Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton found not guilty of sexual assault

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by troutman

The Oilers seem to have no problem hiring toxic people. Indeed, it seems to part of their strategy to build a roster in a small Canadian market, with little cap space.

Those players have contributed 10 goals, 9 assists, 19 points these playoffs. Without those contributions, the Oilers would likely have already been eliminated. If they happen to win the Cup, history will gloss over/forget those players were even on the team.

And honestly- aside from this board- I don't see people really giving a #### in the hockey world.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

If they're exonerated with a "Not Guilty", why shouldn't they be back in the league? If they're good enough to play, why should they be punished for something for which they were found "Not Guilty"?

Isn't that supposed to be the beauty of our justice system? Innocent unless proven guilty?

But I agree with what Jiri said. I think their careers are over even with a "Not Guilty" verdict and I - for one - don't think that's right.

Would you be pleased if your daughter brought Mikey McLeod home for dinner.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Would you be pleased if your daughter brought Mikey McLeod home for dinner.

There is a difference in personal settings and professional settings. He shouldn't lose his opportunity to play in the league. That's not even remotely close to the same thing.

In most employment forms/contracts, there's a section where you have to disclose criminal history. If there's nothing to disclose, it should end there.

Also, these events occurred 7-8 years ago when these guys brains were still developing. I don't think giving them another chance is a terrible thing to do.

[Funkhouser]

The only player that is worth the effort would be Hart, and I predict he will be on the Oilers next season.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

There is a difference in personal settings and professional settings. He shouldn't lose his opportunity to play in the league. That's not even remotely close to the same thing.

"Hey OJ, Bill will prepare the drinks for the road, Casey will watch the kids while we finally hunt down the real killer"

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

"Hey OJ, Bill will prepare the drinks for the road, Casey will watch the kids while we finally hunt down the real killer"

I knew this example would be brought up. That's extremely farfeteched. In that case, it was pretty obvious - 2-3 years later - by the time of the civil trial that OJ was guilty. It's not even relevant.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

I knew this example would be brought up. That's extremely farfeteched. In that case, it was pretty obvious - 2-3 years later - in the civil trial that OJ was guilty. It's not even relevant.

If Hockey Canada didn't settle, guess what type of trial would occur?

But let me just clarify. Despite the justice system saying that OJ, Bill Cosby and Casey Anthony are not guilty, you believe they are? Hmm.

[OptimalTates]

If they are found not guilty, the NHL and the individual teams can make the business decision to hire them or not. The only real legal issue would occur if they remain suspended while an NHL team wants to sign them. Otherwise, tough titties.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

If Hockey Canada didn't settle, guess what type of trial would occur?

But let me just clarify. Despite the justice system saying that OJ, Bill Cosby and Casey Anthony are not guilty, you believe they are? Hmm.

OJ got off on a case where there was massive racial divide post the LA riots. Double homicide.

Cosby got off on a case where there was a technicality. Sex assault.

Antony is one I am not as familiar of. Child homicide.

So the only potentially relevant one here is Cosby....who got off on a procedural technicality after he was found guilty.

None of these examples are relevant.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

OJ got off on a case where there was massive racial divide post the LA riots. Double homicide.

Cosby got off on a case where there was a technicality. Sex assault.

Antony is one I am not as familiar of. Child homicide.

So the only potentially relevant one here is Cosby....who got off on a procedural technicality after he was found guilty.

None of these examples are relevant.

Cosby had his rights violated. If McLeod was forced to answer why he lied to the police during the investigation it would hurt his case significantly. But he doesn't have to, as already noted.

But again, if they are found not guilty by the judge, no one is asking them to still be placed in prison. There will be public pressure on the NHL and individual team fans that the league and the teams can make a business decision.

St. Louis didn't want alleged rapist Gilmour. Flames did. St. Louis wasn't forced to trade him, they just either morally made that decision or made a business decision. I don't see much difference here.

(Again, I think the bigger issue will be if a team does want to sign Hart while the league says no, but I doubt the league will say no anyways, I just hope whatever team does sign him falters on and off the ice)

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

There is a difference in personal settings and professional settings. He shouldn't lose his opportunity to play in the league. That's not even remotely close to the same thing.

In most employment forms/contracts, there's a section where you have to disclose criminal history. If there's nothing to disclose, it should end there.

Also, these events occurred 7-8 years ago when these guys brains were still developing. I don't think giving them another chance is a terrible thing to do.

So, what you're saying is.. boys will be boys?

They were adults but because their brains were developing then we can let gang rape and sexual humiliation of a woman slide.

One needs to be at the stage of a fully mature brain at 25 to properly assess the rights and wrongs of such a situation?

Even though the victim likely has residual lasting effects from that experience, a period of 7-8 years elapsing is enough time to warrant a clean slate?

[OptimalTates]

And obviously ignoring that it's USA vs Canada justice system (at least until we're 51st), your point was pretty much:

"Hey our justice system should mean those found not guilty shouldn't be treated as though they are...unless I disagree with the justice system deciding they aren't guilty" Like okay, that's how people view this too.

