Ian Cole suspended pending investigation into sexual assault and grooming allegations

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

So you are making the argument that she felt the need to go public because she wanted to protect others from Cole?

Possibility. Seems more likely than a one-and-done tweet at a random NHL player by a troll.

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Then why would she not cooperate with the NHL?

Why would she? It's a private business that has shown in very recent past that it has not handled situations like this properly - including a series of events that outed John Doe as Kyle Beach. She even blames the NHL in the tweet. The tweet also appears to have had a single post so is likely a burner account that very possibly was never logged into again.

I get this is a hockey forum so we revere the NHL as some form of God for us, but imagine if someone accused a car salesman of rape and then didn't "cooperate" with the sleazy car dealership as though that matters. The dealership, like the NHL, is only out to protect itself and won't do the victim any good.

Originally Posted by dissentowner

It seems to me by not doing so and by not making it a police issue she is in fact enabling him to do so again and not protecting anyone... If it happened then she owes it to herself and possible other victims to cooperate

Gross dude. Absolutely gross. 2/3 of rape go unreported, you going to say each one of those victims was also enabling their rapists? Then cry when someone calls you out for your horrible takes like this?

Imagine thinking a rape victim "owes" anyone anything and then not recognizing how horrible you sound.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Possibility. Seems more likely than a one-and-done tweet at a random NHL player by a troll.

Why would she? It's a private business that has shown in very recent past that it has not handled situations like this properly - including a series of events that outed John Doe as Kyle Beach. She even blames the NHL in the tweet. The tweet also appears to have had a single post so is likely a burner account that very possibly was never logged into again.

I get this is a hockey forum so we revere the NHL as some form of God for us, but imagine if someone accused a car salesman of rape and then didn't "cooperate" with the sleazy car dealership as though that matters. The dealership, like the NHL, is only out to protect itself and won't do the victim any good.


Gross dude. Absolutely gross. 2/3 of rape go unreported, you going to say each one of those victims was also enabling their rapists? Then cry when someone calls you out for your horrible takes like this?

Imagine thinking a rape victim "owes" anyone anything and then not recognizing how horrible you sound.

What an absolutely brutal take. Again, she felt she had to tell the world but you are twisting it to try and make me sound horrible? Why did she feel the need to make it public? Oh but she couldn't talk about it right? You are seriously demented man, you have some serious issues and your take is ABSOLUTELY part of the problem. Just fn terrible. You were the one who said maybe she put it out there to protect other victims and then you try to put that on me? I am not sure if you are trolling or if you have serious mental health issues. You can't have it both ways by posting what you originally posted and then try and make it seem to come from me. The fact anyone in their right mind would thank that piece of garbage you just wrote proves my point. You are also making the conclusion that she in fact was a rape victim. You can't know that, again jumping to conclusions when you don't know wtf you are even babbling about. You are part of the problem, the ignorant take you just made with no evidence at all to back up the trash you just wrote. And seeing how the Me Too Movement is about exposing the issue every person that thanked your post essentially just said they are against that movement, shall we label them misogynists? One of which is suppisedly a lawyer and follows the justice system. *Cough bull####*

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

They would lose huh? Despite the clear evidence? Oh do explain.

Because there’s no basis to sue for anything that was said here. There’s no “clear evidence”. Point me to the clearly unfactual statement. Not opinion or prediction or an obvious guess.

And then point me to the damages that were suffered by Ian Cole as a result of the post.

You have to do a fair bit to prove a defamation case, not just say someone posted something mean.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Because there’s no basis to sue for anything that was said here. There’s no “clear evidence”. Point me to the clearly unfactual statement. Not opinion or prediction or an obvious guess.

And then point me to the damages that were suffered by Ian Cole as a result of the post.

You have to do a fair bit to prove a defamation case, not just say someone posted something mean.

I think we can clearly see by your thanking posts that ramble about accusations equals guilt that you are not a lawyer, at least not one that works in criminal law or has any clue whatsoever about that profession. Also, you are wrong. Saying someone is a rapist after they have been investigated and cleared is defamation. They didn't teach you that in law school though right? Keep digging up...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Because there’s no basis to sue for anything that was said here. There’s no “clear evidence”. Point me to the clearly unfactual statement. Not opinion or prediction or an obvious guess.

