Dube

[Walter Sobchak00]

I believe the team started the turnaround when he arrived. He’s been fantastic in the playoffs. He’s a Center which we desperately need.

He was very young, and I believe he was not even convicted, although there was certainly some bad behavior in bad choices.

I would ask that, and even some of the older players have his behavior has been and if it looks like he’s learned and grown up, give him a second chance.

Here comes the “we all did dumb stuff at 19” crowd.

Right on cue.

This is extra hilarious/sad coming from an adult you of all people having twice asked this board to forgive you your behavior here.

Or has it been three times?

You can't make this up.

I think he's as big of a blowhard egomaniac dumb take writing guy as anyone but comparing his forum behavior and taking advantage of an intoxicated woman isn't even comparable.

Everyone was intoxicated

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

[DoneLurking]

To me its pretty dumb to expect the Blues to do any investigating what happened outside of going over the case information and evaluating the player as a person.

How can you evaluate the player as a person if you're not looking into a moment where he was accused of sexual assault? You can say the verdict is enough for you. Not everyone is going to agree.

Well I can use the information already gathered by an actual real criminal investigation

That’s your choice. Just know that not everyone is going to agree.

There’s a difference between the standard of proof in a court of law and in life, and for good reason. As the saying goes it’s better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent one.

The logic behind that is intentional, but also means that sometimes a guilty person goes free.

Secondly, even if we could all agree that Dube’s behavior wasn’t criminal, that doesn’t mean everyone in our society will accept it. You’re seeing these differences of opinion on this board.

As MN said, and as I agreed in part, does Dube’s on ice play make all of this disagreement worth it?

Not everyone agrees with anything, best to make decisions based on the facts you know

I think everyone in this discussion is doing that. See the bolded

[skilles]

To me its pretty dumb to expect the Blues to do any investigating what happened outside of going over the case information and evaluating the player as a person.

How can you evaluate the player as a person if you're not looking into a moment where he was accused of sexual assault? You can say the verdict is enough for you. Not everyone is going to agree.

Well I can use the information already gathered by an actual real criminal investigation

That’s your choice. Just know that not everyone is going to agree.

There’s a difference between the standard of proof in a court of law and in life, and for good reason. As the saying goes it’s better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent one.

The logic behind that is intentional, but also means that sometimes a guilty person goes free.

Secondly, even if we could all agree that Dube’s behavior wasn’t criminal, that doesn’t mean everyone in our society will accept it. You’re seeing these differences of opinion on this board.

As MN said, and as I agreed in part, does Dube’s on ice play make all of this disagreement worth it?

Not everyone agrees with anything, best to make decisions based on the facts you know

I think everyone in this discussion is doing that. See the bolded

No many are still assuming guilt with no facts proving that.

[DoneLurking]

To me its pretty dumb to expect the Blues to do any investigating what happened outside of going over the case information and evaluating the player as a person.

How can you evaluate the player as a person if you're not looking into a moment where he was accused of sexual assault? You can say the verdict is enough for you. Not everyone is going to agree.

Well I can use the information already gathered by an actual real criminal investigation

That’s your choice. Just know that not everyone is going to agree.

There’s a difference between the standard of proof in a court of law and in life, and for good reason. As the saying goes it’s better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent one.

The logic behind that is intentional, but also means that sometimes a guilty person goes free.

Secondly, even if we could all agree that Dube’s behavior wasn’t criminal, that doesn’t mean everyone in our society will accept it. You’re seeing these differences of opinion on this board.

As MN said, and as I agreed in part, does Dube’s on ice play make all of this disagreement worth it?

Not everyone agrees with anything, best to make decisions based on the facts you know

I think everyone in this discussion is doing that. See the bolded

No many are still assuming guilt with no facts proving that.

Criminal legal guilt, or moral guilt? Because if you mean the former, I'd say you're wrong, that's not what people are assuming, and if it's the latter, then you saying a court acquitted him has little bearing on how people feel morally about his behavior in terms of the facts considered by the court.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's my argument that this is not as simple a conversation as you are presenting it to be.

[STL fan in MN]

The honest answer is idk. I know the details of the case and that he was acquitted but you also have to factor in potential reputational damage to the org. I’m sure the Blues have a ton more info on it all than me though - a more detailed understanding of what all happened that night (regardless of what could or couldn’t be proven in court), Dube’s part in it, how he is as a person now as well as what the likely perception around the league would be if they were to sign him.

But given what I know, I’d be hesitant to sign him to a NHL deal. He’s a guy that could probably be a good 4C but is he worth the potential headache and baggage? Wouldn’t it just be easier to find someone else, go with Finley or see if Dean can work his way back on the map in camp?

I paid attention to the case pretty well and my sense is the girl didn’t make it all up but I also absolutely got the impression that Mikey McLeod was by far the worst perpetrator and it’s possible the rest of the guys didn’t fully know she really wasn’t all that into it. But it’s all a big he said, she said and she seemed timid as heck and didn’t really voice she wasn’t into it so I wasn’t remotely surprised they were found not guilty as there just wasn’t much of any proof, especially once the judge threw out a lot of the previous depositions from the accused that were a lot more damning than what they said in court this time around.

