Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 2 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: I really don't think this is quite the win you think this is. Do you not believe gender has any factor in SA cases? I'm done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 4 minutes ago, Rekker said: I'm done. Sure. Keep pressing someone on their stance without ever actually providing one of your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Just now, Miss Korea said: Sure. Keep pressing someone on their stance without ever actually providing one of your own. I was done, but now you are accusing me of something. I have stated my stance, many times, and right from the beginning. I'm done. Let it go. If your capable of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 5 minutes ago, Rekker said: I was done, but now you are accusing me of something. I have stated my stance, many times, and right from the beginning. I'm done. Let it go. If your capable of that. Your stance ignores gender as a form of context. I guess you did make that clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 4 hours ago, BigBird79 said: Yeah I mean for sure Flames might have had zero clue. It just sticks out that he was the first to take a Leave (I think?) and it was mental health supposedly. Just warrants scrutiny rather than trust that they did the right thing. Both can be true as well he could leave due to mental health all things considered still the timing of it looks bad optics wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 4 hours ago, BigBird79 said: Yeah I mean for sure Flames might have had zero clue. It just sticks out that he was the first to take a Leave (I think?) and it was mental health supposedly. Just warrants scrutiny rather than trust that they did the right thing. It could. It could also mean he's of the more matured of the group since he was the 1st one to take a leave. Not really giving him an excuse or anything, but I do think there's a lot to consider in all of this. We also have to keep in mind that they have yet to actually be convicted and the result could be anywhere from all of them getting convicted to none at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman955 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Some here are placing the horse before the buggy. We don't have any right to place anyone in a state of guilty until proven so. This sort of offense is not an easy case of who was involved. Without naming anyone. Who is to blame for the crime? All,some or one. We simply can't assume. Should this have been dealt with from the initial claim. Definitely! The question is Why so long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPA Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 37 minutes ago, snowman955 said: Some here are placing the horse before the buggy. We don't have any right to place anyone in a state of guilty until proven so. This sort of offense is not an easy case of who was involved. Without naming anyone. Who is to blame for the crime? All,some or one. We simply can't assume. Should this have been dealt with from the initial claim. Definitely! The question is Why so long? Maybe the victim finally found the courage to speak up? Maybe the police were gathering evidence?? Also, allegedly, there was “hush money” as well (from Hockey Canada?). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 1 Author Share Posted February 1 13 hours ago, Rekker said: That's a better answer, or at least an answer of some sort. But by implying it applys only in a legal form is still a double standard. It tells me that you think it's ok to bring up males past consensual sexual encounters, but not a females, in a rape case. I argue that neither should be brought up in a legal or off the cuff conversation. You say it doesn't apply legally. But is it ok to bring up past consensual sexual encounters, as you keep doing, when talking about rape? I say no. I'm pretty sure that defence lawyers try and bring up a woman's past sexual activity all of the time in a rape case. It's just a matter of if the judge will allow it. The rape shield law says that a defence lawyer needs the permission of the judge to bring in certain evidence, i.e. potentially evidence of past sexual activity... Supreme Court says expanded rape shield laws are constitutional | CBC News The Criminal Code says evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activities that are unrelated to the charges at hand can only be admitted with permission of a judge following a private hearing, and cannot be used to infer that the complainant is less trustworthy or more likely to have consented. In 2018, the Liberals expanded the definition of what that evidence includes to add communications of a sexual nature such as emails and videos, as well as documents about the complainant that are in the possession of the accused. That latter group can include a complainant's diary, their medical records or personal letters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBird79 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Setting aside the guilty or not part of it. WTF London Police? The 94-page document that was filed with the court system in October provides an outline of what allegedly occurred on June 19, 2018, with some parts of the files redacted. The sexual assault allegations initially were investigated by London Police in 2018, however, the case was closed in February 2019 without any charges. The investigation was reopened in 2022. What happened with the police investigation? Why were no charges brought back then? It's only after the lawsuit was filed and Hockey Canada investigated again that mysteriously there's enough evidence now to charge them? No indication about new evidence or anything like that. Did police screw something up? Cover something up? Did Hockey Canada withhold evidence at first? