NHL suspends players acquitted in 2018 sexual assault trial until Dec. 1

[theograce]

When will this league stop making terrible decisions?

This is a joke!

Asking honestly, what is it that has you upset about this decision? Is it that they’re being allowed back at all? I’m genuinely asking.

These people are innocent - why is there a time period for them to be reinstated?

Define "innocent" in this case. It was clearly an ugly incident the NHL seems that additional discipline is required I'm ok with that

They were charged with a crime - they were not found guilty of committing said crime.

Anything else you need me to clear up?

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/458 ... of-not-met

Yes, learn to read the judge ACQUITTED them citing the prosecutor did not meet the onus of proof. Legally this is not the same outcome as INNOCENT. Clear enough?

So the same as the guy you have tattooed on your body?

[Harry S Deals]

Nope your wrong

I posted Canadian Law. You're posting an opinion.

Nope wrong again, the legal concept of acquittal is pretty universal among UK/US/Canada. In no scenario does being ACQUITTED mean you were INNOCENT of a crime, just as a NOT GUITLY verdict does not necessarily mean you were INNOCENT of a criminal charge. Being INNOCENT means basically you didnt do anything wrong. OJ Simpson was not INNOCENT. It couldnt be more clear per the judge: " Justice Maria Carroccia said prosecutors could not meet the onus of proof for the charges against Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote."
It seems pretty likely that these players or player did something sexual and unwanted in the hotel room, this ACQUITTAL does not mean that one or more was NOT GUILTY of something. It means it could not be proven in this case by the prosecutor.

"The woman testified in May that she was naked, drunk and scared when four of the men showed up unexpectedly in her room at the Delta Hotel London Armouries and felt the only "safe" option was to do what they wanted. Prosecutors argued that the players did what they wanted without taking steps to ensure the woman was voluntarily consenting to sexual acts."

Was ALL of the sex acts in the hotel room consented?

[BalotelliMassive]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/livestor ... -9.6842381

An Ontario Superior Court justice today found five members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team not guilty of sexual assault charges, ending an eight-week trial that captured national attention and prompted widespread debate on sexual assault, hockey culture and the legal definition of consent.

Justice Maria Carroccia found all of the accused men not guilty. She went through each of their names in court, one after the other: Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Dillon Dubé and Michael McLeod.

In each, she said the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant in the case had not consented to the sexual activity that took place in a room on the second floor of a London, Ont., hotel in June 2018.

[theograce]

Anything having to do with sex is taboo or scandalous in the West. It’s so rigid. Judment is always there.

But hey … you can drive drunk, crash into buildings, lie to Police, commit perjury, slander a woman and it will be boys will be boys mentality for some. Zero accountability for all that lol

[Old_Goat]

Anything having to do with sex is taboo or scandalous in the West. It’s so rigid. Judment is always there.

But hey … you can drive drunk, crash into buildings, lie to Police, commit perjury, slander a woman and it will be boys will be boys mentality for some. Zero accountability for all that lol

Okay, we get it. You're very hurt that ROR wouldn't let you sniff his jock. We all know that.
Move on and stay on topic...and be sure to only discuss facts and not rumors.

[SRV1990]

AI Overview:

Having both a low IQ and a low attention span can stem from a complex interplay of genetic, medical, developmental, and environmental factors. While the two traits are distinct, they are connected through cognitive functions like working memory and executive control.

It's really very sad.

[theograce]

Anything having to do with sex is taboo or scandalous in the West. It’s so rigid. Judment is always there.

But hey … you can drive drunk, crash into buildings, lie to Police, commit perjury, slander a woman and it will be boys will be boys mentality for some. Zero accountability for all that lol

Okay, we get it. You're very hurt that ROR wouldn't let you sniff his jock. We all know that.
Move on and stay on topic...and be sure to only discuss facts and not rumors.

There’s no rumor in what was said. Hurt people think rumor

Laughing

[TAFKAP]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/livestor ... -9.6842381

An Ontario Superior Court justice today found five members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team not guilty of sexual assault charges, ending an eight-week trial that captured national attention and prompted widespread debate on sexual assault, hockey culture and the legal definition of consent.

Justice Maria Carroccia found all of the accused men not guilty. She went through each of their names in court, one after the other: Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Dillon Dubé and Michael McLeod.

In each, she said the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant in the case had not consented to the sexual activity that took place in a room on the second floor of a London, Ont., hotel in June 2018.

