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;
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
I didn’t comment on either ROR or Kapanen actually as this thread isn’t about them.
But sure. What would you think was fair? More punishment for ROR or Kap? Or less punishment for these 5 guys?
TBH, I’m not sure what the right answer would be as I doubt I have as much info on the 3 incidents as the NHL does…by my sense is all 7 of them got off easy compared to my perception of what they did. But that’s just my opinion based on my perception, which I freely admit may be right or wrong.
STL fan in MN wrote: ↑15 Sep 2025 18:07 pm
I didn’t comment on either ROR or Kapanen actually as this thread isn’t about them.
But sure. What would you think was fair? More punishment for ROR or Kap? Or less punishment for these 5 guys?
TBH, I’m not sure what the right answer would be as I doubt I have as much info on the 3 incidents as the NHL does…by my sense is all 7 of them got off easy compared to my perception of what they did. But that’s just my opinion based on my perception, which I freely admit may be right or wrong.
Not trying to drag you into anything.
But this what is so stupid. ROR should have done minor time in jail for what he did. You or I would have.
The NHL knew he lied and committed multiple offenses and he brought negative publicity to the team and league.
Complete joke and they should be ashamed of the inconsistency
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.
All i was trying to say is just because a judge/jury ruled you were ACQUITTED/NOT GUILTY does not mean you are INNOCENT. NHL gangbang kids or not I wasnt in the room i dont know if the chick wanted all kinds of dong or one dong or just two dongs that wasnt my point I was probably typing up a storm at work. Someone implied the kids were INNOCENT which I doubt is accurate given 20 yr kids circling a vagina but idk who cares now
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;
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.
We have very intelligent people here, and I agree that it should be a moot point due to the NHLs own investigation. But to the presumption of innocence, I can not believe what i am reading...
As BalotelliMassive said, innocent until proven guilty. Found not guilty or acquitted = not proven guilty. Therefore considered innocent.
Very true that the courts do not need to test for or prove innocence but that is irrelevant to the fact that they were and remain innocent until proven guilty.
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;
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.
We have very intelligent people here, and I agree that it should be a moot point due to the NHLs own investigation. But to the presumption of innocence, I can not believe what i am reading...
As BalotelliMassive said, innocent until proven guilty. Found not guilty or acquitted = not proven guilty. Therefore considered innocent.
Very true that the courts do not need to test for or prove innocence but that is irrelevant to the fact that they were and remain innocent until proven guilty.
Case closed.
For example do you then believe OJ was innocent? Again my point is conflating two different concepts, NOT GUILTY vs INNOCENCE.
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;
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.
We have very intelligent people here, and I agree that it should be a moot point due to the NHLs own investigation. But to the presumption of innocence, I can not believe what i am reading...
As BalotelliMassive said, innocent until proven guilty. Found not guilty or acquitted = not proven guilty. Therefore considered innocent.
Very true that the courts do not need to test for or prove innocence but that is irrelevant to the fact that they were and remain innocent until proven guilty.
Case closed.
For example do you then believe OJ was innocent? Again my point is conflating two different concepts, NOT GUILTY vs INNOCENCE.
Dude, its simple math. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty = not proven guilty. Not proven guilty = presumption of innocence remains. What don't you understand?
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;
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.
We have very intelligent people here, and I agree that it should be a moot point due to the NHLs own investigation. But to the presumption of innocence, I can not believe what i am reading...
As BalotelliMassive said, innocent until proven guilty. Found not guilty or acquitted = not proven guilty. Therefore considered innocent.
Very true that the courts do not need to test for or prove innocence but that is irrelevant to the fact that they were and remain innocent until proven guilty.
Case closed.
For example do you then believe OJ was innocent? Again my point is conflating two different concepts, NOT GUILTY vs INNOCENCE.
Dude, its simple math. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty = not proven guilty. Not proven guilty = presumption of innocence remains. What don't you understand?
Thats not technically true at all but we can disagree no worries. In a court of justice you can be acquitted/not guilty, in this case the Crown did not sufficiently prove their case. This does not mean the players are "innocent". Maybe they are maybe they did nothing but in the larger scope not guilty is not "innocent". Look up a thousand defense law web sites and read the same over and over again. If you say innocent, then that means without a doubt the defendant did nothing wrong this is not what "not quilty" means in a court of law in the vast majority of decisions made every day.
Doesn't matter if you are actually innocent. It's all about optics and what people on social media think.
Bad take on the bauer situation...the league hated bauer. Has nothing to really do with the situation. He was essentially blackballed- not because of the sex thing. He made a mockery of the league, insulted the commissioner and owners consistently, pizzed off teammates and coaches everywhere he went. He had no friends and made no attempt to make any within his teams- and the commissioner had a target and saw the opportunity. Is that right? He could have a legal argument that it is not. However, the social media being the driver of the suspension...no.
