Hockey Canada, CHL settle lawsuit over alleged sexual assault involving WJ players

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

No. You’re responsible for what you post. Not Dube’s agent.

Okay. And I take full responsibility in saying it was an extremely weak statement by his agent and makes him appear culpable or victim blaming. Again, based on what his agent has provided in his statement.

Gadjovich, Mete, Makar, the other guys who came out and quickly said they were not involved and called the events appalling or reprehensible have respect. As they should.

Dube's agent trying to imply nothing wrong took place by bringing up no charges is very akin to calling the woman a liar. Pretty gross and only real reason to do that would be.....anyone want to play Occam's razor here?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Dube's agent trying to imply nothing wrong took place by bringing up no charges is very akin to calling the woman a liar. Pretty gross and only real reason to do that would be.....anyone want to play Occam's razor here?

So you're calling Dube guilty without actually using the word ‘guilty’. That's precisely the kind of behaviour that some posters are comparing to a witch-hunt.

Incidentally, Occam's razor doesn't work like that. It doesn't say we should always accept the simplest explanation; it says that we should not make our explanations more complex than required to account for all the facts, and in this case, we have not got all the facts, and we know it.

This is precisely why we shouldn't be discussing the matter while the investigation is in progress.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So you're calling Dube guilty without actually using the word ‘guilty’.

This is precisely why we shouldn't be discussing the matter while the investigation is in progress.

I'm saying his agent is implying the woman is lying. She says wrongdoing occurred, he's bringing up that no wrongdoing occurred. I don't like that and because he isn't providing more of a statement we're only left guessing as to why he is saying that.

[OptimalTates]

But, it's binary right. He either was in the room and is one of the 8 John Does or he isn't. I don't know why he wouldn't just say he wasn't like other players but absolutely the possibility exists that he wasn't.

Will we agree that if he was one of the 8 John Does not to cheer for him and hope the team quickly removes him?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Because you cannot talk about people being in the room without also accusing them of a crime. You may think your right to express an uninformed opinion takes precedence over their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I most emphatically don't.

There is no reason for anyone not involved to discuss this case while it's still being investigated by the police. How about we pipe down and wait to see who is actually charged?

There is no active police investigation.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

There is no active police investigation.

Sorry, I thought it was reported that the matter was being reopened.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Sorry, I thought it was reported that the matter was being reopened.

It is being re-opened by Hockey Canada.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Sorry, I thought it was reported that the matter was being reopened.

That's Hockey Canada at the behest of the government while they restricted funding (and sponsors pulling out).

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It is being re-opened by Hockey Canada.

Ah, my misunderstanding then. I thought the authorities had ordered it done.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

...anyone want to play Occam's razor here?

Cop pulls up, sees a car stopped in the intersection with the door open and a man tending to a woman inside the crosswalk.

Occam's razor: this man hit the woman with his car.
Reality: the person who hit her fled the scene, and the person behind them is the one that stopped to help.

Even as a scientific tool (which is what it is), Occam's Razor can be lacking. Why would you want to lean on it when someone's entire livelihood is at stake? If they're guilty, then the investigation will find them guilty, just give it some time.

I get you wanna sling someone up on a tree branch, but this country we live in requires more than "hoofbeats = horse, not zebra" before you can actually do that.

[Jason14h]

Great post . That is all

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Cop pulls up, sees a car stopped in the intersection with the door open and a man tending to a woman inside the crosswalk.

Occam's razor: this man hit the woman with his car.
Reality: the person who hit her fled the scene, and the person behind them is the one that stopped to help.

Even as a scientific tool (which is what it is), Occam's Razor can be lacking. Why would you want to lean on it when someone's entire livelihood is at stake? If they're guilty, then the investigation will find them guilty, just give it some time.

I get you wanna sling someone up on a tree branch, but this country we live in requires more than "hoofbeats = horse, not zebra" before you can actually do that.

Imagine comparing commenting on a sports agent’s statement to a lynching tree (predominating a method used by white supremacists to kill black people)…..wait it just happened.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Ah, my misunderstanding then. I thought the authorities had ordered it done.

Which is why his statement comes out more concerning.

A neutral response could have just as easily been "My client denies any wrongdoing and has been and will continue to cooperate with all investigations." It gets the same job done for every player on that team, innocent or not.