Nowhere in your quotes or your link is the word "Innocent" used. In both the US and Canadian legal systems, the judgement will be Guilty or Not Guilty signifying that the legal threshold either has or hasn't been met. A "Not Guilty" verdict signifies that the prosecution could not reach the "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" threshold, not that the defendant is factually innocent.

https://surreycriminallawyer.com/not-gu ... ifference/

[BalotelliMassive]

Nowhere in your quotes or your link is the word "Innocent" used. In both the US and Canadian legal systems, the judgement will be Guilty or Not Guilty signifying that the legal threshold either has or hasn't been met. A "Not Guilty" verdict signifies that the prosecution could not reach the "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" threshold, not that the defendant is factually innocent.

Got it - nobody is innocent or presumed to be innocent.

You learn something new every day.

[callitwhatyouwant]

Anything having to do with sex is taboo or scandalous in the West. It’s so rigid. Judment is always there.

But hey … you can drive drunk, crash into buildings, lie to Police, commit perjury, slander a woman and it will be boys will be boys mentality for some. Zero accountability for all that lol

Okay, we get it. You're very hurt that ROR wouldn't let you sniff his jock. We all know that.
Move on and stay on topic...and be sure to only discuss facts and not rumors.

the Bot is still mad when IT tried to say ROR was mad at the Blues for not playing him enough and he wasn't any good, only to have ROR go 12 points in 12 games and average 21 minutes of ice time lol. He then proceeded to get 9 in 11 for the Leafs the next year. The BOT broke when ROR broke IT's algo.

[theograce]

Anything having to do with sex is taboo or scandalous in the West. It’s so rigid. Judment is always there.

But hey … you can drive drunk, crash into buildings, lie to Police, commit perjury, slander a woman and it will be boys will be boys mentality for some. Zero accountability for all that lol

Okay, we get it. You're very hurt that ROR wouldn't let you sniff his jock. We all know that.
Move on and stay on topic...and be sure to only discuss facts and not rumors.

the Bot is still mad when IT tried to say ROR was mad at the Blues for not playing him enough and he wasn't any good, only to have ROR go 12 points in 12 games and average 21 minutes of ice time lol. He then proceeded to get 9 in 11 for the Leafs the next year. The BOT broke when ROR broke IT's algo.

I never said anything like that. But that just deflects away from what is being said in this thread.

What’s your opinion on the multiple serious crimes he committed without any disciplinary action?

[Army's Mom]

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/458 ... of-not-met

Yes, learn to read the judge ACQUITTED them citing the prosecutor did not meet the onus of proof. Legally this is not the same outcome as INNOCENT. Clear enough?

You're just posting your opinion.

Charterpedia - Section 11 (d) – Presumption of innocence
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right: 1. to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/r ... rt11d.html

Section 11(d) helps to ensure that only those who are guilty are ultimately condemned by the criminal justice system. Section 11(d) protects the innocent in two ways. First, section 11(d) guarantees the right of any person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, section 11(d) guarantees that the process whereby the guilt of any accused will be proved, will be fair. An essential component of a fair process is that the trier of fact — whether judge or jury — be independent and impartial (Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350 at page 357; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 at paragraph 32). Section 11(d) does not guarantee “the most favourable procedures imaginable” for the accused, nor is the broad principle of trial fairness assessed solely from the accused’s perspective (J.J., supra at paragraph 125). The right to a fair trial is considered from the perspectives of the accused, the complainant, the community and the criminal justice system at large (J.J., supra at paragraph 121).



Oops

That doesn't say what you think it does. A presumption of innocence is literally the opposite of "proven innocent". All the trial proved is that the prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Presumed innocence (not needing to be proven) is the standard un the US, UK, CAN, and most non dictatorial countries.

Harry is correct - the verdict only shows guilt wasn't proven. It doesnt say innocence was proven. You don't want to live in a system that requires you ti prove your innocence...

[theograce]

ROR told the Police and the Court that a mystery driver was driving his truck and that he didn’t know who it was.

That goofball should have been suspended by the NHL for that lie alone.

What a fool

Laughing

[dhsux]

Okay, we get it. You're very hurt that ROR wouldn't let you sniff his jock. We all know that.
Move on and stay on topic...and be sure to only discuss facts and not rumors.

Just one of so many anti Blue agendas.

