Elias Pettersson Posted January 31 Author Share Posted January 31 1 hour ago, GrammaInTheTub said: Yes, I understand. It’s why I tried to be clear that the evidence and facts to bring the charges is enough for me to understand they were there. SA prosecutions are difficult enough without adding alcohol into the mix. Some people may feel that these individuals should be given another shot or something if found not guilty or are charged for a lesser offence. I am not one of those people. Oh they were definitely all in the hotel room. I don’t think the lawyers are going to go the route that they weren’t even there. I’m sure the 3 players that weren’t charged will have to testify and confirm everyone was in the room. This is going to be a he said she said case and their defence will be it was all consensual. That’s my feeling. What may push this case against the players is if the other players testify against them. If that happens then these 5 players are screwed. That would be the game changer in this case IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted January 31 Author Share Posted January 31 6 minutes ago, Alflives said: Really that all matters not. These guys’ nhl careers are over. They each just lost millions. Might even see them flipping burgers one day, like Jake? Jake is playing hockey in Germany. Germany is a beautiful country. Apparently he is there with his girlfriend. It’s not as great as being in the NHL but I am sure he is making more money than someone flipping burgers at McDonalds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: Jake is playing hockey in Germany. Germany is a beautiful country. Apparently he is there with his girlfriend. It’s not as great as being in the NHL but I am sure he is making more money than someone flipping burgers at McDonalds. IMHAO these kinds of people (jske and these rapists) are short sighted please my worst instincts types. They are exactly the types who end up with nothing and flipping burgers. These are the losers of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 7 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: If they can’t prove they did it in a court of law then they are not guilty. Which means unless you have enough proof you can’t send someone to jail. You are inferring that they are guilty and that there just isn’t enough proof to convict them. What gives you the moral authority to say someone is guilty of a crime when you weren’t even in the room? There were many people, maybe you included, who 100% said Jake Virtanen was guilty. Some people still call him a rapist. I read all of the evidence in that trial. And the evidence showed he was innocent. Right down to the woman sleeping with him in the same bed the entire evening after the so called sexual assault and then asking him for cab money the next day to get home. She even said he assaulted her for the first time on the balcony. Unfortunately for her the evidence showed there wasn’t even a balcony in the hotel room. Jake earned his reputation in the Lower Mainland over the years as a womanizing philanderer. Local, very good looking, NHL player. All the girls around his age knew someone who slept with him. And they all knew him as a total sleazeball. Does that make him guilty? No. But he did not do himself any favours with his behaviour. This case seems a bit different, though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: Jake earned his reputation in the Lower Mainland over the years as a womanizing philanderer. Local, very good looking, NHL player. All the girls around his age knew someone who slept with him. And they all knew him as a total sleazeball. Does that make him guilty? No. But he did not do himself any favours with his behaviour. This case seems a bit different, though. Curious. If a woman acts like Jake did, a "sleazeball" as you put it, and is raped. Does she not do herself any favours proving her case as well? Edited January 31 by Rekker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 29 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: I'm sure the teams will just bite the bullet, pay up and try to wash their hands clean of this mess. I didn't realize they were all impending free agents. now that seems like too much of a coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 I will be very curious if the court case isn’t until 2026, at what point (or have they already) will one of their agents go to the PA and say they are innocent until proven guilty and so should be able to play. Especially for the players that are higher profile and making more money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 14 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: Jake earned his reputation in the Lower Mainland over the years as a womanizing philanderer. Local, very good looking, NHL player. All the girls around his age knew someone who slept with him. And they all knew him as a total sleazeball. Does that make him guilty? No. But he did not do himself any favours with his behaviour. This case seems a bit different, though. one of my nieces worked at a cactus club out in the valley for a bit, according to her Jake was a total asshole. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern_Nuck Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 2 minutes ago, DrJockitch said: I will be very curious if the court case isn’t until 2026, at what point (or have they already) will one of their agents go to the PA and say they are innocent until proven guilty and so should be able to play. Especially for the players that are higher profile and making more money. Unless there’s something in the PA contract that says they’re to stay away from criminal activity. One could argue that getting charged could be not staying away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 2 minutes ago, Bob Long said: one of my nieces worked at a cactus club out in the valley for a bit, according to her Jake was a total asshole. I am in Kelowna, many stories here as well. He is not the guy you want your daughter with. Lol. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted January 31 Author Share Posted January 31 15 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: Jake earned his reputation in the Lower Mainland over the years as a womanizing philanderer. Local, very good looking, NHL player. All the girls around his age knew someone who slept with him. And they all knew him as a total sleazeball. Does that make him guilty? No. But he did not do himself any favours with his behaviour. This case seems a bit different, though. Oh I agree. Jake didn’t have the greatest reputation. But you can be a sleazeball and sleep with every woman you meet and still not be a rapist. This case is different I agree. Apparently there were 8 players in total in the hotel room. I wonder if the other 3 took some type of deal and will be testifying in court against the 5 players. We will see. If those 3 players testify against them then they are all screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 9 minutes ago, Rekker said: Curious. If a woman acts like Jake did, a "sleazeball" as you put it, and is raped. Does she not do herself any favours proving her case as well? You're not actually trying to take on the slut-shaming position, are you? Are you being for real right now? