[News] Jake Virtanen on leave from the Canucks after sexual misconduct allegation

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

You must be a bundle of joy to be around. Letting people know the meaning of their sentences. You must have telepathic abilities!

Telepathic? No. A keen ability to weed out bull ####? Yes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Are you a female?
Would be good to hear some female perspectives in this thread.

I'm not, which is why I'm not acting like I know anything about what it's like to be a woman outside the fact that no man knows what's it's like to be a woman.

My friends who are women have told me enough stories for me to understand that as much as I can listen and empathize with those stories, I don't know, and couldn't.

You're not a woman, right? So how could you know what the real world is like? What's the point of pretending? You can have a wife, or a daughter, or have friends who are women, you still don't know. So who are you helping by pretending you know about the real world?

I'm not suggesting anything wrong about the people that do this, but the "real world," or "shouldn't have put herself in that situation," or "should have known better" type comments are all fairly academic exercises from people who probably don't know anything about what it's like to be a woman, and certainly have zero clue whatsoever what this woman knows or was aware of. So honestly, who are these comments for? Yourselves.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Telepathic? No. A keen ability to weed out bull ####? Yes.

You have narcissist tendencies. Please seek evaluation.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And why do men feel as though they need to be the ones to bring it up? People who do not truly know, or understand, the dangers and difficulties unique to being a woman, but just enough to lecture about the dangers I guess.

As if the victim didn't know. As if they knew better. What's the point in bringing it up?

How do you know I'm not a female? Again - posters on the internet have no idea what they're talking about. Just make random assumptions. I clarified it in an earlier post. You don't know me. You don't know my experiences. I can assure you my experiences are directly related to the topics being discussed in this thread.

[cheevers]

Man, people in here acting like almost every woman is not acutely aware of the dangers that they could be in, and needing to "not put themselves in dangerous situations". Ask any woman in your life about being nervous about walking around alone at night, or in rough areas of town. They are quite aware of it. But that is different than being attacked in a hotel room by someone you know.

And suggesting that she only came forward because he is making more money? That is so dumb. Even if she did wait for that, and he did attack her, why do you care? Take all his money for all I care.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm not, which is why I'm not acting like I know anything about what it's like to be a woman outside the fact that no man knows what's it's like to be a woman.

My friends who are women have told me enough stories for me to understand that as much as I can listen and empathize with those stories, I don't know, and couldn't.

You're not a woman, right? So how could you know what the real world is like? What's the point of pretending? You can have a wife, or a daughter, or have friends who are women, you still don't know. So who are you helping by pretending you know about the real world?

I'm not suggesting anything wrong about the people that do this, but the "real world," or "shouldn't have put herself in that situation," or "should have known better" type comments are all fairly academic exercises from people who probably don't know anything about what it's like to be a woman, and certainly have zero clue whatsoever what this woman knows or was aware of. So honestly, who are these comments for? Yourselves.

"We should get some female perspectives"
But first let me make a 4 paragraph post speaking on their behalf again

I have a wife and actually make an effort to listen to her perspective. She has read this whole thread and been engaged on this topic with me.
If you saw her perspective you'd just label her a victim blamer for having an opinion different from yours.

You don't want female perspectives, you want your perspective.
Try listening to women more, speaking for them less.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

How do you know I'm not a female? Again - posters on the internet have no idea what they're talking about. Just make random assumptions. I clarified it in an earlier post. You don't know me. You don't know my experiences. I can assure you my experiences are directly related to the topics being discussed in this thread.

Did I quote your post or refer to you directly? If it doesn't apply to you because you're a woman, why would you think it does?

Are you a female?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

You have narcissist tendencies. Please seek evaluation.

You made a dumb statement. You got called out. You're quadrupling down and trying to make it seem like different parts of your post are what was called out. I'm the narcissist.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

"We should get some female perspectives"
But first let me make a 4 paragraph post speaking on their behalf again

I have a wife and actually make an effort to listen to her perspective. She has read this whole thread and been engaged on this topic with me.
If you saw her perspective you'd just label her a victim blamer for having an opinion different from yours.

You don't want female perspectives, you want your perspective.
Try listening to women more, speaking for them less.

Guy who literally admits to speaking for his wife lectures others on speaking for women, in response to a post that says "don't speak for women."

It's great that you "make an effort" to listen to her perspective. But you're not her, so don't act like you know what it's like to be her, or to be any woman, or to be the woman in question.

Sorry, where did I call you a victim blamer? What makes you think I would call your wife that? Why are you so offended by the idea that you can not truly understand an experience you haven't lived?

