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

[Strange Brew]

I find it hard to believe that these guys have bee in so many incidents similar to this that they can't remember one from the other.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Sorry but what does this mean? I mean I can understand outrage if there was cohesion, intimidation, or force that is used in order to engage in sexual activities where someone isn't consenting but if someone is engaging in consensual activities why is it a legal issue?

I know a lot of people who have engaged in consentual group sex - the biggest issue is consent not your views on sexual relations.

I presume you mean "coercion" not "cohesion".


Who said it was consensual AT THE TIME?


The requirement - which, given your comment, is clear that you do not understand - is that the party involved give consent to each and every sexual act at the time of that act, knowingly.


From a moral point of view I could care less what people do as long as its consensual, but I question whether a lone, apparently drunk, woman in the presence of 10 or more very large and strong men is in a state to provide meaningful consent. Yes, it's possible. That appears to be, in this case, for a jury to determine.


Notwithstanding all of that, what kind of weak-charactered men would take advantage of a woman in such a state? What does that say about deficits in personal character that not ONE of them stopped it?


If she were your daughter, I supposed you'd be fine with it?

[Jiri Hrdina]

The "if they were your daughter" is the wrong standard.
There is nothing legally wrong with the acts themselves, as long as all parties involved were consenting. I think that's the point. People get into all sorts of freaky stuff that others don't understand and certainly wouldn't want to hear their daughters partaking in.
But that's not the issue.
The issue is simply of consent and whether it was provided.

[Yeah_Baby]

And at its core, consent means there was a given 'yes', and not the absence of a 'no'.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

And at its core, consent means there was a given 'yes', and not the absence of a 'no'.

I think the absence of a no can be considered consent when it's not in a situation where power/drugs/booze/multiple guys is involved, like between people who know each other well and have engaged in sex many times.

None of which is the situation here obviously.

I expect dating couples seldom say "yes".

There is one thing everybody on the jury will know. Hockey Canada paid to make it go away. Or so they thought.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The "if they were your daughter" is the wrong standard.
There is nothing legally wrong with the acts themselves, as long as all parties involved were consenting. I think that's the point. People get into all sorts of freaky stuff that others don't understand and certainly wouldn't want to hear their daughters partaking in.
But that's not the issue.
The issue is simply of consent and whether it was provided.

I'm hearing lots of victim blaming using the same logic as the "if it was your daughter" argument. She shouldn't have been out drinking....shouldn't have gone up to the room with the first guy...etc....

Women have a right to choose how they have fun too. We need to get away from this attitude of congratulating men and condemning women for having sex.

If justice is going to be done, it needs to be clear that the victim had the right to consent to whatever acts and didn't breach some moral code in doing so. Then she had the right to say no and stop at any time, regardless of what she'd previously consented to.

[White Out 403]

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

She provided consent to get railroaded? Where's that evidence? You spelling consent right? One word not two?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

As I understand it the video is afterwards and there will be arguments about whether it was truly given voluntarily and uninfluenced by alcohol, etc. As people have said, it wasn't unusual for people to backfill consent at the time.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

You aren't misreading the fact there was a video, but you are vastly understating the ramifications of that video.

Have you ever heard of duress? That will be up to the jury to decide.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

Totally normal to ask a girl to record her consent afterward, especially if you have it before hand too.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Ped

Totally normal to ask a girl to record her consent afterward, especially if you have it before hand too.

Yup, the fact they felt the need to get a camera out and record consent cuts both ways.

That said, we're dealing with reasonable doubt.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

Hypothetically speaking, what if the female felt she had to make the video in order to be permitted to leave the room? Would that then be consent?

What if she was so drunk, despite stating the contrary, perhaps by coercion, that she did not know what she was saying. Would that then by consent?

Things aren't always how they appear, and that is why we have trials.
This video is evidence of something, but what it is evidence of is yet to be determined.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Hypothetically speaking, what if the female felt she had to make the video in order to be permitted to leave the room? Would that then be consent?

What if she was so drunk, despite stating the contrary, perhaps by coercion, that she did not know what she was saying. Would that then by consent?

Things aren't always how they appear, and that is why we have trials.
This video is evidence of something, but what it is evidence of is yet to be determined.

The supposed "consent" video isn't exactly something that the accused should be happy with. They should be embarrassed to be presenting it as evidence, unless it is the prosecution using it, which would make more sense.

"I was OK with it"

Not exactly what you want to hear from a partner even if they were consenting. As far as consenting statements go, that is pretty weak. In the end, the fact the video even exists seems more damning than anything.

[Robbob]

Yeah I get the vibe where in Always Sunny in Philadelphia Dennis says that is why at the end of the night he always gets the girl to text consent...at least the phone does.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

… putting aside my disgust to this comment, your assumption is that there isn’t anything more to this trial which is just starting? The video exists so, that’s it? Just on its existence alone, that’s it? “It’s insane”??? Are you for real here?

They brought charges forward on 5 guys while in possession of this video… but that’s it because it exists??

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

… putting aside my disgust to this comment, your assumption is that there isn’t anything more to this trial which is just starting? The video exists so, that’s it? Just on its existence alone, that’s it? “It’s insane”??? Are you for real here?

They brought charges forward on 5 guys while in possession of this video… but that’s it because it exists??

Yeah, one wonders what they'll be talking about for the other 8 weeks of the trial.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Yeah, one wonders what they'll be talking about for the other 8 weeks of the trial.

Experts on consent, experts on intoxication. For both sides. Probably each accused will testify and be crossed (they don't have to but I bet they do). The victim will testify and crossed by each defence counsel.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Experts on consent, experts on intoxication. For both sides. Probably each accused will testify and be crossed (they don't have to but I bet they do). The victim will testify and crossed by each defence counsel.

I don’t think you heard correctly Gio… the video exists… open and shut case…

[blankall]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

Oh C'mon. You don't think that video could have been the result of coercion at all? She just happens to say all the things that would get someone out of trouble. When was the last time a woman spontaneously just made a consent video for you after you hooked up with her.

What was the woman's thinking here....in case I change my mind later, I don't want to get these good guys in trouble, so I'd better make a video where I state I'm not drunk and consent to this stuff?

Everyone is entitled to a fair trail, but throwing the trial out because of that ridiculous video is absurd.