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

[NOISIA]

Bet he signs in Carolina.

[Moneyhands23]

He us basically a 4th liner. Not sure anyone will really want him

[bluejays]

With Kane he has a certain level of talent. Good or bad a team picked up on him. Virtanen is a fourth liner at best these days. Very little chance anyone wants to take him on and face a PR situation. Is he likely to repeat? Hopefully not but the guy at best isn’t that nice of a person. The sports world always surprises though.

[Bluzman]

Classic he-said she-said. Very hard to prove one way or the other.

[Sofa GM]

Originally Posted by NOISIA

Bet he signs in Carolina.

No chance….. 100% Oiler. Kane, Virtanen and Katz tear up the weekends.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Friendly reminder to MRAs everywhere that not criminally guilty does not necessarily = innocent. (I have no particular opinion on this case)

No, but not guilty does mean that they went through the trouble of convening a jury, presenting both sides of the case, hearing from witnesses, and generally took their best shot at justice.

A jury found him not guilty.

It wasn’t pled out, there wasn’t a settlement, there wasn’t a “decline to file charges” cop-out that Deshaun Watson got.

I dunno. I don’t waste time defending these people, but a Not Guilty verdict from a jury is Not Nothing, and we need to remember that.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

No, but not guilty does mean that they went through the trouble of convening a jury, presenting both sides of the case, hearing from witnesses, and generally took their best shot at justice.

A jury found him not guilty.

It wasn’t pled out, there wasn’t a settlement, there wasn’t a “decline to file charges” cop-out that Deshaun Watson got.

I dunno. I don’t waste time defending these people, but a Not Guilty verdict from a jury is Not Nothing, and we need to remember that.

For all we know the woman made this up and tarnished his reputation so I don't think anyone should assume anything as at the end of the day the case went through the proper channels and it was determined that Virtanen was not guilty of what he was accused of. That's it.

[Eb0la11]

Hopefully he learns a serious lesson, changes his conduct and becomes a role model

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

For all we know the woman made this up and tarnished his reputation so I don't think anyone should assume anything as at the end of the day the case went through the proper channels and it was determined that Virtanen was not guilty of what he was accused of. That's it.

No one is assuming anything. However, we can use some common sense about it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No one is assuming anything. However, we can use some common sense about it.

And what is that exactly? Common sense is that we don't know and shouldn't speculate either way. The court made its ruling and we are moving on.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

And what is that exactly? Common sense is that we don't know and shouldn't speculate either way. The court made its ruling and we are moving on.

Common sense is knowing the stats, knowing how juries work, knowing the criminal law standard, knowing that any complainant has to put herself through a real wringer to pursue charges and that sexual assault in a private setting is incredibly hard to prove.

The jury made a finding based on an almost impossible standard to meet in a he said/she said case. They may well believe he did it.

[PuckSlap]

Jesus Christ. You can’t win. He’s said to be innocent in a court of law… so, that’s not good enough? Maybe he didn’t assault her. I’ve met women that have told entire groups of friends that she had been raped, just to get attention. It sucks, but it happens more than you know.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

Jesus Christ. You can’t win. He’s said to be innocent in a court of law… so, that’s not good enough? Maybe he didn’t assault her. I’ve met women that have told entire groups of friends that she had been raped, just to get attention. It sucks, but it happens more than you know.

No, he’s not “said to be innocent”. That’s the point.

Have you met “women” who lied about a rape or just one woman? You’ve said both. And somehow you got this person to admit to a lie?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Common sense is knowing the stats, knowing how juries work, knowing the criminal law standard, knowing that any complainant has to put herself through a real wringer to pursue charges and that sexual assault in a private setting is incredibly hard to prove.

The jury made a finding based on an almost impossible standard to meet in a he said/she said case. They may well believe he did it.

The cynic in me thinks he wasn't a saint here but that doesn't mean he actually did it. We also know that people lie all the time about this stuff so I can't discount that the woman made up or embellished her story.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The cynic in me thinks he wasn't a saint here but that doesn't mean he actually did it. We also know that people lie all the time about this stuff so I can't discount that the woman made up or embellished her story.

Fine. That’s called “reasonable doubt” and it’s why people can acknowledge a verdict to that effect and still think he probably did it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Fine. That’s called “reasonable doubt” and it’s why people can acknowledge a verdict to that effect and still think he probably did it.

It still feels like you are insinuating he did it though. Weird.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It still feels like you are insinuating he did it though. Weird.

I am suggesting, based on stats, the extremely low percentages of false accusations, and how juries work, yeah, he probably did.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Common sense is knowing the stats, knowing how juries work, knowing the criminal law standard, knowing that any complainant has to put herself through a real wringer to pursue charges and that sexual assault in a private setting is incredibly hard to prove.

The jury made a finding based on an almost impossible standard to meet in a he said/she said case. They may well believe he did it.

He went to trial. Not only did he go to trial, he took it to a verdict, and let the jury decide is his fate.

The jury came back not guilty. Virtanen is free to go.

That’s the country we live in, and I don’t think you’d enjoy living in a country where a Not Guilty jury verdict isn’t worth the paper its printed on.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

He went to trial. Not only did he go to trial, he took it to a verdict, and let the jury decide is his fate.

The jury came back not guilty. Virtanen is free to go.

That’s the country we live in, and I don’t think you’d enjoy living in a country where a Not Guilty jury verdict isn’t worth the paper its printed on.

I don't think you understand the difference between "not guilty in the court of law" and "100% didn't do what he was accused of."

Like... he might have done it, he might not have. But he can't be punished for doing it even if he did, because he was found not guilty. That's it.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It still feels like you are insinuating he did it though. Weird.

Being found not guilty has nothing to do with whether you did it or not. It means that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether you did it. In Starr the SCC said that beyond a reasonable doubt is much closer to absolute certainty than it is to balance of probabilities (the civil standard). What you can say about this ruling with absolute certainty is that the jury was not absolutely certain that he did it. You can also say that they had a reasonable doubt about whether he did it, at least one.