Hockey Canada, CHL settle lawsuit over alleged sexual assault involving WJ players

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I am not the one who said (or thanked) a post that talked about slinging someone up on a tree. That has a very specific black and white meaning, always has, and is a meaning almost nobody would deny. But the trip down the Lynch family history was entertaining.

I do not think there has been a single post in this thread that says they should be punished indiscriminately. Happy to be corrected if you can find a post like that though.

I have this weird obsession with watching millennials react to old songs on YouTube. There was one video where the song said something like, "I'd sell my soul for you" and then the people reacting to it paused the song and went into a huge discussion about the value of a soul, and how no one should ever sell theirs for any price, etc.

They thought the guy who wrote the song was trying to literally sell his soul, simply because they didn't seem to understand what a metaphor was. Or even the concept of poetry.

You remind of them.


Also, hanging someone from a tree has absolutely nothing to do with colour. Yes, black people were hung in the United States during a certain period of time, but it was used well before that all over the world as the end result of investigations that focused on little more than "he said/she said." I'm advocating against those types of investigations. Why does it matter what colour the subjects of those investigations are, when I'm saying the investigations themselves are wrong?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I have this weird obsession with watching millennials react to old songs on YouTube. There was one video where the song said something like, "I'd sell my soul for you" and then the people reacting to it paused the song and went into a huge discussion about the value of a soul, and how no one should ever sell theirs for any price, etc.

They thought the guy who wrote the song was trying to literally sell his soul, simply because they didn't seem to understand what a metaphor was. Or even the concept of poetry.

You remind of them.


Also, hanging someone from a tree has absolutely nothing to do with colour. Yes, black people were hung in the United States during a certain period of time, but it was used well before that all over the world as the end result of investigations that focused on little more than "he said/she said." I'm advocating against those types of investigations. Why does it matter what colour the subjects of those investigations are, when I'm saying the investigations themselves are wrong?

Well I am 43, so wrong generation. And I was not the one who suggested finding a tree limb. And it sure as #### has something to do with the colour of your skin when you talk about slinging someone up on a tree. That is almost a universally recognized truth, similar to how burning crosses have an association, despite the fact that the Scots used burning crosses as a sign of war.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Well I am 43, so wrong generation. And I was not the one who suggested finding a tree limb. And it sure and #### has something to do with the colour of your skin when you talk about slinging someone up on a tree.

No. It really doesn't. I mean, it obviously does to you, but to me it's a metaphor for frontier justice in the wild west - which is what this thread has devolved to.

And the point wasn't "you remind me of millennials," it was "you remind me of people who don't know what a metaphor is."

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Well I am 43, so wrong generation. And I was not the one who suggested finding a tree limb. And it sure as #### has something to do with the colour of your skin when you talk about slinging someone up on a tree. That is almost a universally recognized truth, similar to how burning crosses have an association, despite the fact that the Scots used burning crosses as a sign of war.

Ya, but you know, like, the swastika…wasn’t always a bad symbol

/s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cole436]

Coming back into this thread an hour later:

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Also, do you want to reconsider the bolded three words, especially in this thread?

There is nothing to reconsider. The victim in this case was not silent at all. In fact, she took it to the police and subsequently filed a civil suit, so it is quite obvious that she was neither silent nor consenting.

You don't get to win any argument by ignoring the subject and yelling, ‘Freeze! Tone police!’

[OptimalTates]

“The person bringing the allegations forward chose not to speak with either police or with Hockey Canada’s independent investigator and also chose not to identify the players involved. This was her right, and we fully respect her wishes. We have settled this matter and as part of that settlement, we will not be commenting further.”
...

The lawsuit said the John Doe defendants attended a Hockey Canada Foundation Gala June 18 and following the event went to Jack’s Yard, a bar and restaurant in downtown London. The claim said that the plaintiff arrived at the bar at 11 p.m., where she met a hockey player – not listed as a defendant – who introduced her to John Doe 1 and his teammates.

The defendant players allegedly bought the woman a number of alcoholic beverages and shots and she became separated from her friends, growing more intoxicated as the night progressed.

The plaintiff said she showed evident signs of intoxication including “glassy eyes, slurred speech, stumbling and loss of balance” as she left the bar with one of the players – John Doe 1 – and went with him to the Delta London Armouries Hotel. After she engaged in sexual acts with him, John Doe 1 “invited the remainder of the John Doe defendants into the room without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleged.

According to the lawsuit, the players directed her to fondle her genitals, and perform oral sex on them. The players also allegedly straddled the plaintiff while placing their genitals in her face, slapped the plaintiff on her buttocks, spat on her, ejaculated in and on her, engaged in vaginal intercourse with her, pressured her from leaving the room when she tried to, and engaged in other sexual activities with her.

