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.
Yeah, I don't think there was an explicit "no" or "stop".
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.
And I think that not all 18–19 year old adults are at the same point of cognitive and emotional development, maturity, self-awareness and confidence. I think we should have all the facts before drawing our conclusions.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
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.
I wish I could say that if put in the same situation at 18-19 years old that I would have been confident enough or strong enough mentally to have ran in and said stop it, or would have done something about it, but I can't say with certainty that I would have. Especially when it's a group of guys that were likely more acquaintances than good friends, and even more so if I was also intoxicated at all.
At that age I know there were circumstances where maybe a guy was being a little too handsy or forward with a girl at a bar or something and I have stepped in and said "Hey bud, she said no" but to walk into a room with at least 5 other guys, where the act is already happening...I honestly can't say I would have done any better than that guy at stopping it when I was 18 or 19 years old.
It's a mindset that I think we need to build as a society at all ages, and not just as 18-19 year old men. I think if faced with that situation now I'd be mature and confident enough to know what to do, but honestly think it's too easy to look back at it and say you would have stopped it if you were put in the same situation at that age with the benefit of hindsight. Really none of us know what we would have done in that scenario unless we've actually ever been in that scenario.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
The article says he was in the room for 10 minutes and couldn't figure out if it was consensual or not. So he saw what was happening. Hard to think he couldn't see what the victim's level of impairment was.
According to police, in the article, there is no requirement to intervene in a crime so this person didn't commit a crime, but he has to live with his inaction.
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.
I imagine a lot of plea deals will be had . One to not put the victim through having to testify and two , very easy to find reasonable doubt 5 years later in a case like that
Unless they have some strong evidence outside the victims testimony - likes texts bragging about a sexual assault - which could be very damning and help remove the consent question
I imagine a lot of plea deals will be had . One to not put the victim through having to testify and two , very easy to find reasonable doubt 5 years later in a case like that
Unless they have some strong evidence outside the victims testimony - likes texts bragging about a sexual assault - which could be very damning and help remove the consent question
It's only speculation but it sounds like the prosecution may be quite confident.
"On a day everyone is clamouring for news they can trust about a story with widespread public interest comes word that an average of five local U.S. newspapers are closing every two weeks.
(Situation is no different in Canada.)
It takes time and resources to report, edit, and legally vet investigative reporting. Please support and pay for local journalism."
Yup.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
18-19 years old is still a stage of cognitive development. They do know right from wrong. They do know when they've made a mistake. People at that age are still prone to making incredibly impulsive and rash decisions without fully grasping how what they are doing will affect themselves and those around them in both the immediate and long term aftermath.
This does not excuse what they have done. They still know right from wrong, but hormones and a lack of developed critical cognitive thinking led them to making a colossal, tragic, possibly unforgivable mistake.
I wish I could say that if put in the same situation at 18-19 years old that I would have been confident enough or strong enough mentally to have ran in and said stop it, or would have done something about it, but I can't say with certainty that I would have. Especially when it's a group of guys that were likely more acquaintances than good friends, and even more so if I was also intoxicated at all.
At that age I know there were circumstances where maybe a guy was being a little too handsy or forward with a girl at a bar or something and I have stepped in and said "Hey bud, she said no" but to walk into a room with at least 5 other guys, where the act is already happening...I honestly can't say I would have done any better than that guy at stopping it when I was 18 or 19 years old.
It's a mindset that I think we need to build as a society at all ages, and not just as 18-19 year old men. I think if faced with that situation now I'd be mature and confident enough to know what to do, but honestly think it's too easy to look back at it and say you would have stopped it if you were put in the same situation at that age with the benefit of hindsight. Really none of us know what we would have done in that scenario unless we've actually ever been in that scenario.
In Jr hockey teammates also "share girls". It's not unusual seeing two or three teammates with a girl at one time. It's a weird messed up hockey bro thing.
Eh don’t bother they’ll just say “all I said was he liked pizza” or something. Maybe a meaningless comment, maybe a joke, maybe an attempt to say something. No clue
Edit: lol never mind. Couldn’t have timed that better if I tried
Quite possibly the most insightful and timely post in the history of CP. Hats off to you, I regret engaging with them.
