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

[sch19lks]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Whoever that player is, they likely knew the charges were coming for those involved and that they will almost certainly be involved in any trial or legal proceedings, and if true they weren’t really sure what to do about what they saw, I can see this taking a serious toll on their mental health.

Internet rumours have said that it was Drake Batherson

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I just don't get this.

I don't think it is surprising that an 18/19-year-old kid would be both uncertain about what he is seeing, as well as confused about how to react or respond. Kids will often struggle to act on a decision they know for certain is the right one, especially if they are in a high pressure situation that could affect their standing among their peers.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

The article says he saw what was happening but wasn't sure if it was sexual assault or not, so he left.

So for 10 minutes he stayed, and never heard the word stop?

I don't know. Do you?

Was he also impaired or sober? How much of an effect might this have had on how he processed the whole thing?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't know. Do you?

Was he also impaired or sober? How much of an effect might this have had on how he processed the whole thing?

10 minutes seems like a fairly long time to watch something and not understand what is happening no?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think it is surprising that an 18/19-year-old kid would be both uncertain about what he is seeing, as well as confused about how to react or respond. Kids will often struggle to act on a decision they know for certain is the right one, especially if they are in a high pressure situation that could affect their standing among their peers.

Maybe if they were 13-14 year old kids, I could understand that position.

They weren't kids. They were 18-19 year old adults. I think we should hold them to a higher standard.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think it is surprising that an 18/19-year-old kid would be both uncertain about what he is seeing, as well as confused about how to react or respond. Kids will often struggle to act on a decision they know for certain is the right one, especially if they are in a high pressure situation that could affect their standing among their peers.

Agreed on the peer pressure dynamics in that sort of scenario but 100% disagree that an 18/19 year old would be uncertain about what he is seeing. Non-consensual sex, in my opinion, is clear and obvious to any 18/19 year old if one imagines how the victim was reacting at the time.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I know you're joking, but if they saved the money they've earned to date, it would be very easy for them. I know of people who are on the lam for other reasons and all you need to do is go to a country without an extradition agreement with Canada (like Vietnam, I believe, for example) and live out your life in that country forever. Very easy. As long as you can resist traveling outside of that country, ever.

Nathan Gervais says hi.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by activeStick

These kids were 17? 18? I'm not sure I can convince myself that they were there for 10 minutes and weren't sure what to do about what they saw. I understand there are teenage peer pressures to fit in and all that, but yeah, sorry, 10 minutes is a long time. For me.

You’re 17, newly 18. Get invited up to a room. First time you’re seeing anything like this, in all likelihood. Most of the guys involved you know and trust. Would you know exactly what was happening or what you were supposed to do? Maybe they want you to join and you have that feeling that it isn’t right, but it takes you longer than it should to just separate yourself from the situation. The agent said “about 10 minutes”… would it have made a difference if it was 5? What was happening at the time?

8 guys were part of the lawsuit. 5 guys are being charged.

I think there’s probably a lot of deserved blame and deserved guilt for the 3 who aren’t being charged. But I think it’s a lot easier for older guys to say they should’ve just known and made the right decision in the moment. Where it’s really hard to stomach is all the silence after. Maybe understandable to make a bad, immoral choice in the moment. Much less understandable not to rectify that once you have the benefit of hindsight and know exactly what you saw.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

10 minutes seems like a fairly long time to watch something and not understand what is happening no?

Again, the statement said that the player "saw what was happening," not that he "watched" it. And, without knowing what the room looked like, how many people were there, whether it was dark or the lights were on, whether anyone involved in the assault said anything, or whatever sorts of noises there were, and whether the player in question was intoxicated and to what extent, then it is still hard to say how much he should have been able to understand about what he might have seen.

You're right. 10 minutes does seem like a long time, and it may be that he knew very clearly what was happening and failed to report a known sexual assault. But, my point is that we shouldn't just take for granted that this is the case. There are plenty of reasons why he may not have known nearly as much as we think he should have about what was happening.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Nathan Gervais says hi.

