MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I will repeat this once again in the simplest terms. I AM NOT DEFENNDING SEAN CHU!! End of ****ing story. I am not sure where this garbage came from that I am President and CEO of his fan club or supporting a "boys will be boys" attitude. Personally I believe child sex abusers should be executed and castrated in a public space but that's a different conversation for a different day.

Well, you were saying that calling him a rapist is bad because…. ?

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think people are confused because you’re labelling what he did as “morally wrong” which is confusing because either A) he did what he’s accused of and it’s worse than morally wrong or B) he didn’t do what he’s accused of and there’s nothing that would be morally wrong.

But the evidence seems to suggest he did what he was accused of and he got a slap on the wrist for it.

I would argue he didn't even get a slap on the wrist legally, he was punished internally at his place of employment, which was CPS. Internal discipline for you and I at work isn't the same thing as being legally charged.

There is public opinion and there is the legal system. In the eyes of the legal system there is a massive difference between the situation Sean Chu was in recent months and where Carra is as of today. That is preciously why members of council have taken a very very different tone in public comments.

With Sean Chu, rightfully or wrongfully, everybody on council was putting their $.02 into the conversation. With Carra, it's all "No comment" since the matter is before the courts as he was officially charged.

People sometimes confuse what justice actually means. Justice does not mean you and I get the results WE want from a particular case. It does not guarantee a conviction or an acquittal in a particular case.

I get why this particular councilor has a lot of people all up in arms, a lot of people want justice for what happened but we need to make sure we differentiate between the court of public opinion and the courts. Those lines in today's internet fueled rage are getting more and more blurred. Lot's of hastags and twitter trending topics but ultimately all we have is the court system to decide.

I haven't seen the specific evidence in Sean Chu's case or file. If there is enough evidence that a sexual assault charge is warranted now, than by all means, charge him. The same goes for everybody in the same category in other high profile public cases. Simple as that.

As for Carra , he lead everybody to believe he gave a little love tap to someone's bumper and may have left a scuff on someone's car. Given the fact that he was charged by an outside police agency, in consultation with the crown, there is probably more to this particular story. I am in no way comparing the two alleged offenses in any way, don't take that the wrong way.


I was never defending the guy but I am also able to see the difference between something morally wrong and something legally wrong. Sometimes it goes the opposite way and you can do something legally but it still be morally wrong in my opinion.

[PepsiFree]

You’re not being any more clear than you were.

If what Sean Chu did was morally wrong, which is different than legally wrong to you, what did he do?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I would argue he didn't even get a slap on the wrist legally, he was punished internally at his place of employment, which was CPS. Internal discipline for you and I at work isn't the same thing as being legally charged.

There is public opinion and there is the legal system. In the eyes of the legal system there is a massive difference between the situation Sean Chu was in recent months and where Carra is as of today. That is preciously why members of council have taken a very very different tone in public comments.

With Sean Chu, rightfully or wrongfully, everybody on council was putting their $.02 into the conversation. With Carra, it's all "No comment" since the matter is before the courts as he was officially charged.

People sometimes confuse what justice actually means. Justice does not mean you and I get the results WE want from a particular case. It does not guarantee a conviction or an acquittal in a particular case.

I get why this particular councilor has a lot of people all up in arms, a lot of people want justice for what happened but we need to make sure we differentiate between the court of public opinion and the courts. Those lines in today's internet fueled rage are getting more and more blurred. Lot's of hastags and twitter trending topics but ultimately all we have is the court system to decide.

I haven't seen the specific evidence in Sean Chu's case or file. If there is enough evidence that a sexual assault charge is warranted now, than by all means, charge him. The same goes for everybody in the same category in other high profile public cases. Simple as that.

As for Carra , he lead everybody to believe he gave a little love tap to someone's bumper and may have left a scuff on someone's car. Given the fact that he was charged by an outside police agency, in consultation with the crown, there is probably more to this particular story. I am in no way comparing the two alleged offenses in any way, don't take that the wrong way.


I was never defending the guy but I am also able to see the difference between something morally wrong and something legally wrong. Sometimes it goes the opposite way and you can do something legally but it still be morally wrong in my opinion.

That's an awful lot of words to "not defend a guy"...but simply ask they we not label a rapist a rapist because the due process into his rapist behaviour was botched, though there is very little doubt about the key fact (facts are facts afterall) that he is a statuatory rapist.

But the bigger problem is that we aren't all piling onto Carra...because his due process hasn't played out yet? Or something?

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’re not being any more clear than you were.

If what Sean Chu did was morally wrong, which is different than legally wrong to you, what did he do?

He was a Cop in his mid 30's hanging out with a young girl who was a teenager. He claims, right or wrong, he didn't know her age but met her in a bar and thought she was 18. As we have discussed, most likely illegal and morally wrong.

If she was 18 and he was in a position of trust and was legally allowed to have a relationship or whatever, that to me is morally wrong but legally ok.

I have said it before and I will say it again since your struggling with this concept. I am not a fan of his, I am not defending him but in the eyes of the legal system, he has not been charged or convicted of a crime.

