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

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

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.

Uh, no, and you can cut that bolded #### out.

In Canadian law, consent cannot be given in advance, nor can it can be given retroactively. The video evidence is restricted to those two things, which is why it isn’t evidence of consent.

As I said, this has already been discussed and sourced so you can go back through if you want. But your position doesn’t even make logic sense. If there was video evidence of (valid) consent that was known to investigators and the representation of the victim and accused, there would be no charges and no trial.

[dissentowner]

Double post.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Uh, no, and you can cut that bolded #### out.

In Canadian law, consent cannot be given in advance, nor can it can be given retroactively. The video evidence is restricted to those two things, which is why it isn’t evidence of consent.

As I said, this has already been discussed and sourced so you can go back through if you want. But your position doesn’t even make logic sense. If there was video evidence of (valid) consent that was known to investigators and the representation of the victim and accused, there would be no charges and no trial.

Well by that definition if consent can not be given before or after the act exactly when can consent happen? Right at the moment. Consent can also be taken away at any time. Were the videos played for the jury? They were. Regardless they are going to take what they saw into account. Has the crown proven in any way there was not consent? They have not. Did the videos destroy her credibility? Probably.

[Wormius]

Are we just glossing over the whole concept of duress?

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Well by that definition if consent can not be given before or after the act exactly when can consent happen? Right at the moment. Consent can also be taken away at any time. Were the videos played for the jury? They were. Regardless they are going to take what they saw into account. Has the crown proven in any way there was not consent? They have not. Did the videos destroy her credibility? Probably.

Are you in the court room every day of something? The way you're posting with such confidence is wild.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Are we just glossing over the whole concept of duress?

Ok, where has the prosecution shown any evidence of duress? The defence has shown a video taken after where the girl says she wanted to do those things. Was it made under duress? It could have been but the prosecutor has to prove it. This is where it's really tough. We are talking about guys freedom here and as scummy as they may be you can't just find them guilty off little evidence. I just don't see how the crown has proven anything here yet. Maybe they will, it isn't over.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by BigThief

Are you in the court room every day of something? The way you're posting with such confidence is wild.

I live 10 minutes from London, how do you I am not?

[chedder]

Originally Posted by BigThief

Are you in the court room every day of something? The way you're posting with such confidence is wild.

Are you new to the ramblings of this poster?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by chedder

Are you new to the ramblings of this poster?

I am just looking at it from a neutral view unlike yourself that had these guys guilty before the trial even started. That is the way society and social media works now. You can continue to insult me or you can actually add to the discussion, your choice.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Wormius

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

Probably asleep

[traptor]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

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.

There's more to it then that. Just because there's a video doesn't mean she wasn't pressured into making it.

That's kind of what the whole trial is trying to determine. How much was she pressured, in what fashion and does that constitute serial assault on this case.

She was unexpectedly surrounded by men who all new each other while naked. They were all significantly larger then her. She was heavily intoxicated. They even apparently had golf clubs. The went beyond tyical sexual acts, into more humiliating ones by slapping, spitting and laughing at her.

She didn't go to them. They came there. Did they each get clear consent before hand?

Apparently she was crying and tried to leave at one point.

Like I'm not saying one way or the other but its way more complicated then one consent video afterwards, and the trial has a long ways to go.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Well by that definition if consent can not be given before or after the act exactly when can consent happen? Right at the moment. Consent can also be taken away at any time. Were the videos played for the jury? They were. Regardless they are going to take what they saw into account. Has the crown proven in any way there was not consent? They have not. Did the videos destroy her credibility? Probably.

“Did the videos destroy her credibility? Probably” suggests you’re not looking at this from a neutral POV like you claim.

I recommend you read this to better understand:
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7525019

But CBC News spoke to experts who said that even after the #MeToo movement, the concept of consent isn't always understood and some people are putting misplaced trust in videos mentioning it.

…

For example, she said, if someone has consented to having sex with one person and a second person enters the room, or they want to change acts, the participants need to get consent, in the moment, for everything that's happening.

"That's really the only case in which these videos, I think, could really stand up," said Mendes, who also acknowledged recording a video in the moment of sexual activity isn't so straightforward to do.

…

Lisa Kerr, an associate law professor at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., agrees that context is everything.

"For example, you might see on a video that the complainant is intoxicated and you might want to assess what you see on the video with the evidence at trial about their level of intoxication, right? Does it confirm it? Does it undercut it?" Kerr said.

"You might assess the demeanour of the complainant in the video. So, does the complainant appear to be calm? Are they confident? Are they comfortable? Or do they appear to sort of be distressed and ill at ease?"

Depending on what is recorded and how it's interpreted, a consent video could benefit the prosecution or the defence.

"The video is not going to be determinative of whether there was consent at the time for the specific acts," Kerr said. "The video may be helpful for assessing the credibility of witnesses, for sort of getting a sense of what was really going on here."