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

You made a dumb statement. You got called out. You're quadrupling down and trying to make it seem like different parts of your post are what was called out. I'm the narcissist.

Yes - you are a narcissist or have tendencies. You believe you know better than me or have an opinion more suitable than me.

Let me directly link what I said to the situation at hand because you're just not getting it:

- Jake Virtanen is alleged to have committed sexual misconduct/assault in a hotel room against a woman.

What are the takeaways?

A) If proven guilty or found to have committed this crime, Jake Virtanen is a bad man.

That's a pretty straight forward, simplistic takeaway that doesn't really benefit anyone.

The real takeaway from ANY sexual assault case (IN MY OPINION) is that:

A) The world is full of bad people
B) We should teach our kids (boys and girls) better in order to prepare them
C) Everyone should take a minimum level of self-defence classes

This is forward-looking. You can't change the past. You can only learn from this and move forward. Just calling Jake Virtanen a bad human being for committing the crime is simply not enough. That's kind of obvious.

AND I have direct relevant experience dealing with these issues so don't try to play games with me.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Yes - you are a narcissist or have tendencies. You believe you know better than me or have an opinion more suitable than me.

If you believe in anyway that you getting robbed walking down a back alley in a third would country is the same as a woman visiting a man in a hotel room, yes, I do know better than you. It's not a discussion. It's not a debate. Your opinion is wrong and with out merit. There is no nuance to this. There is no "yeah but" or "I am trying to contribute x y or z". Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

AND I have direct relevant experience dealing with these issues so don't try to play games with me.

The only game I'm playing is to see how many more time's you'll double down on your "Well she shouldn't have been there" anecdote.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

That’s what you took from my post? That’s too bad.

Btw. I didn’t report the incident to the police or any insurance provider. And yes - my family and friends did blame me. But your lack of understanding of my post ....is well like i said... too bad.

Actually my post had nothing to do with your post beyond using it as a convenient example at the way we view and treat any and every other crime differently than the way we treat sexual assault

There is no other crime on the books where we dont just start from the assumption that the person reporting the crime isnt just telling the truth, if you ring up the cops and tell your car got nicked they assume you are telling the truth from the get go, not so with rape

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Yes - you are a narcissist or have tendencies. You believe you know better than me or have an opinion more suitable than me.

Let me directly link what I said to the situation at hand because you're just not getting it:

- Jake Virtanen is alleged to have committed sexual misconduct/assault in a hotel room against a woman.

What are the takeaways?

A) If proven guilty or found to have committed this crime, Jake Virtanen is a bad man.

That's a pretty straight forward, simplistic takeaway that doesn't really benefit anyone.

The real takeaway from ANY sexual assault case (IN MY OPINION) is that:

A) The world is full of bad people
B) We should teach our kids (boys and girls) better in order to prepare them
C) Everyone should take a minimum level of self-defence classes

This is forward-looking. You can't change the past. You can only learn from this and move forward. Just calling Jake Virtanen a bad human being for committing the crime is simply not enough. That's kind of obvious.

AND I have direct relevant experience dealing with these issues so don't try to play games with me.

Your suggestion that everyone take a minimum level of self-defence class strikes me as bizarre. If we're going to propose some sort of mass education campaign, wouldn't it be much more beneficial and appropriate to suggest that everyone take a minimum-level class regarding consent and respect? That at least actually addresses the real problem.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Actually my post had nothing to do with your post beyond using it as a convenient example at the way we view and treat any and every other crime differently than the way we treat sexual assault

There is no other crime on the books where we dont just start from the assumption that the person reporting the crime isnt just telling the truth, if you ring up the cops and tell your car got nicked they assume you are telling the truth from the get go, not so with rape

That is an oversimplification, particularly when it comes to the courts. The state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an offense took place. If someone is driving your car without having a contract for its purchase and a registration in your name, it's quite reasonable to conclude that they are doing so without your consent. When an intimate encounter has occurred between two adults (with the exception of circumstances in which one has a significant power advantage, such as when a child is involved or a relationship between an employer and employee or between a doctor and their patient), it falls on the state to prove that consent was not obtained. In a he-said, she-said scenario, should the testimony of one party be given more weight than that of another? It's not as if claims of sexual misconduct have never been proven to have been false and vexatious. I mean, you could require written consent prior to any intimate interactions between people, but they would have to repeatedly renew that consent (since consent for one intimate act does not imply consent for any additional or future acts) before each such interaction in order to protect both parties from later accusations that such an act occurred without consent, and both parties would have to be free from the influence of any substance while providing such consent. Some people might consider that a bit of a mood-killer (although others may feel quite the opposite).