Bringing up police finding no wrongdoing, knowing they have a closed investigation right now and likely will never get to the point of criminal charges appears to be an extra unneeded part of the statement unless it was pre-emptive.

Could just be a bad agent comment but let's be real, once/if the 8 John Does are named all 8 will say whatever did occur was consensual and that no wrong doing occurred. It would be weird of an agent of a player not involved at all to bring it up (no reason to have his player involved with victim blaming if he wasn't even in the room). So we can and should question why this agent is saying this.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Imagine comparing commenting on a sports agent’s statement to a lynching tree (predominating a method used by white supremacists to kill black people)…..wait it just happened.

First of all, you obviously don't know anything about the history of lynching. Lynching – that is, extralegal execution performed by mobs – has occurred in every society throughout history, not just in the American South.

The actual term goes back at least to Charles Lynch, who dealt out unauthorized punishments to Loyalists during the American Revolutionary War. He is not known to have executed anyone, so ‘Lynch law’ originally referred to any punishment handed out without legal authority or due process, not merely hanging.

The widespread use of ‘Lynch law’ against blacks in America didn't start until after the abolition of slavery 80-odd years later, for the sad reason that slaves were valuable property and if you killed one you had to pay for him.

Now, it is quite clear that people are saying Dube is guilty of rape based on a carefully noncommittal statement made by his agent, who was probably acting on legal advice. They are talking about things like throwing him off the team or banning him from the league. These punishments would be well within the original definition of ‘Lynch law’.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Now, it is quite clear that people are saying Dube is guilty of rape based on a carefully noncommittal statement made by his agent, who was probably acting on legal advice. They are talking about things like throwing him off the team or banning him from the league. These punishments would be well within the original definition of ‘Lynch law’.

If he was determined to be in the room will you agree with the lynching (which apparently is to say have him removed from the team)?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

If he was determined to be in the room will you agree with the lynching (which apparently is to say have him removed from the team)?

No.

If he is punished by due process of law, he can take his punishment. There should be no exercise of Lynch law under any circumstances.

Charles Lynch himself, it is said, was proud of the term ‘Lynch law’, and justified his actions on the ground of the necessities of war. His country was fighting for its independence against what he saw as a foreign invader. Have you got any such reason for wanting to go outside the law to punish Dillon Dube?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No.

If he is punished by due process of law, he can take his punishment. There should be no exercise of Lynch law under any circumstances.

Charles Lynch himself, it is said, was proud of the term ‘Lynch law’, and justified his actions on the ground of the necessities of war. His country was fighting for its independence against what he saw as a foreign invader. Have you got any such reason for wanting to go outside the law to punish Dillon Dube?

You have the wrong Lynch. Charles Lynch was never accused of using trees. It was William Lynch, 30 years later, that introduced trees to kill black slaves who were not obedient.

[OptimalTates]

Bill Cosby not selling out comedy tours isn't a lynching. He's as innocent as the 8 John Does.

I do appreciate you were honest with that thought. I have a feeling a lot of fans of the 8 players will keep moving goalposts. You're pretty much just saying that you don't care who the 8 are and what they are alleged to have done because there won't be a criminal charge so keep them all on the teams. That's fine, I disagree.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Now, it is quite clear that people are saying Dube is guilty of rape based on a carefully noncommittal statement made by his agent, who was probably acting on legal advice. They are talking about things like throwing him off the team or banning him from the league. These punishments would be well within the original definition of ‘Lynch law’.

Has anyone said anything anywhere close to that in this thread?

We are questioning why the statement was 'carefully noncommittal' as you say. Maybe if it was carelessly noncommittal it might be a bit different, but it certainly doesn't seem to be.

Moreover, the attempt to chill further discussion/inquiry by bringing up defamation is just kinda weird/gross and just not really necessary (though maybe I'm just unaware of a groundswell of support to tar/feather Dubé). The VAST majority of defamation suit threats are totally empty - because the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that any libel/slander is not true.

Anyone with common sense knows that it would have been much easier to just say "no involvement whatsoever" if that was actually the case...

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

You have the wrong Lynch. Charles Lynch was never accused of using trees. It was William Lynch, 30 years later, that introduced trees to kill black slaves who were not obedient.

Charles Lynch, however, is known to have used the term ‘Lynch law’ himself as early as 1782, and we are not talking about actually hanging anybody in this instance. The trees are immaterial.