judge me. Its sad people are this way.


You mean like how these lacrosse players never put themselves in that position either but were accused of rape?

Plenty of innocent people in prison.

 

[EK392000]

Did you have your pitch forks out for this? It goes 2 ways.
View attachment 991517

It does go both ways. There are some people that lie, and there are times where there is insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty. It is still possible for them to have committed whatever they are accused of but the Crown does not have what they need to prove it.

The person you’re responded to is referring to the latter situation - the crime was committed but not enough proof to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That does not mean they are innocent. It just means we’ll never know the actual truth of what happened. Court of public opinion will assume that they were both innocent and guilty, just without the evidence.

Agree, however, that we can’t consider them guilty without seeing what is presented at trial.

 

[895]

No idea why anyone would even pretend to know if they are guilty or not. I'm just gonna hope justice is done, whatever that is.

 

[AvroArrow]

You can thank the police for dragging their feet for so long if they get acquitted. There was no reason evidence collection should take years.

It's sad but it's the state of the justice system. I can't discuss it too much but my family is going through a similar case against an individual and we have actual hard evidence, including video footage + audio recordings, text messages etc. All of this was submitted, in total it's been 4 years since the case began and 2+ years since it's been in court, we still don't know if there is a plea deal or if it's going to trial.

Again, this is with legitimate hard evidence. Canadian justice system isn't the greatest and they're extremely slow right now, especially in Ontario. They don't have the manpower, and there's what's called a Jordan Compliance period, I believe it's a 15 month period. The trial must be set within that time, from the date the case officially enters court, otherwise the case is dismissed. (Delays caused by the defence, extend the time period by whatever amount the delay was)

Often times what happens is, because they don't have enough manpower, some cases are rushed and brought into court before the evidence is properly sorted. Other times, if court dates aren't available (Lack of judge availability) it get's thrown out.

I don't think it's that the police took forever, it's just they don't have enough resources/people, or the resources aren't allocated responsibly, and cases are taking way longer than they should.

 

[toddkaz]

It does go both ways. There are some people that lie, and there are times where there is insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty. It is still possible for them to have committed whatever they are accused of but the Crown does not have what they need to prove it.

The person you’re responded to is referring to the latter situation - the crime was committed but not enough proof to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That does not mean they are innocent. It just means we’ll never know the actual truth of what happened. Court of public opinion will assume that they were both innocent and guilty, just without the evidence.

Agree, however, that we can’t consider them guilty without seeing what is presented at trial.

Thats why again, I said I reserve judgement until trial. Yet I get attacked for having that viewpoint.

Some people believe in the "Lord of the Flies" philosophy.

 

[super6646]

I said I reserve my judgement until trial and then you accused me of some nonsense.

Now you are trying to judge me. It’s sad people are this way.

I accused you of nothing. You’re manufacturing what people are saying and projecting. I’m simply correcting a false dichotomy that your post implied.

 

[toddkaz]

I accused you of nothing. You’re manufacturing what people are saying and projecting. I’m simply correcting a false dichotomy that your post implied.

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.