“Throughout the assaults, the plaintiff experienced an ongoing apprehension of imminent physical harm of a sexual nature,” the lawsuit said. “The actions of the John Doe defendants caused terror and fear in the plaintiff’s mind. The John Doe defendants had complete control over the plaintiff and had isolated her from others. The number of men and the fact that they had brought golf clubs to the room further intimidated the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff acquiesced to their repeated sexual acts and direction to engage in same, but this in no way constituted valid consent under law by the plaintiff.”

The plaintiff alleged that she was too intoxicated to provide proper consent.

The rumoured defense of the players was already that she didn't object. Even the lawsuit from the plaintiff says she acquiesced. Although conflicting reports, she's also said that she refused to talk to police (it was Hockey Canada that informed the police).

So are you saying she consented now?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

The rumoured defense of the players was already that she didn't object. Even the lawsuit from the plaintiff says she acquiesced. Although conflicting reports, she's also said that she refused to talk to police (it was Hockey Canada that informed the police).

So are you saying she consented now?

How can what you quoted be though? Jay Random said she was not silent, but the quoted part said she was silent and for reasons unknown at the time did not want to participate in the investigation? Maybe there is a historically racist metaphor that will help make sense of this confusion for me.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There is nothing to reconsider. The victim in this case was not silent at all. In fact, she took it to the police and subsequently filed a civil suit, so it is quite obvious that she was neither silent nor consenting.

You don't get to win any argument by ignoring the subject and yelling, ‘Freeze! Tone police!’

I'm actually struggling to think of a real world example where "silence implies consent" could ever be applicable.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

The rumoured defense of the players was already that she didn't object. Even the lawsuit from the plaintiff says she acquiesced. Although conflicting reports, she's also said that she refused to talk to police (it was Hockey Canada that informed the police).

So are you saying she consented now?

What? Where did anyone accuse her of consenting? Did I miss that?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

30% of the time in London Ontario the police found claims to be unfounded. 3 out of every 10 times they were found to be unfounded there, highest rate in all of Canada for cities between 250,000 to 500,000. They blow second place away in that regard, second was only 22%. That probably is a statistical anomaly though and not a systemic issue.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle33855643/

That may very well be true, but is not “66% of the time police can’t be bothered to lay charges”.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

What? Where did anyone accuse her of consenting? Did I miss that?

Jay Random said “silence implies consent”. She was silent, at least according to her own lawsuit did not protest, so I’m asking. It’s only a question. I’ve thanked his posts that answered or explained his thoughts to me that I found helpful, feel like a lot of people take things too personally.

(Nothing directed at you dissentowner in this post).

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I thought the criminal case was originally pursued and the police found no evidence to lay charges?

Well no. Not “no evidence”. Insufficient evidence (to ensure a conviction). Which happens a lot in he said she said. I worry that the fact it was 8 stories to 1 and that they were hockey stars was a factor, but who knows.

[Mathgod]

--- nvm ---

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Coming back into this thread an hour later:

Yeah between this, the Gaudreau thread going off about his wife, and the Van Scam I think I’ve had enough CP for a while.

[TherapyforGlencross]

They brought golf clubs to the room? If that’s in relation to the assault, the perpetrators should have a criminal court case with the option of being behind bars. Holy ####. This needs to be dealt with, and not just a paid settlement.

[Reggie Dunlop]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1548752483220180994

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

They brought golf clubs to the room? If that’s in relation to the assault, the perpetrators should have a criminal court case with the option of being behind bars. Holy ####. This needs to be dealt with, and not just a paid settlement.

Whoa what? Sorry if I missed it and a link is just posted above…

Edit: holy ####. That takes it to another level, and it was already completely ####ed up. I missed that bit of information.

The players had brought golf clubs into the room, causing the woman to fear for her safety, the lawsuit alleges.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...46ed5cb19/amp/

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Whoa what? Sorry if I missed it and a link is just posted above…

Edit: holy ####. That takes it to another level, and it was already completely ####ed up. I missed that bit of information.



https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...46ed5cb19/amp/

Yeah, that's weird. I suppose it's possible that they were just there because one of the players was planning on going golfing, but if they were used to intimidate her, that adds another level of evil. Did they say if any of the players were wielding the clubs in the room at the time?

I also read that the alleged victim is also going to participating in the next investigation which is major. I couldn't see someone being compelled to go through that unless they were really a victim. She doesn't have anything to gain at this point having already received a civil settlement.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, that's weird. I suppose it's possible that they were just there because one of the players was planning on going golfing, but if they were used to intimidate her, that adds another level of evil. Did they say if any of the players were wielding the clubs in the room at the time?
.

Well we’re just picking apart one sentence in a news article, but it says the some of the players “brought” clubs into the room. Which in the timeline of the article is after she and one player went to the room, and then he invited the rest without her knowledge.