And then point me to the damages that were suffered by Ian Cole as a result of the post.

You have to do a fair bit to prove a defamation case, not just say someone posted something mean.

Yeah, I fail to see what kind of material losses Ian Cole could claim here.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, I fail to see what kind of material losses Ian Cole could claim here.

Except that journalists frequent the site and social media snowballs these things. Do you think Bingo would be comfortable with his agent reading what has been said in here? I highly doubt that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I think we can clearly see by your thanking posts that ramble about accusations equals guilt that you are not a lawyer, at least not one that works in criminal law or has any clue whatsoever about that profession. Also, you are wrong. Saying someone is a rapist after they have been investigated and cleared is defamation. They didn't teach you that in law school though right? Keep digging up...

“Investigated and cleared” - by the NHL? Show me what they investigated.

https://deadspin.com/the-nhl-s-inves...-ia-1849683021

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-social-media/

And no, saying someone is a rapist can still be just an opinion. Even if the person is acquitted in a criminal trial. Ever wonder why Rittenhouse hasn’t sued any of the many people who still say he’s a murdered despite an acquittal? Because it’s an opinion. And because an acquittal doesn’t equal innocence.

You should turn in your law degree. I will keep mine, and also my gold medal from law school, and also my SCC clerkship back in the day.

As for what posts I like, I’m fairly confident that they are fine, but looking at posting history goes two ways. As earlier posters have demonstrated with you.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

“Investigated and cleared” - by the NHL? Show me what they investigated.

And no, saying someone is a rapist can still be just an opinion. Even if the person is acquitted in a criminal trial. Ever wonder why Rittenhouse hasn’t sued any of the many people who still say he’s a murdered despite an acquittal? Because it’s an opinion. And because an acquittal doesn’t equal innocence.

You should turn in your law degree. I will keep mine, and also my gold medal from law school, and also my SCC clerkship back in the day.

As for what posts I like, I’m fairly confident that they are fine, but looking at posting history goes two ways. As earlier posters have demonstrated with you.

Lol, your gold medal from law school! This gets better. So by thanking optimals post you agree that in a situation where let's say your brother if you have one didn't work out with a girl and she accused him of rape and it hurt his career and he lost house and all his finances defending himself you would still side with her and consider her the victim while condemning your brother as a piece of crap, just off an accusation? Oh but your a gold medal lawyer right? But obviously you don't need evidence to think someone is guilty by your responses in this thread. Lmao. Ok. I hope to God nobody has you as a lawyer!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Except that journalists frequent the site and social media snowballs these things. Do you think Bingo would be comfortable with his agent reading what has been said in here? I highly doubt that.

Based on your understanding of defamation, I’m surprised you aren’t a little more cautious about suggesting someone claiming to be a lawyer is in fact actually faking it. Imagine if he were a real lawyer and you’ve falsely accused him of being a fraud. Probably a bad look… you know… far as defamation goes. But I suppose you’re allowed to make up whatever you want.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Based on your understanding of defamation, I’m surprised you aren’t a little more cautious about suggesting someone claiming to be a lawyer is in fact actually faking it. Imagine if he were a real lawyer and you’ve falsely accused him of being a fraud. Probably a bad look… you know… far as defamation goes. But I suppose you’re allowed to make up whatever you want.

Oh let him come after me, he can show off his shiny gold medal! A real lawyer that believes people are guilty simply off an internet accusation. Now that is gold medal worthy!

[dissentowner]

Oh and here is the defamation by legal standards. You know what our lawyer friend is saying doesn't apply.
https://www.cjfe.org/defamation_libe...ree_expression

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Lol, your gold medal from law school! This gets better. So by thanking optimals post you agree that in a situation where let's say your brother if you have one didn't work out with a girl and she accused him of rape and it hurt his career and he lost house and all his finances defending himself you would still side with her and consider her the victim while condemning your brother as a piece of crap, just off an accusation? Oh but your a gold medal lawyer right? Lmao. Ok

You asked me what I was taught in law school with a pissy remark. You get the response you deserve there. Apparently I was taught enough to finish in first place out of everyone in my year. They also taught me how to spell “you’re”, though I knew that one already. Where’s your law degree hiding - the one where you get to criticize my training?