Interesting. I wonder what happened there?

https://cflaw.ca/practice-area/toron...es-with-canada

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Agreed on the peer pressure dynamics in that sort of scenario but 100% disagree that an 18/19 year old would be uncertain about what he is seeing. Non-consensual sex, in my opinion, is clear and obvious to any 18/19 year old if one imagines how the victim was reacting at the time.

How was the victim reacting at the specific time that this player was in the room?

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How was the victim reacting?

Fair enough. I am speculating on how she may have been reacting based on reports of what was happening to her...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

...8 guys were part of the lawsuit. 5 guys are being charged.

I think there’s probably a lot of deserved blame and deserved guilt for the 3 who aren’t being charged. But I think it’s a lot easier for older guys to say they should’ve just known and made the right decision in the moment. Where it’s really hard to stomach is all the silence after. Maybe understandable to make a bad, immoral choice in the moment. Much less understandable not to rectify that once you have the benefit of hindsight and know exactly what you saw.

Thanks. THIS is the part on which people should be focused.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

likely are prevented from naming them until charges have been brought.

There is no requirement for them to publicly name the charged individuals either AFAIK.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Stuff like this is not up to the team alone. The PA and league would both be involved.

So you're saying the PA, NHL and teams are jointly reponsible in their decision to allow alleged gang rapists to continue playing in the league while an investigation was on-going and charges were pending.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by activeStick

It's actually from an article from TSN

https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/age...room-1.1848359

I hear all the points…. But ####. I’d straight up quit my career as an agent if I found myself even thinking about making comments like this for the sake of a client. ####ing crazy land.

[Chingas]

Originally Posted by dino7c

They worst part was the hypocrisy

I'd say that the raping was the worst part.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Fair enough. I am speculating on how she may have been reacting based on reports of what was happening to her...

Yeah, exactly. The problem is that assault can happen in broad daylight, amid a crowd of people, and even in a public place without anyone even knowing it is happening. My point is that it is easy to imagine what happened, and what we think should have happened. But, without knowing all the details these sorts of presumptions are just that.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

The article says he saw what was happening but wasn't sure if it was sexual assault or not, so he left.

So for 10 minutes he stayed, and never heard the word stop?

We don’t know that the victim said stop. Accounts say the victim was asked if she consented and she said yes. The legal issue seems to be whether she was capable of giving consent given how drunk she was and in an environment where she may have felt unsafe.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’re 17, newly 18. Get invited up to a room. First time you’re seeing anything like this, in all likelihood. Most of the guys involved you know and trust. Would you know exactly what was happening or what you were supposed to do? Maybe they want you to join and you have that feeling that it isn’t right, but it takes you longer than it should to just separate yourself from the situation. The agent said “about 10 minutes”… would it have made a difference if it was 5? What was happening at the time?

8 guys were part of the lawsuit. 5 guys are being charged.

I think there’s probably a lot of deserved blame and deserved guilt for the 3 who aren’t being charged. But I think it’s a lot easier for older guys to say they should’ve just known and made the right decision in the moment. Where it’s really hard to stomach is all the silence after. Maybe understandable to make a bad, immoral choice in the moment. Much less understandable not to rectify that once you have the benefit of hindsight and know exactly what you saw.

Yeah. Frankly this is not the easiest case to even get one conviction from. It will all depend on what the evidence is about the state of intoxication and the visible signs, since IIRC there was an explicit verbal consent. The prosecution will have to prove that she was too intoxicated (or maybe too intimidated or coerced) to give actual consent. And then (again IIRC because it's been years since my advanced crim course and aside from the the law evolved) prove that the accuseds were aware or wilfully blind to the lack of true consent.

If there's video evidence and it shows her in a bad state of awareness, then it gets easier. But short of that it's all going to be about vive voce testimony and a judge/jury's view of credibility.

EDIT: the amount of people involved and the circumstances may help the prosecution in this regard.