[News] Milan Lucic involved in domestic incident; Taking indefinite leave of absence

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I mean, do we really need court admissible evidence here to say that Lucic did an unbelievably ####ty thing and shouldn't be allowed to play another game in the NHL?

We're talking about a conviction in court here. Not the court of public opinion.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Why would a 911 call not be admissible?

Not that it's inadmissible per se but it has little value if the person who made it refuses to endorse it in court and unfair to the accused if he can't cross-examine her on it.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

We're talking about a conviction in court here. Not the court of public opinion.

We're talking about two separate issues. Should it require a criminal conviction for the NHL to send a message that it doesn't tolerate domestic violence?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Domestic abuse cases often end in a stay of proceedings because the victim does not want to testify. It does nothing to redeem Lucic in my eyes. And I've been counsel for the accused in a number of such cases.

Further to that, prosecutors know this is a likely outcome anyways, so they won't even bother to move it forward in many cases since they view it as a waste of time.

I was with my ex years ago and she was assaulted by her sister in front of me. Called the cops, sister was arrested, released later, yada yada yada. 2 weeks later still no progress on the case, so we go to the investigating officer asking for an update. He tells us the case is likely to be dropped so they aren't going to bother moving forward. He told us it was because a high rate of domestic cases end up with the victim/accused "forgiving" each other, not wanting to rock the family boat, etc. I was flabbergasted and quite upset with this, but low and behold he had ultimately predicted the future, as few days later my ex and her sister make up and they were back to normal. Few months later she got beat up again by her, and the cycle continued.

Sad to see cases like this often end up like this in that everyone from the arresting officer, to the prosecutors/lawyers, the judges, etc, all know that the victim will eventually relent and refuse to testify. Not sure how that can change, but as an outsider it sucks seeing the cycle continue.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

We're talking about two separate issues. Should it require a criminal conviction for the NHL to send a message that it doesn't tolerate domestic violence?

Does the NHL or anyone in the public for that matter have full information to know what happened? Not an assumption of what happened based on the fragments of information that's out in the public but what actually happened? Not what you can believe or assume, or lean towards, but the actual full near video footage level details.

If his wife won't testify in court, how is the NHL supposed to permanently suspend him. On a hunch?

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

We're talking about a conviction in court here. Not the court of public opinion.

Well yeah - and the court of public opinion knows there was a 911 call Lucic's wife made about him. Sure the charges are dropped but doesn't mean I can't form my opinion that he's a wife beating arse. Whether or not he plays again in the NHL is irrelevant to me.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Too bad. It is tough to put losers away who beat their wives. Guess it is important in Massachusetts to give first and last name when someone is physically assaulting you.

Wife was drunk when she called 911.
First responders were unable to find any signs of physical altercation.
Wife declined to testify.

I get that "wife declined to testify against 6'3" 225lbs millionaire professional athlete husband" is not exactly shocking, but when you combine it with "wife was drunk" and "zero evidence was provided that anything beyond kicking some furniture had occured" .... "losers who beat their wives" just sounds like an unwaivering pre-determined guilt assignment based on the headlines when the incident was first reported.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Does the NHL or anyone in the public for that matter have full information to know what happened? Not an assumption of what happened based on the fragments of information that's out in the public but what actually happened? Not what you can believe or assume, or lean towards, but the actual full near video footage level details.

If his wife won't testify in court, how is the NHL supposed to permanently suspend him. On a hunch?

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a much higher standard of proof than a balance of probabilities. Worked to opposite conclusions for OJ You're correct that neither I nor anyone else here has enough info to make that determination but the NHL could do an investigation that would.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a much higher standard of proof than a balance of probabilities. Worked to opposite conclusions for OJ You're correct that neither I nor anyone else here has enough info to make that determination but the NHL could do an investigation that would.

Well, to skip a few dozen pages and save a lot of trouble, I believe the league has done investigations in situations before (ie. Kane; ie. Perry) where public opinion was the player shouldn't be allowed by the NHL to play in the league again and look where that went.

[Flamesfan05]

It would take a lot to convict a millionaire

Not saying he is guilty or not

Somehow no woman ever called a cop on me. I am pretty sure that’s the case for most people

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

No matter what the case is, I feel bad for the kids first and foremost.

They don't deserve to be involuntary passengers to all that ####.

