Breaking: charges coming for 2018 WJC

[Atomic Wedgy]

So you automatically think that all those players will be charged and all will be guilty? I believe the account given by the complainant is an accurate record of how she remembers it. I just dont know if all those players are guilty of a crime they may eventually be charged with. We waited this long, we can wait until charges have been proven.

[rataylor22]

If the police feel they have enough evidence to charge, then the 5 certainly are guilty, whether found so or not in a court trial, let alone the 3 others that are also involved, however without enough evidence to charge. The Supreme Court of Canada itself has recognized in judgements the failings of the current legal system in properly prosecuting those guilty of sexual assault.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...17800/index.do

Opening statements here, for those actually interested.

[doulos]

If the police feel they have enough evidence to charge, then the 5 certainly are guilty, whether found so or not in a court trial, let alone the 3 others that are also involved, however without enough evidence to charge. The Supreme Court of Canada itself has recognized in judgements the failings of the current legal system in properly prosecuting those guilty of sexual assault.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...17800/index.do

Opening statements here, for those actually interested.

Even The Tragically Hip know that sometimes people are wrongfully convicted.

[rataylor22]

Even The Tragically Hip know that sometimes people are wrongfully convicted.

And in the instance of sexual assault, exponentially more are wrongfully acquitted.

[doulos]

Of course. You claimed "If the police feel they have enough evidence to charge, then the 5 certainly are guilty, whether found so or not in a court trial," We know that this is not always the case. You're simply wrong and David Milgaard would like you to remember that.

[2014olympicgold]

1. The reasoning for the Feb 5th date is that the police force has given a day to the 5 people have to report by. Which could be Feb 2nd, and the police are given the weekend to hammer out the statements. Typically people are given 1-2 weeks to surrender if there isn't a concern for public safety that they are out in public.

2. Dube could be having a panic attack over this, and that's why it's a "mental health" leave, but I don't consider this a mental health leave. I want reporters to ask the question to Calgary's management staff, but I'm sure they've been given a statement on how to respond to it. Calgary might not even have known this was happening, but Dube did. But I want the media to really pressure this part of it on Calgary.

3. Contracts. I think there's morality clauses in contracts that can be flexed here. E.Kane had his voided, this is a much worse situation.

4. I love the timing. All Star game would be the weekend just before the police presser. Bettman usually does a presser at the ASG. Man, the media can do something great here. Which means the NHL media will fail us.

5. Because of the 5 players being asked to surrender, that likely means the Jane Doe (I think she's going by E.M.) is willing to be questioned and cross examined in court on an incident that happened 6years ago. In a public way. The courage she has on that, huge pat on the back. Good on her.

6. Tom Fitzgerald got a contract extension THIS WEEK, Tuesday! The day before this broke! 2 days after Dube went on "mental health" leave. And he signed 2 of the 5 people 3 years after the public investigation happened. WTF. I have no respect for Tom Fitzgerald and the Devils ownership now. They 100% knew the 2 were involved, or actively looked the other way to not know.

7. From the SDP, they are saying the London Police didn't expect this to get out. The 5 players weren't expecting this to get out. Teams were informed (directly, indirectly, formally, informally) in the summer to get your PR teams ready for this to come out. Sportsnet contacted London Police Tuesday Night, so reporters knew something was coming Wednesday on Tuesday (makes Tom Fitzgerald stuff worse)

[PenguinHunter]

Can't we let the legal process complete before the torches and pitchforks?

Some folks have the desire to play cop, judge and jury, it’s out of their control.

More people need to watch the movie Shrek before they bring out the pitchforks

[SeaDawg]

Some folks have the desire to play cop, judge and jury, it’s out of their control.

