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

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I think you need to take a moment and realize that not guilty is not the same as innocent and that he will very likely lose the civil case. I'm sure she'd trade every nickel to not have been assaulted though.

Jesus, Why not just say it?, Virtanen is 100% guilty

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Jesus, Why not just say it?, Virtanen is 100% guilty

I think it is very likely he crossed a line here, yep.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Say Virtanen did do it (still possible) What if?

What aren’t you understanding?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I think it is very likely he crossed a line here, yep.

"Likely" doesn't mean guilty, you're like one of the cops in the OJ investigation.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Question for Blaster, Gio or anyone else who believes he raped her.
Is this due to specific circumstances of the case (or Vertanen) or would you always believe any male found non guilty of rape in fact still did it?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Question for Blaster, Gio or anyone else who believes he raped her.
Is this due to specific circumstances of the case (or Vertanen) or would you always believe any male found non guilty of rape in fact still did it?

Neither. Go back and read what I said, I’ve no interested in repeating myself.

[OminousFlames]

Even if he is completely innocent. The guy will be blackballed for the rest of his working career, losing millions of millions potentially. He will always have haters, as shown in this thread.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Neither. Go back and read what I said, I’ve no interested in repeating myself.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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

Got it. All men accused of rape probably did it based on stats, low percentage of false accusations & how juries work.
Not particular to this case or the accused.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by OminousFlames

Even if he is completely innocent. The guy will be blackballed for the rest of his working career, losing millions of millions potentially. He will always have haters, as shown in this thread.

For what it’s worth, I’m neither a hater nor defender at this point. I don’t know him. He means nothing to me. It’s a somewhat famous hockey player accused of a terrible crime, and he may or may not have done it. He’s still being sued civilly - it’s entirely possible that something more damning comes out of that process.

For the moment, Virtanen has been found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

Which is at least something, and gives me hope for the time being that he’s not a monster. Which I do hope for, not because he’s a hockey player, but because I would really like it if one less rape had occurred in the world.

With all that said, in situations such as this, it’s a safe bet that Virtanen behaved in a less-than-gentlemanly fashion. Whether or not that actually rose to the level of an assault, I have no idea. The young lady obviously felt he crossed a line, his subsequent behaviour probably wasn’t particularly remorseful, and she pressed forward with a criminal complaint.

She’s to be commended. No settlement is worth this.

[NOISIA]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I think it is very likely he crossed a line here, yep.

Proof?

That youre a bitter ex and want to bash him because that’s all you have.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Got it. All men accused of rape probably did it based on stats, low percentage of false accusations & how juries work.
Not particular to this case or the accused.

You forgot the crown having sufficient grounds to take it to trial and a judge agreeing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlamesAddiction]

I know the burden of proof is different in a civil case, but is the fact he was found not guilty in a criminal case detrimental to the civil case? Like, can it be used to sway a jury, or are they supposed to disregard the criminal case?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by NOISIA

Proof?

That youre a bitter ex and want to bash him because that’s all you have.

I'm a pretty big believer that women don't make up accusations like this as a regular course of action. I'd be willing to bet she tried to put the brakes on and he didn't stop.


The lack of physical proof is why he's not guilty in a court of law. The very tangible and believable story the accuser has put into record is why he will likely lose a civil suit.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I know the burden of proof is different in a civil case, but is the fact he was found not guilty in a criminal case detrimental to the civil case? Like, can it be used to sway a jury, or are they supposed to disregard the criminal case?

Usually not. Not guilty isn't the same as innocent.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I know the burden of proof is different in a civil case, but is the fact he was found not guilty in a criminal case detrimental to the civil case? Like, can it be used to sway a jury, or are they supposed to disregard the criminal case?

It’s not helpful but there’s plenty of examples of it not harming the case either. In Canada civil cases rarely have a jury though.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Got it. All men accused of rape probably did it based on stats, low percentage of false accusations & how juries work.
Not particular to this case or the accused.

Wrong again.

[NOISIA]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Wrong again.

Expand, since you’re an expert, “apparently”

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Wrong again.

I shared your unedited quote.
If its wrong, you wrote it.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You forgot the crown having sufficient grounds to take it to trial and a judge agreeing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, like any other cases that go to trial.

My question was simply whether anything was different about the particulars of this case, or the defendant.
Would those who think he's guilty feel that way in other cases with any random people inserted.

Wasn't supposed to be an offensive question or trying to imply anything, but it's hard to ask even simple questions of some people.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Wasn't supposed to be an offensive question or trying to imply anything, but it's hard to ask even simple questions of some people.

It'd probably be easier to ask simple questions of people if you didn't repeatedly resort to editorializing when you summarize the quote (why you need to summarize one line of text into a different line of text? who knows!) with the added snarky tone of "So this is what you think? Got it!"

Like, you're kind of just being a dink about it. Why would someone want to answer your question or entertain you?