Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton charged with sexual assault

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by blankall

The callous but correct answer is no they wouldn't, because they would never be in that position. It would be a horrible conflict of interest if the accused's counsel was also the parent of the victim.

I fully recognize that but I often wonder how their moral compass works in stuff like this.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

I fully recognize that but I often wonder how their moral compass works in stuff like this.

It has been commented on many times, but it is about defending the system as much as protecting the accused. We believe people should not be railroaded by the police, prosecutors and the system. We believe there should be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that proves to the trier of fact that what the accused did was a crime. We believe they had to know they were doing it and meant to do it (with some exceptions).

The defence lawyer's job is not to help an accused 'get away with' something. Their job is to ensure that if they are convicted, it was done properly and within the rules.

It is a noble profession, specifically defence lawyers, to step into that breach, which is essential to operating our entire system.

"There but for the grace of God go I." I hope you are not in this position, but if you are, the first and most important thing you need is a dedicated defence lawyer.

[PepsiFree]

Seems like a big risk, but Formenton’s lawyer has suggested the victim has an “alternate persona” which he has named “Fun E.M.”

He basically fumbled around the line of “you made bad decisions and it was your fault it happened” and calling the persona that went along with the alleged sexual assaults “fun” and while suggesting the other persona is the one that took issue with it.

Seems a little extra gross and stupid.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Seems like a big risk, but Formenton’s lawyer has suggested the victim has an “alternate personality” which he has named “Fun E.M.”

He basically fumbled around the line of “you made bad decisions and it was your fault it happened” and calling the personality that went along with the alleged sexual assaults “fun” and while suggesting the other personality is the one that took issue with it.

Seems a little extra gross and stupid.

No way that theory's flying without expert evidence from a psych stating as much.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

No way that theory's flying without expert evidence from a psych stating as much.

I should clarify, and will edit my post, but he was referring to a “persona” / alter ego, not a personality disorder.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’re aware that it is entirely possible and entirely likely (based on how difficult these specific kinds of trials are especially) that all of this happened, everything the victim says from her feelings to her actions and the actions of others is absolutely true, and yet there are “not guilty” verdicts across the board, right?

Just like it is entirely possible/likely that all of this happened, AND she actually did consent to it, yet they are all given "guilty" verdicts and spend years in prison.

I truly have no idea which side is right, I am completely open to either thing being the case - the sad thing is I wouldn't put anything past anyone. I have seen my share of "disgusting" guys do great things, and "amazing" women caught doing some vile things. These are all humans involved, and no one is pure evil or purely good, there is a spectrum to everything.

Probably the most likely outcome is that no one is happy in the end. Hopefully it is worth it though, even if it stops one assault from happening in the future...

[FlamesAddiction]

The "alter ego" thing from alcohol is a real psychological thing that happens with some people and there have been studies on why some people experience that and others don't. I remember reading before that something like 40% of people experience polar personality swings and more prone to blackouts when they drink (peaceful people become violent, shy people become promiscuous, etc... and don't remember much about it later). I bet most of us even know people like that, I know I have seen it.

I agree though that the way it was presented by Formenton's lawyer didn't seem tactful. I'm also not sure how you prove someone is like that for a specific individual unless you can show a pattern of behaviour. I guess suggesting it though could raise the inkling of reasonable doubt, if even incrementally.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Public sentiment is wrong, and fomented by so called mens rights movements.

Aren’t men’s rights groups people like Andrew Tate? Why would they be quick to convict in the court of public opinion? Wouldn’t they be defending these men?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Aren’t men’s rights groups people like Andrew Tate? Why would they be quick to convict in the court of public opinion? Wouldn’t they be defending these men?

There are actual men's rights groups that concern themselves with genuine issues, like mental health.

Usually though, it's just a mask for misogyny or attempts to get out of child support. The "Manosphere" is a broader term that envelops all of it, including incels, red pill theory, pick up artistry, etc....

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Aren’t men’s rights groups people like Andrew Tate? Why would they be quick to convict in the court of public opinion? Wouldn’t they be defending these men?

The public sentiment that I was referring to is the false notion that there are lots of false complaints, especially around athletes/celebrities.

[Willi Plett]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's kind of an uncomfortable line of questioning. There has to be some point where a person is so drunk that they no longer have agency and can't consent, but of course there levels of inebriation that someone can consent even if it is a bad choice.

I thought this was the general scope of law in these cases. I was always under the impression that consent of a drunk person was about the same as no consent at all.

Can one of our law experts comment on this?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Willi Plett

I thought this was the general scope of law in these cases. I was always under the impression that consent of a drunk person was about the same as no consent at all.

Can one of our law experts comment on this?

Being intoxicated doesn’t automatically invalidate to consent.

Not an expert in law but I am an expert at drinking.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Willi Plett

I thought this was the general scope of law in these cases. I was always under the impression that consent of a drunk person was about the same as no consent at all.

Can one of our law experts comment on this?

https://westcoastleaf.org/wp-content...nsent-2019.pdf

https://robichaudlaw.ca/sexual-conse...drunk-or-high/

According to that, a drunk person giving consent is still legally considered consent as long as they have the capacity to consent, so like they aren’t passed out and are able to speak.

[Bonded]

Easiest is just getting enthusiastic consent. It’s not hard to take the two seconds and check in if they are into it.

[Wormius]

Where was everybody else from the team while this was going on, like the coaching staff or other more mature responsible adults?

[dissentowner]

If I am not looking at this from a personal standpoint and I am on that jury so far I am saying not guilty. I think what these guys did is gross and wrong but from a legal standpoint there has been pretty strong evidence that consent was given. I am hoping the jury sees it the other way because these guys are scummy and it helps others come forward. Glad I am not on that jury.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

If I am not looking at this from a personal standpoint and I am on that jury so far I am saying not guilty. I think what these guys did is gross and wrong but from a legal standpoint there has been pretty strong evidence that consent was given. I am hoping the jury sees it the other way because these guys are scummy and it helps others come forward. Glad I am not on that jury.

To be clear, there has been no evidence that consent was given.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

To be clear, there has been no evidence that consent was given.

Except for the victim on video saying there was.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Except for the victim on video saying there was.

As already discussed, that’s not how consent works. That’s why there is a trial despite that video having existed and part of every investigation for years.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

As already discussed, that’s not how consent works. That’s why there is a trial despite that video having existed and part of every investigation for years.

Except it is. There is video evidence consent was given. That is submitted into evidence. You can debate if she was too intoxicated for it to matter but it is evidence none the less. You are letting your personal feelings about this get in the way. The defence has presented evidence that there was consent. What has the crown shown that there wasn't? The burden of proof is in the prosecution, they have not proven anything yet.