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

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by questionmotives

#### you.

Very well thought out.

I applaud your wonderful contributions to the thread.

[Enoch Root]

Well that was an entertaining outburst of passion. I question their motives, though.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well that was an entertaining outburst of passion. I question their motives, though.

Maybe it was EM”s fiancé !

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well that was an entertaining outburst of passion. I question their motives, though.

What will he do with his time now living in mom's basement? Lol

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Maybe it was EM”s fiancé !

Feel terrible for that man.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Feel terrible for that man.

He’s either the most loving or most gullible man on the planet. Maybe both

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

EM may be a victim (although the courts suggest otherwise).

But it is not difficult to look at this situation through the players' eyes and not see a different perspective:
-You work your entire life towards achieving a nearly impossible goal.
-You engage in, what you believe to be, consensual group sex (albeit in a frat boy environment that does not reflect well on any participant).
-You achieve your goal of making the NHL.
-Years later, you are accused of rape/sexual assault and your career disappears overnight based on an unproven accusation.
-You are publicly charged.
-Two years later, the courts determine you are not guilty. Regardless, the court of public opinion is strongly against you (as evidenced in this thread).
-The likelihood of re-entering the NHL, or recouping the lost millions in revenue is microscopic. For the rest of your life, people will associate you with sexual assault, even though the courts suggest otherwise.


Victim is maybe not the right word, but I do have empathy for the players, especially if it was a consensual event (which the court believes).


Basically no one won aside from a few lawyers. Not the players. Not EM. Not the crown.

1000x this.

[Goriders]

So just to clarify. The thread was fairly non combative over a long period of time given the subject. Some pretty rational debate.

Then questionmotive shows up and tells everyone to #### off.

Is this the new level of respect we should be following? Just seemed like a switch flipped.

I’m confused again.

[WideReceiver]

Is he banned yet?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calf

If they didn't want their careers ruined for something they did which affects their image and employability, they shouldn't have done that thing.

Highlighting this for a minute as I read through some of the other comments.

The men aren’t victims here, outside of being victims of their own poor choices. It’s not EM’s fault, it’s not Rick Westhead’s fault, or the NHL, Hockey Canada, their agents, etc. They have nobody to blame but themselves for having to go through this. And while they have not taken any personal responsibility to this point, they can certainly start taking some by at least accepting, if not acknowledging that fact.

At the end of the day they took advantage of a situation they knew to be wrong. Some were uncomfortable enough that they rightly (or just smartly) excused themselves entirely. EM also felt the situation was wrong. But in the end there wasn’t enough evidence to convict the men of anything criminal, because as the judge noted, it wasn’t their job to prove their was consent, it was the prosecution’s job to prove that there wasn’t and all they had was the testimony of the victim. Anyone jumping to talk of false accusations, that she “loved it,” or calling her finance gullible are really no better than the person sitting in the sin bin after that outburst. Just because you use kinder words to say crueler things does not make you any more respectable.

[Rhett44]

This thread sure took a turn.

Who really knows what happened that night. None of us were there.

[MegaErtz]

Are we ever going to get to know why the second jury was dismissed? Most lawyers seemed to know that was the point where a conviction was never going to happen.

[SutterBrother]

So they took a video of her because they wanted to prove they had consent.

But taking that video shows they knew they were doing something wrong (otherwise, why would they need a video "proving" she consented?)

But without that video, they probably all get convicted, right?

So the instrument that is perhaps most indicative of their guilt is also the thing that sets them all free.

Having trouble squaring all that.

[Sec214]

[TheScorpion]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1948525074409292071

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by SutterBrother

So they took a video of her because they wanted to prove they had consent.

But taking that video shows they knew they were doing something wrong (otherwise, why would they need a video "proving" she consented?)

But without that video, they probably all get convicted, right?

So the instrument that is perhaps most indicative of their guilt is also the thing that sets them all free.

Having trouble squaring all that.

I'd imagine they took that video because they believed she might later have regrets about what she consented to doing, and then claim that she didn't consent.

Turns out they were right.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I'd imagine they took that video because they believed she might later have regrets about what she consented to doing, and then claim that she didn't consent.

Turns out they were right.

As a man, would you take advantage of someone sexually in a way you believed they would regret later?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

https://twitter.com/user/status/1948525074409292071

Your move, Gary

[Buzzard]

I haven't seen this posted yet, although I could've missed it. CTV reporting the players will still be ineligible to play as they review the case. So far, the NHL are saying the right things, but... It's going to be interesting how this plays out. I'm thinking they'll be allowed to return, but doubtful any team has the gall to sign any, save for one of course.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/london/articl...-updates-here/

[dissentowner]

It's a sensitive topic for sure and people get heated with their opinions. That does not mean you go fully Looney Tunes though. People who support the players despite what you might think of their actions are not rapist supporters or immoral. Likewise, people who are disappointed in the verdict and believe these guys should never play in the NHL again are not supporting false accusers or not believing in justice. They are not supporting convictions based on accusations. There are a lot of emotions in something like this. Let's respect eachother though.