As I said before, I wasn't there, I don't know near enough details on what happened, so I am not going to jump to conclusions on what actually happened. Those players could be disgraceful idiots who took advantage of an intoxicated girl, thos players could also have engaged in group sex with a girl who wasn't as intoxicated as she claims and gave full consent and then decided afterward she felt wrong about it, got paid off for it, and wants to see how much further she can take it. There is just not enough information at this time to jump to conclusions either way. I don't get the whole gang bang thing myself but it does happen with consenting parties. Did we not just have a thread about a player accused of something terrible like this that was dragged through the mud only to be cleared of any wrong doing? If they are guilty I hope they get hit with the full extent of the law but we can't possibly know that yet.
The Following User Says Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
As I said before, I wasn't there, I don't know near enough details on what happened, so I am not going to jump to conclusions on what actually happened. Those players could be disgraceful idiots who took advantage of an intoxicated girl, thos players could also have engaged in group sex with a girl who wasn't as intoxicated as she claims and gave full consent and then decided afterward she felt wrong about it, got paid off for it, and wants to see how much further she can take it. There is just not enough information at this time to jump to conclusions either way. I don't get the whole gang bang thing myself but it does happen with consenting parties. Did we not just have a thread about a player accused of something terrible like this that was dragged through the mud only to be cleared of any wrong doing? If they are guilty I hope they get hit with the full extent of the law but we can't possibly know that yet.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
So, my question is whether you think this is something that has happened, and why? Are the Flames "buying Dube sympathy"? How so? Are they "misleading the public on this absence"? Explain, and be specific.
Bear in mind that at this point Dube has NOT yet been charged. On the one hand, even if the Flames know that he will be charged in the next few days, they are almost certainly under restrictions about how much information they can release to the public about his situation, and when they can do so. They appear to have, in fact "unceremoniously removed him from the roster." However, the team is also certainly aware that there is no way they could just do so without any sort of public statement. The public statement they released is pretty matter-of-fact, without much in the way of editorial nuance.
I 100% agree with the sentiment he is due his day in court and has not yet been charged yet. I alluded to that in the post.
However, anytime the mental health card is played, it is automatically assumed sympathy is required, terms like stunning and brave need to start being thrown around etc.
If the cause of his mental health issues are in fact stemming from involvement in this incident, which in fairness, we do not know yet... I'm sorry, but the statement "Dillon Dube is taking a leave of absence from the team for personal reasons." Is as far as that statement should read. Because in the mean time, a ton of people now have to eat crow, and look like ass-hats if he in fact is involved in this. How many people on this very board were tying the similarity of his situation to Kylingtons, and making very sympathetic statements.
Just as fast as people want to see people canceled for transgressions far smaller than these accusations, there's another side is just as quick to look like the most sympathetically, sympathizing sympathizer the second mental health is thrown out there.
You are fooling yourself if you don't think the team doesn't know exactly what the gravity of this situation is.
I know it's a knitpick, but words are important. Perception is important. And the way the Flames statement reads makes this seem entirely different than what it actually may be. Which we don't for sure know yet. Every serious fan, like you and me that follow this team, were suspicious of this the second the statement was made from the team. To more casual fans.... most had no clue who they actually may have been sympathizing for.
I certainly hope I am wrong.
If there's any solace for these 5 guys.... the second they get released from prison once this is all over, they know they'll have a nice league minimum contract in Edmonton to get back on their feet. And the fans up there will adore each and every one of them. /E=NG
The Following User Says Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
Maybe Dube was the pizza guy. That would explain the flames statement. And the mental health issues surrounding Dube could be that
(1) he's gotta take the stand against his teammates
(2) he knew she was maybe getting raped and did nothing
Fwiw Dube doesnt have the same rapist-like vibe the other four give off.
Anyways, after reading the Athletic article there's basically no doubt that a gang rape took place, the ring-leader wanted to participate in a gang-bang (ie it was premeditated) and they knew it was wrong...hence forcing the victim to state is consensual on video multiple times. If it's not rape, you don't need a video of the person you had sex with stating that it's not rape. To me, that's the smoking gun.
Just as fast as people want to see people canceled for transgressions far smaller than these accusations, there's another side is just as quick to look like the most sympathetically, sympathizing sympathizer the second mental health is thrown out there.
More likely you’re projecting some made up grievance you have onto the motivations of other people, and while people really do have that sympathy they don’t really know the right words to express it so they really in cliché and platitudes they have heard elsewhere.
I don’t think most adults are going to feel the need to eat crow because they were sympathetic for what someone is going through before understanding some of the reasons that person may be going through it. It doesn’t cost you anything to have empathy, and sometimes you have it for people who end up not deserving it, and that’s OK, too.
Kylington himself expressed empathy for Dube and offered his support. Who is going to go out and demand he eat crow or consider him an asset for it? He spoke based on what he knew.
