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

[Maliks PlusMinus]

according to who? You? Or the law?

Facts

 

[bossram]

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.

Again, you dodge the questions. Is "innocent" a verdict in a criminal trial? Yes or no? Is someone who is found liable in civil proceeding, but has no criminal convictions, innocent? Yes or No? Very simple questions. Just answer them.

And no, the bolded is incorrect. You once again show you don't know what you're talking about. The Charter does not say you are innocent. It says you are presumed innocent. The Charter literally doesn't say whether you are innocent or not! It's just that in a legal proceeding, you are assumed innocent until found otherwise.

 

[toddkaz]

Again, you dodge the questions. Is "innocent" a verdict in a criminal trial? Yes or no? Is someone who is found liable in civil proceeding, but has no criminal convictions, innocent? Yes or No? Very simple questions. Just answer them.

And no, the bolded is incorrect. You once again show you don't know what you're talking about. The Charter does not say you are innocent. It says you are presumed innocent. The Charter literally doesn't say whether you are innocent or not! It's just that in a legal proceeding, you are assumed innocent until found otherwise.

Of course someone who is liable in a criminal proceedings innocent under the eyes of the law.

Thats why when you fill out forms they ask about criminal convictions and not civil court convictions? Correct? correct!

checkmate.

Presumed innocent and innocent, now you just arguing over semantics. presumed innocent means that it is assumed the person is innocent until proven guilty in a criminal trial.

You are literally just throwing poop on a wall. You are literally arguing over the definition of presumption of innocence. lol.

A PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Its literally the definition. Just stop already.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

"Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."

 

[Beerz]

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.

Just as guilty in a civil suit does not mean you are guilty. "More likely than not" does not = guilt.

 

[bossram]

Of course someone who is liable in a criminal proceedings innocent under the eyes of the law.

Thats why when you fill out forms they ask about criminal convictions and not civil court convictions? Correct? correct!

checkmate.

Presumed innocent and innocent, now you just arguing over semantics. presumed innocent means that it is assumed the person is innocent until proven guilty in a criminal trial.

You are literally just throwing poop on a wall. You are literally arguing over the definition of presumption of innocence. lol.

A PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Its literally the definition. Just stop already.

View attachment 991643

Referencing AI slop again. LMAO.

No, you dodged the questions again. Is "innocent" a verdict in a criminal trial. Yes or no?

Also let's confirm this: So you believe someone found liable of wrongdoing in a civil proceeding is "innocent", correct? For example, a business owner that doesn't pay his employees, but is ordered to pay back the lost wages + interest, if they are never criminally convicted, this person is innocent of any wrongdoing? Correct?

Wtf are you even talking about with the bolded. Someone "liable" in a criminal proceeding is innocent? You mean someone "guilty" in a criminal trial is innocent? Checkmate!

 

[toddkaz]

Referencing AI slop again. LMAO.

No, you dodged the questions again. Is "innocent" a verdict in a criminal trial. Yes or no?

Also let's confirm this: So you believe someone found liable of wrongdoing in a civil proceeding is "innocent", correct? For example, a business owner that doesn't pay his employees, but is ordered to pay back the lost wages + interest, if they are never criminally convicted, this person is innocent of any wrongdoing? Correct?

Wtf are you even talking about with the bolded. Someone "liable" in a criminal proceeding is innocent? You mean someone "guilty" in a criminal trial is innocent? Checkmate!

So we agree, under the eyes of the law you are innocent even when found liable in civil court and by the defintion given by AI courts decide innocence or guilt.

Presumed innocence means innocent until proven guilty but somehow me using the definition means I don't know anything.

When you fill out forms about criminal convictions you are never asked about civil convictions unless its bankruptcy.

Anything else here? We done? Or you want to lose more arguments?

"Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."

Not guilty does mean you are innocent because you were presumed innocent before trial so if you are not guilty it means you are still innocent.

Presumed innocent means innocent until proven guilty. If you are not proven guilty it means you are innocent.

 

[bossram]

So we agree, under the eyes of the law you are innocent even when found liable in civil court and by the defintion given by AI courts decide innocence or guilt.

Presumed innocence means innocent until proven guilty but somehow me using the definition means I don't know anything.

When you fill out forms about criminal convictions you are never asked about civil convictions unless its bankruptcy.

Anything else here? We done? Or you want to lose more arguments?
View attachment 991649



Not guilty does mean you are innocent because you were presumed innocent before trial so if you are not guilty it means you are still innocent.

Presumed innocent means innocent until proven guilty. If you are not proven guilty it means you are innocent.

View attachment 991650

LOOOOOOOL the almighty AI has spoken.

Alright bud, we get it, you're 13 years old. We'll cut you some slack that you don't know anything

 

[toddkaz]

LOOOOOOOL the almighty AI has spoken.