More people need to watch the movie Shrek before they bring out the pitchforks

I get what you are saying but the legal system has already let the victim (and in turn the public) down once with this specific case so the outcry is warranted here. Without the media and public pressure, this case wouldn't have been reopened. As much as some people may be rushing to judgement, I think most of us just want to ensure that for the sake of the victim and women in general that the police, institutions of power (Hockey Canada, etc.), and hockey players (athletes and men in general) learn a lesson from this incident. The sad part is that this case isn't an isolated event so it is far overdue that we as a society start taking these incidents far more seriously and don't just assume that the legal system will do it's part to ensure justice is done.

[rataylor22]

Of course. You claimed "If the police feel they have enough evidence to charge, then the 5 certainly are guilty, whether found so or not in a court trial," We know that this is not always the case. You're simply wrong and David Milgaard would like you to remember that.

Your words no longer make any sense, which is the only thing that makes sense.

[doulos]

Your words no longer make any sense, which is the only thing that makes sense.

I quoted your own words...

You made a very specific claim. I pointed out that history has shown that your very specific claim is very clearly not true. This is very very basic.

[rataylor22]

I quoted your own words...

You made a very specific claim. I pointed out that history has shown that your very specific claim is very clearly not true. This is very very basic.

History has shown my specific claim to be significantly more statistically likely than your statistically insignificant counter-point, when talking about the specific charge in question. Obviously exceptions exist to any rule, you'd have to be quite obtuse to feel such a statement needs to be made.

[doulos]

History has shown my specific claim to be significantly more statistically likely than your statistically insignificant counter-point, when talking about the specific charge in question. Obviously exceptions exist to any rule, you'd have to be quite obtuse to feel such a statement needs to be made.

Statistically more likely, yes.

"then the 5 certainly are guilty, whether found so or not in a court trial" is not a statement about being statistically more likely. That's a very specifc statement that is unequivocally untrue.

You're wrong. It's ok to just admit it.

[rataylor22]

Statistically more likely, yes.

"then the 5 certainly are guilty, whether found so or not in a court trial" is not a statement about being statistically more likely. That's a very specifc statement that is unequivocally untrue.

You're wrong. It's ok to just admit it.

It’s not unequivocally untrue. It’s possibly untrue, but the statistical probability of that is somewhere >1%. Statistically, my statement is unequivocally correct.

It’s ok to just admit you don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s allowed.

[Belexus75]

It’s not unequivocally untrue. It’s possibly untrue, but the statistical probability of that is somewhere >1%. Statistically, my statement is unequivocally correct.

It’s ok to just admit you don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s allowed.

lol every single topic you just have to be controversial .... sometimes change is a good thing man...try looking in a mirror once in a while and tell bad guy to go away....

[doulos]

It’s not unequivocally untrue. It’s possibly untrue, but the statistical probability of that is somewhere >1%. Statistically, my statement is unequivocally correct.

It’s ok to just admit you don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s allowed.

What you are doing is actually undermining the concept of fairness and justice when you say "then the 5 certainly are guilty, whether found so or not in a court trial, let alone the 3 others that are also involved, however without enough evidence to charge."

It's pretty surprising coming from you as, despite your abrasiveness you and I often agree in areas like this.

You cannot say they certainly are guilty because we know that this is not true in all cases. Statistically it's very likely, but innocent people do get charged in situations like this and actually have their entire lives destroyed because mistakes are made. Of course it can go the other direction as well, when guilty people are let off. However it wouldn't be so difficult for someone to just say "Hey, you know, you're right. I cannot say for sure that these guys are guilty, and I will let the justice system do what it is designed to do."

It shouldn't make you so upset when people suggest that we let the justice system do its work here. That's actually the progressive position here. I really do find it strange how upset you are about this. I'm really unclear why (unless it's because you were called out on your inaccurate statement and the internet hurt your feelings - I guess that could be it)

Innocent people sometimes get charged and thrown in prison. We cannot say with 100% certainty that they are guilty, and in fact the Charter in Canada guarantees the right to be presumed innocent.
Guilty people sometimes get exonerated. These things also happen. Let's let the system do what it is designed to do.

You could have avoided all of this by just not behaving like a Sith and not making absolute statements about things that are not absolute.