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 I have literally shook Jake’s hand while entering the Roxy while he was leaving with a girl. I was kind of drunk and was like oh shit you’re Jake Virtanen. It was during an all-star break. I can see how he is a womanizer. I hear stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: You're not actually trying to take on the slut-shaming position, are you? Are you being for real right now? You started it by calling a Jake a sleazeball, thus doing himself no favors defending his rape conviction. Are the two instances so different? Edited January 31 by Rekker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammaInTheTub Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 29 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Oh they were definitely all in the hotel room. I don’t think the lawyers are going to go the route that they weren’t even there. I’m sure the 3 players that weren’t charged will have to testify and confirm everyone was in the room. This is going to be a he said she said case and their defence will be it was all consensual. That’s my feeling. What may push this case against the players is if the other players testify against them. If that happens then these 5 players are screwed. That would be the game changer in this case IMO. I doubt anyone rolls on another. This has been brewing for years. It will definitely be argued that it was consensual, and if she couldn’t consent because she was intoxicated neither could they because they were intoxicated too. However, the constellation of material facts reported so far is that, and regardless of which individuals were overly intoxicated as well, that this young lady was brought into a situation that changed from what she had consented to at first and then forced videos were taken with a damning paper trail of texts thereafter. Consent is not absolute or irrevocable. It changes moment to moment. For example: someone may consent to be choked during the act of sex, including to the point of unconsciousness, but if you do something that was not consented to after consciousness was lost, it was not consensual. Consciousness here is similar to being in intoxicated. These individuals participated in an act that will forever change this young woman’s life. It was not an accident. They were not boys. They were in a position of prestige and influence. I hope they are punished to the full extent of the law and suffer harsher social consequences. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammaInTheTub Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 15 minutes ago, DrJockitch said: I will be very curious if the court case isn’t until 2026, at what point (or have they already) will one of their agents go to the PA and say they are innocent until proven guilty and so should be able to play. Especially for the players that are higher profile and making more money. I’m guessing morality clauses in contracts prohibit them from being eligible to play while subject to a criminal investigation. See Lucic from earlier this year as an example. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 8 minutes ago, Rekker said: You started it by calling a Jake a sleazeball, thus doing himself no favors defending his rape conviction. Are the two instances so different? Yes. What you are doing is textbook slut-shaming. There's no way around it. I'm legitimately shocked you just said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rekker Posted January 31 Popular Post Share Posted January 31 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: Yes. What you are doing is textbook slut-shaming. There's no way around it. I'm legitimately shocked you just said that. I simply made the comparison to your statement on Jake being a sleazeball thus hurting his defense at a rape trial. I asked if the two instances are comparable, which they most definitely are. Difference being is that I will say that in neither case do past sexual escapades have anything to do with a rape case. But you are sticking to your double standard? Edited January 31 by Rekker 2 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapshot Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Am I a bad person if my first thought upon hearing this is "Gee, I hope we don't lose our D coach"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 22 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapshot said: Am I a bad person if my first thought upon hearing this is "Gee, I hope we don't lose our D coach"? No. These things have a lot of ripples. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 27 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapshot said: Am I a bad person if my first thought upon hearing this is "Gee, I hope we don't lose our D coach"? Not at all, I'm pretty self centered. Whenever something happens around me, my first thought is "how does this effect me?" Lol. Edited January 31 by Rekker 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 35 minutes ago, Rekker said: I simply made the comparison to your statement on Jake being a sleazeball thus hurting his defense at a rape trial. I asked if the two instances are comparable, which they most definitely are. Difference being is that I will say that in neither case do past sexual escapades have anything to do with a rape case. But you are sticking to your double standard? His defense was 100% successful. So I don’t know what the fuck you're talking about. It seems like you've never been accused of slut-shaming, or you just don't know what it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 28 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapshot said: Am I a bad person if my first thought upon hearing this is "Gee, I hope we don't lose our D coach"? Yup. You’re bad. But no worries. Our club will still win the Cup. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, Miss Korea said: His defense was 100% successful. So I don’t know what the fuck you're talking about. It seems like you've never been accused of slut-shaming, or you just don't know what it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 7 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: His defense was 100% successful. So I don’t know what the fuck you're talking about. It seems like you've never been accused of slut-shaming, or you just don't know what it is? Deflecting I see. Figured as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.