This is not to say that any allegations of sexual misconduct should be dismissed or that they should not be investigated fully; I strongly believe that they should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And there may be physical, eyewitness, or electronic evidence that can back up a claim of sexual misconduct. But I also believe that the presumption of innocence should continue to be the foundation for the Canadian legal system, regardless of the nature of the alleged offense.

And yes, I do believe that consent for all sexual acts should be explicit, and lack of respect for others' autonomy and consent is the primary flaw that tends to lead a person to crimes such as sexual assault. Rape is, after all, more about power than it is about sex.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

That is an oversimplification, particularly when it comes to the courts. The state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an offense took place. If someone is driving your car without having a contract for its purchase and a registration in your name, it's quite reasonable to conclude that they are doing so without your consent. When an intimate encounter has occurred between two adults (with the exception of circumstances in which one has a significant power advantage, such as when a child is involved or a relationship between an employer and employee or between a doctor and their patient), it falls on the state to prove that consent was not obtained. In a he-said, she-said scenario, should the testimony of one party be given more weight than that of another? It's not as if claims of sexual misconduct have never been proven to have been false and vexatious. I mean, you could require written consent prior to any intimate interactions between people, but they would have to repeatedly renew that consent (since consent for one intimate act does not imply consent for any additional or future acts) before each such interaction in order to protect both parties from later accusations that such an act occurred without consent, and both parties would have to be free from the influence of any substance while providing such consent. Some people might consider that a bit of a mood-killer (although others may feel quite the opposite).

This is not to say that any allegations of sexual misconduct should be dismissed or that they should not be investigated fully; I strongly believe that they should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And there may be physical, eyewitness, or electronic evidence that can back up a claim of sexual misconduct. But I also believe that the presumption of innocence should continue to be the foundation for the Canadian legal system, regardless of the nature of the alleged offense.

Just to be clear, there is absolutely no requirement for corroborating evidence on any kind in order for a court to convict someone of sexual assault. Indeed, due to the nature of the offence, there is rarely corroborating evidence of any kind. Courts can and do convict on the basis of accepting the complainant's evidence alone.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Actually my post had nothing to do with your post beyond using it as a convenient example at the way we view and treat any and every other crime differently than the way we treat sexual assault

There is no other crime on the books where we dont just start from the assumption that the person reporting the crime isnt just telling the truth, if you ring up the cops and tell your car got nicked they assume you are telling the truth from the get go, not so with rape

That’s not true. Police do not assume women are lying when they say they have been sexually assaulted. However, they carry out their investigation with the assumption that the accuser could be lying. Just as they do for other crimes.

What makes sexual assault difficult to prosecute is that in the absence of witnesses or physical evidence, it’s one person’s word against another. And it’s very hard to prosecute someone on that basis for any crime. If you allege to the police that an acquaintance tried to extort $5000 from you, and you want him charged, you’re going to have a difficult time making charges stick if the only evidence presented is your testimony.

And yes, the police might probe and question to see if you’re telling the truth. Because people lie to the police all the time.

================================================== ========

To illustrate, this happened on Friday night: We got a knock on the door at 10:15, and a 14 year old girl, an acquaintance (not close friend) of my daughter asked to speak to her. She told my daughter she had been in a fight with her step-father, and he pushed her down the stairs. This wasn’t the first time he had used violence on her. Police had been called before. She couldn’t return home.

We told her she was welcome to stay. After talking it over, my wife and I decided the best course was to call the police and see what they advised. In the meantime, we made up the spare bed for her to stay over. When the police arrived, they disclosed that they had spoken with the parents before, and the previous incidents were not clear-cut. The girl had made serious allegations that were challenged by both parents and her siblings. But they left to go talk to the family and find out what happened.

They returned at midnight. The girl had not been in a physical altercation with her stepfather. In fact, she hadn’t seen either of her parents since earlier in the day, and had been at another friend’s house earlier in the evening, where she had told her parents she was sleeping over. The parents were shocked to learn where she was, and that she was alleging she had been subjected to violence. The police left with a sharp warning to the girl not to make these sorts of allegations, and to find better ways of dealing with family turmoil.

Then while we were texting the girl’s parents to try to decide what to do, she stormed out of our house at 1 am. We drove around looking for her, and eventually found the mom in her car doing the same. When we left she was holding her head in her hands weeping. We’ve since learned the girl has been admitted for psychiatric treatment.