That is preciously why everybody on council was having a debate about Sean Chu and putting in their opinion's on council but with Carra it's a lot more quite. The matter is before the courts and it's inappropriate for politicians to comment or place influence on the matter.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by curves2000

He was a Cop in his mid 30's hanging out with a young girl who was a teenager. He claims, right or wrong, he didn't know her age but met her in a bar and thought she was 18. As we have discussed, most likely illegal and morally wrong.

If she was 18 and he was in a position of trust and was legally allowed to have a relationship or whatever, that to me is morally wrong but legally ok.

I have said it before and I will say it again since your struggling with this concept. I am not a fan of his, I am not defending him but in the eyes of the legal system, he has not been charged or convicted of a crime.

That is preciously why everybody on council was having a debate about Sean Chu and putting in their opinion's on council but with Carra it's a lot more quite. The matter is before the courts and it's inappropriate for politicians to comment or place influence on the matter.

But she wasn’t 18. So saying “if she was” 18 is completely irrelevant.

You yourself are now saying what he did was most likely illegal AND morally wrong, so where is the whining about “name calling,” hash tags, Twitter, court of public opinion, etc coming from?

It’s not that people have trouble with concepts or reading comprehension, it’s that you are exceptionally bad at making a clear and concise point that logically ties together. If everyone is misunderstanding you, guess what? The problem isn’t likely them.

[Mazrim]

Sean Chu is no good.

[Wormius]

And it being a “bar” where they met was Chu’s account of it. Literally everybody else involved, state that it was the Husky House restaurant.

I mean, if you’re only going to skim Sean Chu’s press statements, you’re going to come out looking like a Sean Chu, rape apologist.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But she wasn’t 18. So saying “if she was” 18 is completely irrelevant.

You yourself are now saying what he did was most likely illegal AND morally wrong, so where is the whining about “name calling,” hash tags, Twitter, court of public opinion, etc coming from?

It’s not that people have trouble with concepts or reading comprehension, it’s that you are exceptionally bad at making a clear and concise point that logically ties together. If everyone is misunderstanding you, guess what? The problem isn’t likely them.

You clearly have a reading comprehension problem and or having a tough time understanding legalities, the legal process and what the difference between the legal system and court of public opinion.

You asked me the following "If what Sean Chu did was morally wrong, which is different than legally wrong to you, what did he do?"

I gave you 2 specific examples: He was an officer who was in his mid 30's and was in contact with an underage teenager. Most likely illegal and morally wrong. You and I don't get to decide the law, that's the courts and the fact is, he wasn't charged or convicted.

If the girl in question was 18 year's old, and like I said, IF, than she would be LEGALLY allowed to be in a relationship or have sexual contact with him legally. This is an example, a hypothetical scenario. This has not happened. Legally that is acceptable but to me, it's morally reprehensible.


Those are your examples that you asked for. Back to your question "If what Sean Chu did was morally wrong, which is different than legally wrong to you, what did he do?"


Morally wrong and legally wrong are not the same thing. This is where your not understanding the difference. I am sure you and I could find morally wrong things about each other but within the legal system legally.

Here is how the Mayor dealt with the differences when she was asked about a councilor being charged.

Speaking for the first time since the charge was laid, Mayor Jyoti Gondek declined to answer reporters' questions Monday because the case is "a live matter before the courts."

"I can understand everyone's desire to know more about the situation but as I've said, I simply can not comment on this matter at this time," said Gondek.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...wyer-1.6683299

I've wasted enough of my afternoon arguing about Sean Chu. Enjoy the game!

[Wormius]

“most likely illegal”

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by curves2000

You clearly have a reading comprehension problem and or having a tough time understanding legalities, the legal process and what the difference between the legal system and court of public opinion.

You asked me the following "If what Sean Chu did was morally wrong, which is different than legally wrong to you, what did he do?"

I gave you 2 specific examples: He was an officer who was in his mid 30's and was in contact with an underage teenager. Most likely illegal and morally wrong. You and I don't get to decide the law, that's the courts and the fact is, he wasn't charged or convicted.

If the girl in question was 18 year's old, and like I said, IF, than she would be LEGALLY allowed to be in a relationship or have sexual contact with him legally. This is an example, a hypothetical scenario. This has not happened. Legally that is acceptable but to me, it's morally reprehensible.


Those are your examples that you asked for. Back to your question "If what Sean Chu did was morally wrong, which is different than legally wrong to you, what did he do?"


Morally wrong and legally wrong are not the same thing. This is where your not understanding the difference. I am sure you and I could find morally wrong things about each other but within the legal system legally.

Here is how the Mayor dealt with the differences when she was asked about a councilor being charged.

Speaking for the first time since the charge was laid, Mayor Jyoti Gondek declined to answer reporters' questions Monday because the case is "a live matter before the courts."

"I can understand everyone's desire to know more about the situation but as I've said, I simply can not comment on this matter at this time," said Gondek.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...wyer-1.6683299

I've wasted enough of my afternoon arguing about Sean Chu. Enjoy the game!