Alright bud, we get it, you're 13 years old. We'll cut you some slack that you don't know anything

Please feel free to provide a link or screenshot of anything I, or AI has said that proves I am wrong. To this point you have not.

Here is the issue with you and anyone else that thinks "not guilty" doesn't mean someone is innocent.

----------------------------------------------------

Once a court of law finds someone not guilty it then becomes your opinion if the person did it or not, that you think or feel he is not innocent or did the crime. So you want to argue your opinion over the FACT that a court has decided innocence.

So once someone is found not guilty the only thing you can provide is your opinion on guilt, while the facts are the person is not guilty and thus innocent of the crimes in the eyes of the law.

Anything after a verdict is rendered is just your opinion and meaningless.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

Please feel free to provide a link or screenshot of anything I, or AI has said that proves I am wrong. To this point you have not.

Here is the issue with you and anyone else that thinks "not guilty" doesn't mean someone is innocent.

----------------------------------------------------

Once a court of law finds someone not guilty it then becomes your opinion if the person did it or no, that you think or feel he is not innocent or did the crime. So you want to argue your opinion over the FACT that a court has decided innocence.

So once someone is found not guilty the only thing you can provide is your opinion on guilt, while the facts are the person is not guilty and thus innocent of the crimes in the eyes of the law.

Anything after a verdict is rendered is just your opinion and meaningless.
View attachment 991674

You are either deranged or just winding people up.

Earlier you were desperately telling everyone you only cared about the trial, not the verdict, and now you are arguing people’s opinions don’t matter, just the verdict.

Add to that you think a mass murderer who gets away with it is innocent even though all you know about them is that they are a mass murderer who hasn’t been tried for his crimes.

In this thread you’ve gone from not caring about the verdict to only caring about verdicts even if there hasn’t been a trial

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

If they found someone innocent, they would just say innocent. They use not guilty because there was reasonable doubt.

This is basic stuff.

 

[toddkaz]

You are either deranged or just winding people up.

Earlier you were desperately telling everyone you only cared about the trial, not the verdict, and now you are arguing people’s opinions don’t matter, just the verdict.

Add to that you think a mass murderer who gets away with it is innocent even though all you know about them is that they are a mass murderer who hasn’t been tried for his crimes.

In this thread you’ve gone from not caring about the verdict to only caring about verdicts even if there hasn’t been a trial

I was desperate was I? I mean I stopped reading after you claimed I was desperate.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

I was desperate was I? I mean I stopped reading after you claimed I was desperate.

A wise move. Wouldn’t want you to have to defend your nonsense

 

[toddkaz]

A wise move. Wouldn’t want you to have to defend your nonsense

Yes, it was because anything else you wrote is also meaningless. Its bizarre how people like you can't grasp the term innocent until proven guilty.

Its bizarre that you call innocent until proven guilty nonsense,

Perhaps for you, you look at opinion polls on Tiktok to decide if someone is guilty.

Facts

Facts are unless someone has been convicted of killing 100 people its just your opinion they are guilty.

Why is it so hard to grasp the basic concepts of the Canadian judicial system?

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

Yes, it was because anything else you wrote is also meaningless. It’s bizarre how people like you can't grasp the term innocent until proven guilty.

I believe people are either innocent or guilty. If (as with these guys) I don’t know if they’re innocent or guilty then I don’t know or claim to, but if I see a guy commit a murder he is factually guilty whatever a trial might say, or your charter.

Yes, it was because anything else you wrote is also meaningless. Its bizarre how people like you can't grasp the term innocent until proven guilty.

Its bizarre that you call innocent until proven guilty nonsense,

Perhaps for you, you look at opinion polls on Tiktok to decide if someone is guilty.


Facts are unless someone has been convicted of killing 100 people its just your opinion they are guilty.

Why is it so hard to grasp the basic concepts of the Canadian judicial system?

Well no. It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact. Not a legal declaration, but a cold hard fact.

Again, aren’t you the guy who wasn’t interested in court verdicts a few pages back

 

[toddkaz]

I believe people are either innocent or guilty. If (as with these guys) I don’t know if they’re innocent or guilty then I don’t know or claim to, but if I see a guy commit a murder he is factually guilty whatever a trial might say, or your charter.

First off you don't know if its murder and/or if there are mitigating circumstances. Thats why there is different degrees including manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

Thats the whole point of a judicial system and innocence until proven guilty.

Your feelings are not more important than the judicial system..

Also did you know that eye witness testimony is also the absolutely least dependable evidence in a court of law?

 

[Mattb124]

Right but I have seen multiple posters say the hockey players are guilty or the poster themselves would never put themselves into a position to be accused or that its the players fault for being there.

When the truth is there are people in prison who are falsely accused like Brian Banks who was accused of rape and kidnapping at the age of 17. It can happen to anyone at anytime and you don't need to be in a compromising position to be accused of it.