So is the lesson never to believe a teenage girl when she says she has been physically assaulted? No. The lesson is that the world is a messy, complex place, and to leave room for doubt and nuance.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If Vancouver wants to walk away the cleanest way to do so is a buyout. He has one year remaining so it would not be severe.
Suspect they would have a hard time trading him.
Next stop for Jake is the KHL.

Buyout would be real money $1.4M (minus escrow).

Cap impact only 50k next year and 500k the year after.


But he's owed $400k SB + $3M salary if they kept him. Buyout is probably the easiest option, and might have been likely even without this incident given his 5 pt performance this year anyways.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That’s not true. Police do not assume women are lying when they say they have been sexually assaulted. However, they carry out their investigation with the assumption that the accuser could be lying. Just as they do for other crimes.

What makes sexual assault difficult to prosecute is that in the absence of witnesses or physical evidence, it’s one person’s word against another. And it’s very hard to prosecute someone on that basis for any crime. If you allege to the police that an acquaintance tried to extort $5000 from you, and you want him charged, you’re going to have a difficult time making charges stick if the only evidence presented is your testimony.

And yes, the police might probe and question to see if you’re telling the truth. Because people lie to the police all the time.

================================================== ========

To illustrate, this happened on Friday night: We got a knock on the door at 10:15, and a 14 year old girl, an acquaintance (not close friend) of my daughter asked to speak to her. She told my daughter she had been in a fight with her step-father, and he pushed her down the stairs. This wasn’t the first time he had used violence on her. Police had been called before. She couldn’t return home.

We told her she was welcome to stay. After talking it over, my wife and I decided the best course was to call the police and see what they advised. In the meantime, we made up the spare bed for her to stay over. When the police arrived, they disclosed that they had spoken with the parents before, and the previous incidents were not clear-cut. The girl had made serious allegations that were challenged by both parents and her siblings. But they left to go talk to the family and find out what happened.

They returned at midnight. The girl had not been in a physical altercation with her stepfather. In fact, she hadn’t seen either of her parents since earlier in the day, and had been at another friend’s house earlier in the evening, where she had told her parents she was sleeping over. The parents were shocked to learn where she was, and that she was alleging she had been subjected to violence. The police left with a sharp warning to the girl not to make these sorts of allegations, and to find better ways of dealing with family turmoil.

Then while we were texting the girl’s parents to try to decide what to do, she stormed out of our house at 1 am. We drove around looking for her, and eventually found the mom in her car doing the same. When we left she was holding her head in her hands weeping. We’ve since learned the girl has been admitted for psychiatric treatment.

So is the lesson never to believe a teenage girl when she says she has been physically assaulted? No. The lesson is that the world is a messy, complex place, and to leave room for doubt and nuance.

No the police dont investigate a B&E as if the accuser could be lying, if you call 911 and say your house has been broken into they turn up and assume you are telling the truth, they dont ever suppose you might have kicked in your own back door and stolen your own TV ever, until they find some proof to that effect even though it happens

[afc wimbledon]

And to be clear I am not saying people dont lie about crime, they do, they lie about all kinds of crime, but only in sexual assault do the police start the investigation thinking 'well she might be lying'

[Sylvanfan]

The idea that you should be more aware of your surroundings and avoid that situation still does not change that fact that someone else has crossed the line in wronging the victim. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the victim does in fact feel that they should have avoided this after the fact. But this isn't getting hammered and getting a regrettable tatoo that or something else that can somewhat be undone. Far more serious outcome here.

Yes going to a sketchy part of South America where you could be robbed, you likely do feel that you should have known better. Still if the laws of the country say that robbing people is illegal, you should not have been robbed. Sure you shake your head and say damn it I should have known better. But you still should not have expected it to happen.

What matters is that there are allegations of misconduct here. If this misconduct did in fact occur than the situation or the circumstances matter not. All that matters is if some sort of misconduct did in fact occur. Unfortunately the stakes here are a lot more substantial than having some money and your passport stolen.

Now the grey area here is that it's hard to prove if someone withdrew consent before, during, or after the action. There are a lot of things that can happen prior to this that can influence behaviors before during and after. So even if things were okay to one party before and during any event, that itself does not eliminate the possibility that misconduct did not take place which in turn resulted circumstances.

I grew up in Kamloops..relatively small Junior Hockey town. Heard a lot of stories about players on the team and the sort of things they were up to. Granted this is getting to be 30 years ago, but if habits have not evolved too far, there's a lot of trouble brewing.