This is not a guy you want to be in a foxhole with.

Ever.

[STL fan in MN]

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/458 ... of-not-met

Yes, learn to read the judge ACQUITTED them citing the prosecutor did not meet the onus of proof. Legally this is not the same outcome as INNOCENT. Clear enough?

You're just posting your opinion.

Charterpedia - Section 11 (d) – Presumption of innocence
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right: 1. to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/r ... rt11d.html

Section 11(d) helps to ensure that only those who are guilty are ultimately condemned by the criminal justice system. Section 11(d) protects the innocent in two ways. First, section 11(d) guarantees the right of any person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, section 11(d) guarantees that the process whereby the guilt of any accused will be proved, will be fair. An essential component of a fair process is that the trier of fact — whether judge or jury — be independent and impartial (Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350 at page 357; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 at paragraph 32). Section 11(d) does not guarantee “the most favourable procedures imaginable” for the accused, nor is the broad principle of trial fairness assessed solely from the accused’s perspective (J.J., supra at paragraph 125). The right to a fair trial is considered from the perspectives of the accused, the complainant, the community and the criminal justice system at large (J.J., supra at paragraph 121).



Oops

That doesn't say what you think it does. A presumption of innocence is literally the opposite of "proven innocent". All the trial proved is that the prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Presumed innocence (not needing to be proven) is the standard un the US, UK, CAN, and most non dictatorial countries.

Harry is correct - the verdict only shows guilt wasn't proven. It doesnt say innocence was proven. You don't want to live in a system that requires you ti prove your innocence...

This is correct.

Also, I’m confused why it’s even being argued. The NHL did their own investigation, said they found the conduct to be, “deeply troubling and unacceptable” and “woefully short” of what’s expected of NHLers. Obviously they took the not guilty verdict into account as well but even considering that, they still found the guys’ conduct that night to be unacceptable.

And tbh, this all makes sense to me. The NHL statement doesn’t say exactly what conclusions they came to but I didn’t expect it to. I mean, if I inappropriately flirted with some girl at the office party, I most likely wouldn’t be charged with a crime but my employer certainly could find I broke some sort of internal ethics code and discipline me.

[theograce]

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/458 ... of-not-met

Yes, learn to read the judge ACQUITTED them citing the prosecutor did not meet the onus of proof. Legally this is not the same outcome as INNOCENT. Clear enough?

You're just posting your opinion.

Charterpedia - Section 11 (d) – Presumption of innocence
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right: 1. to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/r ... rt11d.html

Section 11(d) helps to ensure that only those who are guilty are ultimately condemned by the criminal justice system. Section 11(d) protects the innocent in two ways. First, section 11(d) guarantees the right of any person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, section 11(d) guarantees that the process whereby the guilt of any accused will be proved, will be fair. An essential component of a fair process is that the trier of fact — whether judge or jury — be independent and impartial (Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350 at page 357; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 at paragraph 32). Section 11(d) does not guarantee “the most favourable procedures imaginable” for the accused, nor is the broad principle of trial fairness assessed solely from the accused’s perspective (J.J., supra at paragraph 125). The right to a fair trial is considered from the perspectives of the accused, the complainant, the community and the criminal justice system at large (J.J., supra at paragraph 121).



Oops

That doesn't say what you think it does. A presumption of innocence is literally the opposite of "proven innocent". All the trial proved is that the prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Presumed innocence (not needing to be proven) is the standard un the US, UK, CAN, and most non dictatorial countries.

Harry is correct - the verdict only shows guilt wasn't proven. It doesnt say innocence was proven. You don't want to live in a system that requires you ti prove your innocence...

This is correct.

Also, I’m confused why it’s even being argued. The NHL did their own investigation, said they found the conduct to be, “deeply troubling and unacceptable” and “woefully short” of what’s expected of NHLers. Obviously they took the not guilty verdict into account as well but even considering that, they still found the guys’ conduct that night to be unacceptable.

And tbh, this all makes sense to me. The NHL statement doesn’t say exactly what conclusions they came to but I didn’t expect it to. I mean, if I inappropriately flirted with some girl at the office party, I most likely wouldn’t be charged with a crime but my employer certainly could find I broke some sort of internal ethics code and discipline me.

And ROR’s behavior was deemed acceptable? They investigated that too. Multiple offenses.

Kapanen being found/caught guilty of a crime was ok to them?

This is a/the problem