I’m fully aware that morally wrong and legally wrong are different things. If you and I don’t get to decide the law, why are you saying what he did was “most likely” illegal and morally wrong.

Is it ok if people say he was “most likely” a rapist?

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I have said it before and I will say it again since your struggling with this concept. I am not a fan of his, I am not defending him but in the eyes of the legal system, he has not been charged or convicted of a crime.

lol because he was a cop

[GGG]

What does calling him a rapist have to do with the Justice system. No one is arguing that he was convicted or charged. People are arguing that based on what Chu has admitted to he is a rapist.

If I went around saying I murdered someone I think it would be reasonable to call me a murderer even if I hadn’t been charged and convicted of murder.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Wormius

And it being a “bar” where they met was Chu’s account of it. Literally everybody else involved, state that it was the Husky House restaurant.

I mean, if you’re only going to skim Sean Chu’s press statements, you’re going to come out looking like a Sean Chu, rape apologist.

Definitely not a rape apologist but I am trying to perhaps, educate some people as to why we have the legal system we do and why it's important. Is it perfect? Hell no but it's about as good as we can get.

I get it, people want their pound of flesh with this guy and perhaps that happens. The Province is reviewing the report from 1997 that was concluded this year. It's available here https://www.calgarypolicecommission....-Complaint.pdf

Wither it was a bar or a restaurant I don't know as I am not privy to the file nor do I care or does it change the facts of the matter. He was not charged or convicted. Perhaps he should be but that isn't for you and I to decide are there are good reasons for that!

I have been on record as saying justice doesn't mean you and I get what WE want out of a case as different people want different things. I have been on record as saying I am fully on board with castration and executions for convicted pedophiles and child sex abusers etc. Just because that's something I want as justice, doesn't mean we are going to be listening to me and my thoughts on that and proceeding with them.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Definitely not a rape apologist but I am trying to perhaps, educate some people as to why we have the legal system we do and why it's important. Is it perfect? Hell no but it's about as good as we can get.

I get it, people want their pound of flesh with this guy and perhaps that happens. The Province is reviewing the report from 1997 that was concluded this year. It's available here https://www.calgarypolicecommission....-Complaint.pdf

Wither it was a bar or a restaurant I don't know as I am not privy to the file nor do I care or does it change the facts of the matter. He was not charged or convicted. Perhaps he should be but that isn't for you and I to decide are there are good reasons for that!

I have been on record as saying justice doesn't mean you and I get what WE want out of a case as different people want different things. I have been on record as saying I am fully on board with castration and executions for convicted pedophiles and child sex abusers etc. Just because that's something I want as justice, doesn't mean we are going to be listening to me and my thoughts on that and proceeding with them.

Why do you object to calling Chu a rapist?

Everyone here that was already talking about it knows the details because they’re available to anyone willing to do a simple search and follow the news. It seems like you’re not willing to educate yourself about the situation, but have no trouble jumping in with the “hey guys, you can’t call him a rapist because I didn’t do any basic research to verify what everyone else already knows”.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Definitely not a rape apologist but I am trying to perhaps, educate some people as to why we have the legal system we do and why it's important. Is it perfect? Hell no but it's about as good as we can get.

…

I have been on record as saying justice doesn't mean you and I get what WE want out of a case as different people want different things. I have been on record as saying I am fully on board with castration and executions for convicted pedophiles and child sex abusers etc. Just because that's something I want as justice, doesn't mean we are going to be listening to me and my thoughts on that and proceeding with them.

Nobody is arguing that and nobody here requires an education on the legal system, and your posts thus far don’t instil any confidence that you’re equipped to provide one.

People are using a term that fits with what Chu admitted to and what the actual evidence says. Doesn’t matter if you don’t like people being called the term, and it’s not our job to educate you on the case to the point where you can contribute equally to the conversation.

I recommend you educate yourself before entering a topic you know little about and attempting to educate anyone else.

[PsYcNeT]

Guys his objection is that "Rapist" is the legal term.

We should technically be referring to Chu colloquially as "a creep who picked up an underage girl at an all night diner while in uniform and then forced himself on her at gunpoint, then admitted he did it 25 years later"

[getbak]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Guys his objection is that "Rapist" is the legal term.

We should technically be referring to Chu colloquially as "a creep who picked up an underage girl at an all night diner while in uniform and then forced himself on her at gunpoint, then admitted he did it 25 years later"

If only there was a simple single word that could get that point across and save everyone a lot of time.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by curves2000

It's available here https://www.calgarypolicecommission....-Complaint.pdf

Wither it was a bar or a restaurant I don't know as I am not privy to the file nor do I care or does it change the facts of the matter.

Did you bother to say click on that link?

The complaint against former Constable Sean Chu was regarding an incident on August
12, 1997, where Chu met with two youths at a restaurant

I guess it's a mystery we will never know.

[jammies]

Isn't the legal term 'sexual assault' now anyway? So calling Chu a rapist isn't making any kind of legal claim that he has been convicted of rape, because that isn't a thing?

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk