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

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Keep in mind that the accuser said she did not want to go ahead with criminal charges at the point that these questions are being asked. She said she only wanted the police to talk to them. If she wasn't pursuing criminal charges, the detective wouldn't be launching a full investigation.

The accuser doesn't make the call in Canada on whether or not to go ahead with charges. The crown makes that decision.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by blankall

The accuser doesn't make the call in Canada on whether or not to go ahead with charges. The crown makes that decision.

Can we sticky this or something.

The crown can charge you with something regardless of what the victim thinks of it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by blankall

The accuser doesn't make the call in Canada on whether or not to go ahead with charges. The crown makes that decision.

Definitely true, but for what its worth, in Ontario, MAG has a policy to not subpeona unwilling sexual assault complainants for policy reasons (which means, as a practical matter, those matters will either be resolved for peanuts [peace bond or something] or withdrawn).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

The accuser doesn't make the call in Canada on whether or not to go ahead with charges. The crown makes that decision.

Yeah, I know but it's hard to make a case for charges or allot resources to a full investigation if the accuser and main witness indicated that they are uncommitted to going the full distance.

It seems like out of respect for the accuser, they gave her a lot of control over whether charges would be pressed at least at the beginning.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not the way consent works legally, for good reason.

Since you ignored the other question you said you’d answer, how about this:

Situation A:
You come up to your wife from behind, wrap your arms around her, and surprise her with a kiss on the neck. You’ve done so 100 times before (more I hope) with positive affirmation. She doesn’t feel like she was assaulted and enjoys the kiss (we’re in her mind here, not your perception), even if she gives no verbal or physical indication (she’s busy, or occupied, whatever).

Situation B:
A woman is running a kissing booth for charity. The rules are laid out: donate to charity, receive a kiss on the cheek. A stranger comes up to her from behind, wraps his arms around her, and kisses her neck. She hates it, and she feels like she was assaulted.

Situation C:
An abusive husband is drunk and comes up to his wife from behind, wraps his arms around her, and surprises her with a kiss on the neck. This has not been a regular, welcome occurrence for some time, but there was consent once upon a time for that kind of act. She recoils and pushes him away. She feels like she was assaulted.

In which situation was there consent? And in which situation would you reasonably expect the laws around sexual assault and consent to apply? In which ones do you think they should apply?

Situation A is, by definition, a sexual assault according to Canadian law. In other words, the correct legal answer to your question, "In which situation was there consent?" is none of the above.

Edit - I presupposed the scenario being that a complaint had been made to police...which I get now is not what Pepsi was saying...see below.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, I know but it's hard to make a case for charges or allot resources to a full investigation if the accuser and main witness indicated that they are uncommitted to going the full distance.

It seems like out of respect for the accuser, they gave her a lot of control over whether charges would be pressed at least at the beginning.

Agreed. Regardless of whether the complainant says she wants to "press charges", the police and crown should be investigating with the same vigor. There would be many circumstances where a complainant being too afraid/reluctant should heighten the initial investigation.

[CliffFletcher]

It’s clear most Canadians don’t realize how broadly sexual assault can be defined, given the legal definition of consent.

Consent laws are straightforward and widely understood, and only those with malign intent risk running afoul of them.

Is a very different argument than

Many well-intentioned people routinely have legally nonconsensual sexual contact without realizing it, but if they’re in a trusting relationship they probably don’t need to worry about facing charges.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by blankall

The accuser doesn't make the call in Canada on whether or not to go ahead with charges. The crown makes that decision.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Can we sticky this or something.

The crown can charge you with something regardless of what the victim thinks of it.

The police investigator says otherwise tho. Is he wrong? From today:

He says he wanted E.M. to understand she shouldn’t go forward with charges just so the men are forced to speak to police.

(During E.M.’s testimony in this trial, she said she had initially asked police if they could just talk to the men, not necessarily to conduct a criminal investigation).

Newton again reiterated that going ahead with charges has to be her decision, not a result of pressure from anyone, including her mother, he testifies. He also says he told E.M. he would only be speaking to her, not her mom or anyone else, from now on.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by rage2

The police investigator says otherwise tho. Is he wrong? From today:

Where does he say the crown can’t press charges?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MBates

Situation A is, by definition, a sexual assault according to Canadian law. In other words, the correct legal answer to your question, "In which situation was there consent?" is none of the above.

Except you’re making the same mistake Cliff is and ignoring the autonomy of the woman in this scenario. Respectfully, your definition is wrong.

Consent is a matter of the "actual state of mind of the complainant."[2] Belief in consent is a matter of the state of mind of the accused.[3]

Consent applies to both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence. The actus reus concerns whether "the complainant was subjectively consenting in her mind" and the mens rea concerns whether "accused believed that the complainant communicated consent."[4]

https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.ph...%20consent.%22

There can be no crime of sexual assault if the “complainant” (who would be the wife in this scenario) was subjectively consenting in her own mind. In situation A, because the act was consensual from the perspective of the wife, whether consent was obtained or not is irrelevant, because there would be no accusation, no charge, no trial.

That’s the point being made here. People are only going around sexually assaulting people through benign, consensual acts if you ignore the autonomy of the person on the other side and presume, from their subjective view, all of these acts are unwanted and were not consented to.

The idea that these laws are meant to criminalize ordinary, consensual behaviour is wrong. These laws criminalize behaviour to which the complainant subjectively believes they did not consent.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Where does he say the crown can’t press charges?

It doesn’t. From my understanding the crown can lay charges, it’s rare, and in cases where there’s police conflict of interest, incompetence, etc.

But in the context of this case it was the London police laying charges. Yet it was the London police investigator that claims it’s up to the accuser if she wants to lay charges, which was strange. I guess at the end of the day cops in Canada are allowed to lie so maybe it’s just that.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Buff

There was a time discrepancy between Formenton and Dube's interviews regarding Dube's turn with EM. Formenton said 10 minutes and Dube said 10 seconds. Seems like quite a big difference if you ask me.


Dube's interview doesn't sit well with me though.




Exert of part of Formenton's interview with the police.

Does it change anything important if it was 10 secs or 10 minutes?

If that's the biggest gotcha, I honestly don't see how this got this far.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DJones

Does it change anything important if it was 10 secs or 10 minutes?

If that's the biggest gotcha, I honestly don't see how this got this far.

Does it matter if the accused are credible in a sexual assault case?

I mean… yeah… it matters a ton.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Does it matter if the accused are credible in a sexual assault case?

I mean… yeah… it matters a ton.

A drunk teenager telling a story about 7 years ago is pretty much by default unreliable.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DJones

A drunk teenager telling a story about 7 years ago is pretty much by default unreliable.

These are stories told by sober adults to a detective about what happened weeks/months prior.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by rage2

It doesn’t. From my understanding the crown can lay charges, it’s rare, and in cases where there’s police conflict of interest, incompetence, etc.

But in the context of this case it was the London police laying charges. Yet it was the London police investigator that claims it’s up to the accuser if she wants to lay charges, which was strange. I guess at the end of the day cops in Canada are allowed to lie so maybe it’s just that.

They are also so far from understanding the laws compared to lawyers and judges that it’s almost scary.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by DJones

Does it change anything important if it was 10 secs or 10 minutes?

If that's the biggest gotcha, I honestly don't see how this got this far.

When I read what Dube said to the investigator it appeared to me as someone who was trying to cover their own butt. Dube was suggesting he stopped immediately because he wasn't comfortable what was happening. Formenton suggested that Dube's encounter happened for a heck of a lot longer than an immediate stop. Based on other testimony/interviews/ and text messages, Dube seemed quite involved, especially if he was smacking her butt. To me that paints quite the opposite picture of what he was saying as to what others were saying.

[taxbuster]

Crown may bring a “new witness” tomorrow. Very curious.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except you’re making the same mistake Cliff is and ignoring the autonomy of the woman in this scenario. Respectfully, your definition is wrong.



https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.ph...%20consent.%22

There can be no crime of sexual assault if the “complainant” (who would be the wife in this scenario) was subjectively consenting in her own mind. In situation A, because the act was consensual from the perspective of the wife, whether consent was obtained or not is irrelevant, because there would be no accusation, no charge, no trial.

That’s the point being made here. People are only going around sexually assaulting people through benign, consensual acts if you ignore the autonomy of the person on the other side and presume, from their subjective view, all of these acts are unwanted and were not consented to.

The idea that these laws are meant to criminalize ordinary, consensual behaviour is wrong. These laws criminalize behaviour to which the complainant subjectively believes they did not consent.

Hey Pepsi, you know what MBates does for a living, right?
Kinda not the person to argue with on this one…

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rage2

It doesn’t. From my understanding the crown can lay charges, it’s rare, and in cases where there’s police conflict of interest, incompetence, etc.

But in the context of this case it was the London police laying charges. Yet it was the London police investigator that claims it’s up to the accuser if she wants to lay charges, which was strange. I guess at the end of the day cops in Canada are allowed to lie so maybe it’s just that.

My understanding is that the police need to put together a case, present it to the Crown, and then the Crown ultimately decides if there is enough to warrant charges. It's not a super high bar to meet, but there has to be enough. As also mentioned, in Ontario they won't subpoena an alleged sexual assault victim to testify against their will. The accuser indicated at first that she did not want to participate to the point of laying charges, so I assume the detective wasn't in full on case building because it would probably be difficult to get the Crown to approve charges under those circumstances. Just a guess, but it all sounded pretty hokey. She wanted the police to talk to them, but not go ahead with charges. Then she did want charges, and then she didn't, and then she did again. Maybe the detective did drop the ball, I don't actually know.

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Crown may bring a “new witness” tomorrow. Very curious.

My guess is Maxime Comtois is back in Canada. His season in Russia just wrapped up a few days ago. They probably couldn't subpoena him while he was in Russia.