Doubt they're ever able to host a party or sleepover with friends without some hoopla being made because of the incident. That'll follow them around.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

No matter what the case is, I feel bad for the kids first and foremost.

They don't deserve to be involuntary passengers to all that ####.

Doubt they're ever able to host a party or sleepover with friends without some hoopla being made because of the incident. That'll follow them around.

They could have an elegant evening Gala with Eddie Hall and Co?

[Ford Prefect]

In situations like this people should refrain from pretending to know the story and passing judgement. My first wife was physically and verbally abusive, and a compulsive liar. She leveled lots of accusations against me that were all lies, usually aimed at covering up her own misdeeds. Things aren’t always what they seem. So wait for some kind of court decision, be it criminal or civil, before making judgement or commentary.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

In situations like this people should refrain from pretending to know the story and passing judgement. My first wife was physically and verbally abusive, and a compulsive liar. She leveled lots of accusations against me that were all lies, usually aimed at covering up her own misdeeds. Things aren’t always what they seem. So wait for some kind of court decision, be it criminal or civil, before making judgement or commentary.

I largely agree with this.

I had a client a few years back and I had to be a character reference for him. He'd been charged with domestic abuse and they were doing some follow-up investigation and I was shocked.

"Him? He's like the gentlest guy I've ever met."

- "We know, but we have to investigate."

Turns out his wife had early-onset dementia and she kept calling the Police on him for 'abuse' and 'breaking into her house' despite it being his house and no evidence he ever touched her other than, he was trying to get her into the car to go see a Doctor.

The 'breaking into her house' bit turned out to be the clue. Because she had bouts where she genuinely had no idea who he was and thought he was trying to rob her or something.

Wild stuff.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Well, to skip a few dozen pages and save a lot of trouble, I believe the league has done investigations in situations before (ie. Kane; ie. Perry) where public opinion was the player shouldn't be allowed by the NHL to play in the league again and look where that went.

True enough. There may well not be enough evidence. But I still wouldn't want Perry, Lucic or either Kane on my team.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Locke

Turns out his wife had early-onset dementia and she kept calling the Police on him for 'abuse' and 'breaking into her house' despite it being his house and no evidence he ever touched her other than, he was trying to get her into the car to go see a Doctor.

Dementia is especially brutal. My mother-in-law had bad dementia. She would walk into my father-in-law’s workshop and ask him if he’d seen her husband. She had been a very gentle person all her life … literally a church secretary. After dementia hit she became verbally abusive to those close to her. Very sad.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Dementia is especially brutal. My mother-in-law had bad dementia. She would walk into my father-in-law’s workshop and ask him if he’d seen her husband. She had been a very gentle person all her life … literally a church secretary. After dementia hit she became verbally abusive to those close to her. Very sad.

Oh man, thats a subject for an entirely different thread but I've dealt with people and relatives with Dementia and Alzheimer's and its rough as all hell.

All I was trying to get at is that life is weird. There could be all kinds of reasons for things that you wouldnt even expect.

Sure, some are more likely than others, but life can throw you some wild curve-balls.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Wife was drunk when she called 911.
First responders were unable to find any signs of physical altercation.
Wife declined to testify.

I get that "wife declined to testify against 6'3" 225lbs millionaire professional athlete husband" is not exactly shocking, but when you combine it with "wife was drunk" and "zero evidence was provided that anything beyond kicking some furniture had occured" .... "losers who beat their wives" just sounds like an unwaivering pre-determined guilt assignment based on the headlines when the incident was first reported.

Source on the bolded? I don't recall that ever being reported...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Source on the bolded? I don't recall that ever being reported...

The defence said she “sounded intoxicated” based entirely on their perception as they were trying to get the case thrown out.

Hardly evidence of her being drunk. In the police report they noted that Lucic appeared intoxicated but say nothing of the same about his wife from what I’ve read.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Well, aside from the 'did he or didn't he' argument, the next step for him is Bettman.


Will Bettman clear him to play? Since his charges have been dropped, is there a legal avenue in which Bettman can block Lucic from returning?


If Lucic does get cleared by Bettman, then: Do the Bruins reinstate him? Does he play another game?


If I was a betting man, I would bet that Lucic never plays another game again. If he was the 30 goal a season in his prime Lucic, then maybe (or even probably). No team is going to want the distraction at this point, including the Bruins. I will be surprised anyway.