The justice system should mean that those found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt end up in jail. Those aren't, don't. Not much else (obviously simplified).

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

[/B]
So, what you're saying is.. boys will be boys?

They were adults but because their brains were developing then we can let gang rape and sexual humiliation of a woman slide.

One needs to be at the stage of a fully mature brain at 25 to properly assess the rights and wrongs of such a situation?

Even though the victim likely has residual lasting effects from that experience, a period of 7-8 years elapsing is enough time to warrant a clean slate?

So if found not guilty- you've decided that they still gang raped and sexually humiliated the alleged victim?

Now they must be stripped of their ability to play in the NHL? + whatever else you can think of?

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

So if found not guilty- you've decided that they still gang raped and sexually humiliated the alleged victim?

Now they must be stripped of their ability to play in the NHL? + whatever else you can think of?

I would also add on that they conspired to get their stories straight and lied to police investigators. Sure. That's my view. It's based on the evidence before me that I've seen, some of the most damning of which wasn't even introduced. Should I simply ignore it?

Do I also believe there is reasonable doubt and they likely shouldn't be convicted? Yes. Unfortunately, that's going to be the case for a lot of situations like this.

(I would also like to say, as someone who has read the facts, that I don't necessarily say they are all equally abhorrent and culpable.)

But then we go back to the NHL, and I've said from the start, the league (and more importantly individual teams) can make a business decision. Mel Gibson wasn't found guilty of anything but I don't necessarily think it would have been smart to cast him as Moses in some big hollywood production. Capitalism baby.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

If not guilty, but still technically present and witness to those who are deemed culpable, i think it's a similar situation to the neglect and cover up of SA in Chicago in how it ought to be handled.

Eventually when the dust has settled they can take a run at a job here but the NHL would be wise to keep them out for a couple years. Even if for optics alone. It's their business.

Europe or Russia would likely accept them in the meantime.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Not sure why any one would care too much about these fellas getting a look in the NHL and chance to live a lavish lifestyle.

Tbh the not so innocent bystanders who did not intervene aren't who we should be concerned with and rallying behind at the moment.

Kind of tone deaf, to say the least.

Edit: Perhaps edmontonians, since shady backgrounds and criminal records don't seem to phase them much, if at all.

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

So if found not guilty- you've decided that they still gang raped and sexually humiliated the alleged victim?

Now they must be stripped of their ability to play in the NHL? + whatever else you can think of?

If they are found not guilty, it really is up to the NHL how they want to protect the league image. The difference with the NHL is they are in the spotlight. Compared to what I would consider a normal white- or blue-collar job. Right or wrong these allegations will follow these players for a long time. Pretty sure in 10 years when you google any of these guys this trial will come up.

My kids are older now, so I don't really see this being an issue for me but imagine in a couple of years your kid asking you to buy him a Carter Hart Jersey, saying he wants to be just like him when he grows up.

I only am picking Carter heart, as out of all of them, I think he is/was the one that would have the most impact on an NHL club.

I doubt if they are found not guilty the NHL will stop teams from signing them though. It is quite obvious that there are teams out there that will absolutely take advantage of signing these guys to a discount if they think it will help them win.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Not sure why any one would care too much about these fellas getting a look in the NHL and chance to live a lavish lifestyle.

Tbh the not so innocent bystanders who did not intervene aren't who we should be concerned with and rallying behind at the moment.

Kind of tone deaf, to say the least.

Why treat this as a team sport? Why does anyone need to "rally behind" a "side"?

IMO it's tone deaf to not look at the wide array of facts and complexity in this case, enough that it dismissed two juries, and want to create teams or camps. Also pretty damn selective to want to allow criminals to rehabilitate unless they were formerly rich and famous? or part of specific subculture? Or maybe it's specific crimes only? I question the motivation.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Only if they don’t feel it was consensual!

You were doing so well...and then messed it up!

As a matter of law, a sleeping person cannot consent to sexual touching at that moment (they are unconscious) and advance consent is not permitted (based on the current Criminal Code definitions of consent as per R v JA) and the person being ok with it after the fact is legally irrelevant.

You could not claim you had an honest mistaken belief in communicated consent because Canadian law says it is a mistake of law, not fact, to believe you could sexually touch someone you knew was sleeping based on them telling you they were good with it.

So you could get a partner to confirm in advance they have no issue with being kissed (or other sexual touching) as a way to wake them up and you could always stay fully within what they told you they were ok with, and they can never feel as though they were violated and you have nevertheless committed a sexual assault with no defence in law if you ever got charged.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

I think second chances at a league that's ultimately a privilege to be a part of should be reserved for the remorseful.

Even if you were a bystander, the lack of action taken as well as conspiring to construct a narrative that helps fellow teammates who might be guilty of the charges warrants an admission of remorse.

Why does a highly visible league need to associate itself with guys who have obscured their statements and tried to hush the alleged victim without concern for her well being, but merely to preserve their own reputations.

Again, it's a privilege. Not sure they're owed equal opportunity to those who've maintained good behavior and done what's asked of them on the PR front.