Videos or app responses can give the illusion of navigating the ambiguities of consent, but if they are only recorded after a sexual encounter, Kerr said, they may be seen as an attempt to make up for a lack of consent at the time of the sexual activity.

The victim’s testimony is evidence there was not consent. The accused will likely provide evidence there was consent, or that they believed there was consent.

As pointed out, this is a long, complex trial. If the videos were sufficient evidence of consent, there wouldn’t be a trial.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by traptor

There's more to it then that. Just because there's a video doesn't mean she wasn't pressured into making it.

That's kind of what the whole trial is trying to determine. How much was she pressured, in what fashion and does that constitute serial assault on this case.

She was unexpectedly surrounded by men who all new each other while naked. They were all significantly larger then her. She was heavily intoxicated. They even apparently had golf clubs. The went beyond tyical sexual acts, into more humiliating ones by slapping, spitting and laughing at her.

She didn't go to them. They came there. Did they each get clear consent before hand?

Apparently she was crying and tried to leave at one point.

Like I'm not saying one way or the other but its way more complicated then one consent video afterwards, and the trial has a long ways to go.

Right, I just said imo right now as disgusting as their actions are I am not sure the crown has proven their case yet. I just said so far I wouldn't want to be a jury member on this one because from what I know and have seen regarding this case I don't know how you could convict. I don't know why an opinion is causing such aggression over that. Here is the thing, I took time off here for a week and just did some serious therapy, I don't want to try and have a discussion about anything and have it turn into a pissing match or posters trying to get me to start fighting in here, I am done with that. I am not referring to your post but if that's where my post is going to head I will just refrain from giving an opinion here. I never once said I want these guys to walk or that their actions not were ugly, I just said I don't think I have personally seen enough to think they will get convicted.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I never once said I want these guys to walk or that their actions were ugly, I just said I don't think I have personally seen enough to think they will get convicted.

That’s fine. It’s still early.

The pushback was around the claim that there was strong evidence consent was given, which is not true based on what constitutes consent under the law.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Ok, where has the prosecution shown any evidence of duress? The defence has shown a video taken after where the girl says she wanted to do those things. Was it made under duress? It could have been but the prosecutor has to prove it. This is where it's really tough. We are talking about guys freedom here and as scummy as they may be you can't just find them guilty off little evidence. I just don't see how the crown has proven anything here yet. Maybe they will, it isn't over.

Let’s ask this question - why would she make the video unless being pressured to?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s fine. It’s still early.

The pushback was around the claim that there was strong evidence consent was given, which is not true based on what constitutes consent under the law.

Ok, I was wrong, thank you for correcting that.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Let’s ask this question - why would she make the video unless being pressured to?

Maybe she was fine with it at the time? I don't know her or what she might be into. There are people who are into group stuff and weird kinks. She very well could have been pressured into it. Has the prosecution proven that? I don't think they have. She can testify they did, they will testify it was all consensual. I think the video and the emails hurt her credibility, how much will be up to each juror. That's why I said I am glad I am not a juror. It would be hard to put personal emotions aside to make a call and there is still more to come so that can change.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Right, I just said imo right now as disgusting as their actions are I am not sure the crown has proven their case yet. I just said so far I wouldn't want to be a jury member on this one because from what I know and have seen regarding this case I don't know how you could convict. I don't know why an opinion is causing such aggression over that. Here is the thing, I took time off here for a week and just did some serious therapy, I don't want to try and have a discussion about anything and have it turn into a pissing match or posters trying to get me to start fighting in here, I am done with that. I am not referring to your post but if that's where my post is going to head I will just refrain from giving an opinion here. I never once said I want these guys to walk or that their actions not were ugly, I just said I don't think I have personally seen enough to think they will get convicted.

Fair enough and I agree for the most part. I dont think everything's been explored enough to make them guilty at this point either.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Maybe she was fine with it at the time? I don't know her or what she might be into. There are people who are into group stuff and weird kinks. She very well could have been pressured into it. Has the prosecution proven that? I don't think they have. She can testify they did, they will testify it was all consensual. I think the video and the emails hurt her credibility, how much will be up to each juror. That's why I said I am glad I am not a juror. It would be hard to put personal emotions aside to make a call and there is still more to come so that can change.

I get we’re all armchair quarterbacks here. Whether somebody was into weird kinks isn’t relevant though. What would explain her making a video absolving the players? I mean, be reasonable here, if you were into gang bangs with sports teams, would you record a video stating everything was all consensual just because? It being coerces under duress sounds a lot more logical than she just wanted to make that statement on video for no reason.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

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.

This may seem like a technical point, but the accused didn’t tender the videos into evidence: the Crown did.

The defence hasn’t actually led any evidence at all yet. The Crown goes first, and IF the defence chooses to it can lead evidence at the end of the Crown’s case. The accused are not required to lead evidence, but they can if they want to.

Personally, I view the video as inculpatory, not exculpatory. It seems like the Crown does too based on how prominently it featured in the opening of its case.