Its a lesson to give caution to jumping to conclusions and to listen to both sides.
View attachment 991549


Its a criminal law principle called Blackstone's principle and is the foundation of our justice system.

The bolded is demonstrably true in life, but apparently not on the internet. Go figure….

 

[toddkaz]

If they found someone innocent, they would just say innocent. They use not guilty because there was reasonable doubt.

This is basic stuff.

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.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

I also never said wait for the verdict. I never once said wait for the verdict yet was attacked for not saying that.

I said WAIT FOR THE TRIAL.

Although whatever the evidence at the trial shows….. you’re only interested in the verdict.

Otherwise to quote the great deranged squirrel, ‘Your feelings are not more important than the judicial system.’

 

[bossram]

Please feel free to provide a link or screenshot of anything I, or AI has said that proves I am wrong. To this point you have not.

Here is the issue with you and anyone else that thinks "not guilty" doesn't mean someone is innocent.

----------------------------------------------------

Once a court of law finds someone not guilty it then becomes your opinion if the person did it or not, that you think or feel he is not innocent or did the crime. So you want to argue your opinion over the FACT that a court has decided innocence.

So once someone is found not guilty the only thing you can provide is your opinion on guilt, while the facts are the person is not guilty and thus innocent of the crimes in the eyes of the law.

Anything after a verdict is rendered is just your opinion and meaningless.
View attachment 991674

We know you're 13 because your understanding of the law is not anything other than yelling "innocent until proven guilty" and posting a screenshot of google AI. It's okay kid. You'll learn and eventually realize you're wrong.

I am right because the legal definition of not guilty is not "innocent". A not guilty verdict just means that the defendant is not guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubt. That's what it means. It is not declaring innocence or lack of innocence.

 

[toddkaz]

Although whatever the evidence at the trial shows….. you’re only interested in the verdict.

Otherwise to quote the great deranged squirrel, ‘Your feelings are not more important than the judicial system.’

I think you are not capable of understanding the difference between one post being specifically about the hockey trial and other posts speaking in generality.

Would you agree?

We know you're 13 because your understanding of the law is not anything other than yelling "innocent until proven guilty" and posting a screenshot of google AI. It's okay kid. You'll learn and eventually realize you're wrong.

I am right because the legal definition of not guilty is not "innocent". A not guilty verdict just means that the defendant is not guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubt. That's what it means. It is not declaring innocence or lack of innocence.

And you went into detail explaining your point of view providing court rulings, screenshots, links and expert opinions. and in no way you just posted your opinion and feelings....oh wait.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

I think you are not capable of understanding the difference between one post being specifically about the hockey trial and other posts speaking in generality.

Would you agree?

No.

Are we to judge innocence based on opinions, facts or verdicts?

 

[toddkaz]

No.

Are we to judge innocence based on opinions, facts or verdicts?

It depends who is we in that sentence.

We the jury
we the public opinion
we the social media
or
we as individuals?


If you means you then its your opinion you are free to judge however you want.
If you means public opinion its usually based on hysteria
If you means the jury its based on facts and evidence presented during the trial
If you means we as individuals that would differ from person to person.
If you means me I like to wait until the trial and see all the evidence provided before I decide my opinion.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

It depends who is we in that sentence.

We the jury
we the public opinion
we the social media
or
we as individuals?


If you means you then its your opinion you are free to judge however you want.
If you means public opinion its usually based on hysteria
If you means the jury its based on facts and evidence presented during the trial
If you means we as individuals that would differ from person to person.

As I said, I judge on the facts.

Generally I don’t have the facts so will form an opinion based on the limited amount I know (including any verdicts). If I don’t know the facts I’m not going to strongly come down on one side or the other and will keep my limited opinion to myself.

But a person is innocent or guilty in my eyes not on whether they are caught or not, but whether they did it or not.

A guy getting away with murder being ‘innocent’ can only mean that your system has f***ed up as that man should be guilty. So, if I know for a fact he is guilty, he is guilty. Charter be damned

 

[toddkaz]

As I said, I judge on the facts.

Generally I don’t have the facts so will form an opinion based on the limited amount I know (including any verdicts). If I don’t know the facts I’m not going to strongly come down on one side or the other and will keep my limited opinion to myself.

But a person is innocent or guilty in my eyes not on whether they are caught or not, but whether they did it or not.

A guy getting away with murder being ‘innocent’ can only mean that your system has f***ed up as that man should be guilty. So, if I know for a fact he is guilty, he is guilty. Charter be damned

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?

Also what you write is just your opinion or how you feel about what happened. Its not factual nor does your opinion decide guilt or innocence. My opinion is also meaningless when it comes to this. If people are found not guilty they are innocent and are free to go on living life. Thats our system, its not perfect but I believe in it until a better one is provided.