As for your weirdly specific hypothetical, I’m not playing that game. Most rape accusations are well founded. Including ones where the accuser is acquitted or charges aren’t laid. Stats show this.

This was a highly specific and detailed accusation, which lends credibility in any he said/she said case. And the NHL seemingly has not even been able to speak with anyone involved other than Cole. So, no, I’m pretty comfortable saying that there’s zero defamation case here.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Oh and here is the defamation by legal standards. You know what our lawyer friend is saying doesn't apply.
https://www.cjfe.org/defamation_libe...ree_expression

Congrats, you found an internet article that changes nothing about what I said.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You asked me what I was taught in law school with a pissy remark. You get the response you deserve there. Apparently I was taught enough to finish in first place out of everyone in my year. They also taught me how to spell “you’re”, though I knew that one already. Where’s your law degree hiding - the one where you get to criticize my training?

As for your weirdly specific hypothetical, I’m not playing that game. Most rape accusations are well founded. Including ones where the accuser is acquitted or charges aren’t laid. Stats show this.

This was a highly specific and detailed accusation, which lends credibility in any he said/she said case. And the NHL seemingly has not even been able to speak with anyone involved other than Cole. So, no, I’m pretty comfortable saying that there’s zero defamation case here.

Well...that was an epic fail of a post. Except your whole "I finished first in my class" speech. Is that how you won the gold? Lol. By law definition you could absolutely make a defamation case here. Or is the actual wording of the law wrong and you are right because you know...first in class and all.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Congrats, you found an internet article that changes nothing about what I said.

You just literally denied what this says by saying you could not make a defamation case out of a clear defamation of character. Are you telling us you finished first in your class but you couldn't make a clear obvious case here? How?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Well...that was an epic fail of a post. Except your whole "I finished first in my class" speech. Is that how you won the gold? Lol. By law definition you could absolutely make a defamation case here. Or is the actual wording of the law wrong and you are right because you know...first in class and all.

“The actual wording of the law”. You posted an internet article about a nuanced legal subject and think you found the magic words to make a case. Defamation is a common law tort - there’s no “wording of the law”.

Opinion is not defamatory. Untrue factual statements are. No one has said anything other than their opinion based on what has been said. So there’s no defamation.

Here’s some US advice for you, since this is a US case:

https://www.chicagobusinesslawfirm.c...e-opinion.html

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

You just literally denied what this says by saying you could not make a defamation case out of a clear defamation of character. Are you telling us you finished first in your class but you couldn't make a clear obvious case here? How?

Yes, I’m telling you there is no “clear obvious case” here. And you asked me what I was taught, and I told you enough to get me the gold medal. But since my view here doesn’t match yours obviously I’m a terrible lawyer LOL.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

“The actual wording of the law”. You posted an internet article about a nuanced legal subject and think you found the magic words to make a case. Defamation is a common law tort - there’s no “wording of the law”.

Opinion is not defamatory. Untrue factual statements are. No one has said anything other than their opinion based on what has been said. So there’s no defamation.

Here’s some US advice for you, since this is a US case:

https://www.chicagobusinesslawfirm.c...e-opinion.html

Well I think you need to reread some of this thread then partner including a post you thanked that clearly refers to Cole as a rapist. So seeing how he has not been convicted of being a rapist would that not be an untrue factual statement?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Oh let him come after me, he can show off his shiny gold medal! A real lawyer that believes people are guilty simply off an internet accusation. Now that is gold medal worthy!

Sorry, I’m confused, you think it’s bad to “defame” a hockey player by repeating allegations that were “investigated and cleared” by a private employer who didn’t interview the alleged victim but it’s ok for you to repeatedly “defame” whoever you want just based on what you believe? Seems weird and, honestly, probably why nobody takes you seriously when you play victim.

Honest question, since you’re claiming to have an understanding of it: what’s your professional relation to the law? What do you do that has you better versed than a lawyer in legal matters? Genuinely curious.

[GioforPM]

Perhaps, dissentowner, you can tell us all what the NHL did in their investigation.