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/world-juniors-hockey-sex-assault-case-london-1.7101989 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 On 1/31/2024 at 3:25 PM, snowman955 said: Some here are placing the horse before the buggy. We don't have any right to place anyone in a state of guilty until proven so. This sort of offense is not an easy case of who was involved. Without naming anyone. Who is to blame for the crime? All,some or one. We simply can't assume. Should this have been dealt with from the initial claim. Definitely! The question is Why so long? In Canada the Crown places charges not the victim. Even so everyone handles trauma differently to begin with. Enough with the victim blaming please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 So the court date won’t be till 2026.. not sure why it takes so long. So what happens if in the remote chance one or some of the 4-5 ppl were innocent? I doubt they’ll ever be playing in the nhl again. Do they get to sue someone for ruining their career/life for the millions they are set to lose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 minute ago, wai_lai416 said: So the court date won’t be till 2026.. not sure why it takes so long. So what happens if in the remote chance one or some of the 4-5 ppl were innocent? I doubt they’ll ever be playing in the nhl again. Do they get to sue someone for ruining their career/life for the millions they are set to lose? Yes they can, but like said doubt they will ever play in the NHL again. That much time off will most likely be the end unless they play in Europe or elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 4 hours ago, wai_lai416 said: So the court date won’t be till 2026.. not sure why it takes so long. So what happens if in the remote chance one or some of the 4-5 ppl were innocent? I doubt they’ll ever be playing in the nhl again. Do they get to sue someone for ruining their career/life for the millions they are set to lose? The 3 Duke Lacrosse players who were charged with a gang rape and were acquitted sued Duke University. They each were awarded a $20 million settlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 7 hours ago, Coconuts said: McLeod is the only one with an extra charge. So he must have been the ring leader. Everyone thought it was Formenton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: The 3 Duke Lacrosse players who were charged with a gang rape and were acquitted sued Duke University. They each were awarded a $20 million settlement. ya i doubt they can sue the nhl team or the nhl lol they are still under contract and being paid.. i'm talking about futures if they are aquitted since i'm sure no teams will touch them.. i wonder who they can sue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 10 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: McLeod is the only one with an extra charge. So he must have been the ring leader. Everyone thought it was Formenton. That's kinda what I got out of it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman955 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 16 hours ago, canuck73_3 said: In Canada the Crown places charges not the victim. Even so everyone handles trauma differently to begin with. Enough with the victim blaming please. I am a Canadian! At no time in my post did l blame the victim. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 https://www.tsn.ca/with-players-from-2018-world-junior-team-charged-lawyers-say-behind-the-scenes-legal-battles-brewing-1.2070822 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip The Mesh Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 2 hours ago, Coconuts said: https://www.tsn.ca/with-players-from-2018-world-junior-team-charged-lawyers-say-behind-the-scenes-legal-battles-brewing-1.2070822 I already mentioned about the other players testifying. E.M. alleged in her 2022 lawsuit that she was assaulted by eight players and TSN has confirmed that there were more than five hockey players in the hotel room at the time the alleged assault took place. Other players who were in the room are expected to be called to testify, according to a person familiar with the matter. “I fully expect other players who were there will be subpoenaed,” Maini said. “And in Canada you can't ‘plead the Fifth’ and not answer questions. You are required to answer…” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 13 hours ago, wai_lai416 said: ya i doubt they can sue the nhl team or the nhl lol they are still under contract and being paid.. i'm talking about futures if they are aquitted since i'm sure no teams will touch them.. i wonder who they can sue Why couldn’t they sue the NHL or Hockey Canada? Reports indicate that the trial won’t even start until 2026. It may not conclude until 2027. During that time what if they cannot find any employment because of the charges and then what if they are acquitted of the charges in a court of law? I’m no legal expert so I guess we will wait and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Why couldn’t they sue the NHL or Hockey Canada? Reports indicate that the trial won’t even start until 2026. It may not conclude until 2027. During that time what if they cannot find any employment because of the charges and then what if they are acquitted of the charges in a court of law? I’m no legal expert so I guess we will wait and see. I have been asking the same questions, often to less than warm reception. I think the answer is the SPC has a morality clause and the CBA describes the appeals process for re-instatement and it goes through the commissioner’s office first and then likely an arbitrator. That is a guess though. 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.