But again, the Blues would know the circumstances and the player way better than I so if they do decide to give him a NHL contract, I’d probably hesitantly be ok with it.

But even if the Blues feel he is completely innocent, or feel he’s a better person now and are willing to give him a 2nd chance, teams still have to weigh if he brings enough talent to truly be worth the baggage. I question if a guy that looks like he could be a solid NHL 4C is truly worth that baggage. It’s a harsh way of looking at it but businesses have to weigh potential risk/reward all the time.

I think the Blues have already shown they think he should be allowed to play though disguised behind Springfield as to not put their name on it.

I also think the potential is more than a 4th line center.

Well sure but a one year AHL only contract and a NHL contract bring different levels of scrutiny and risk.

What do you think he could be? He turns 28 this summer. Forwards tend to peak around age 23-27. It’s not like he has a ton of growth potential ahead of him.

Yes in public opinion risk the Blues have not committed but I'm saying they personally IMO have shown they are ok with it.

I think 3c and not by growth as I think that is what he already was/is. Its not a question of whether he can or has grown into that as much as a question of whether he has/can maintain that level.

I’d agree the Blues likely made their call on if they’re comfortable with him or not already and I’ll add that I would think Army’s position with Hockey Canada would allow him to gain quite a bit of additional info. They did an investigation as well. But still, taking the chance on him with a NHL contract is simply more risk than a AHL contract.

It’s possible he could be a NHL 3C but it’s been 5 years since he’s been at that level. Could he again? Maybe. But I seriously doubt he’d be better than Suter. And I doubt they’d play him over Dvorsky either - the kid they’re trying to groom into being their longterm 2C. So where’s that leave him?

To me, I would likely come to the conclusion that he’s not worth the risk to fill a need we really don’t have. If he was legit 2C level good then it’s probably a different story. But if Army/Steen make a different calculation, then fine. They certainly know the situation, the player and the person better than I do.

[Army's Mom]

To me its pretty dumb to expect the Blues to do any investigating what happened outside of going over the case information and evaluating the player as a person.

How can you evaluate the player as a person if you're not looking into a moment where he was accused of sexual assault? You can say the verdict is enough for you. Not everyone is going to agree.

Well I can use the information already gathered by an actual real criminal investigation

That’s your choice. Just know that not everyone is going to agree.

There’s a difference between the standard of proof in a court of law and in life, and for good reason. As the saying goes it’s better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent one.

The logic behind that is intentional, but also means that sometimes a guilty person goes free.

Secondly, even if we could all agree that Dube’s behavior wasn’t criminal, that doesn’t mean everyone in our society will accept it. You’re seeing these differences of opinion on this board.

As MN said, and as I agreed in part, does Dube’s on ice play make all of this disagreement worth it?

Not everyone agrees with anything, best to make decisions based on the facts you know

I think everyone in this discussion is doing that. See the bolded

No many are still assuming guilt with no facts proving that.

Criminal legal guilt, or moral guilt? Because if you mean the former, I'd say you're wrong, that's not what people are assuming, and if it's the latter, then you saying a court acquitted him has little bearing on how people feel morally about his behavior in terms of the facts considered by the court.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's my argument that this is not as simple a conversation as you are presenting it to be.

I don't see anyone assuming guilt without facts proving it.

He was in the group chat where they conspired to stick to one story. That, itself, can be grounds for conspiracy and perjury charges and, while not charged, is enough for us to find it immoral.

There are likely other facts that are uncontested which many of us may find immoral, including being in the room, getting the girl drunk, and/or relying on her intoxicated "consent" as moral justification for their behavior.

He was acquitted because it's (bleep) near impossible to prove rape, period. Even harder when the parties are intoxicated. Even harder when enough time has elapsed. It would have been virtually impossible to sustain a conviction based upon the evidence the prosecutors were able to produce.

That means we can't punish Dube for illegal conduct. It doesn't entitle Dube to forgiveness or require the rest of us to pretend he didn't do a bad thing.

[skilles]

To me its pretty dumb to expect the Blues to do any investigating what happened outside of going over the case information and evaluating the player as a person.

How can you evaluate the player as a person if you're not looking into a moment where he was accused of sexual assault? You can say the verdict is enough for you. Not everyone is going to agree.

Well I can use the information already gathered by an actual real criminal investigation

That’s your choice. Just know that not everyone is going to agree.

There’s a difference between the standard of proof in a court of law and in life, and for good reason. As the saying goes it’s better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent one.

The logic behind that is intentional, but also means that sometimes a guilty person goes free.

Secondly, even if we could all agree that Dube’s behavior wasn’t criminal, that doesn’t mean everyone in our society will accept it. You’re seeing these differences of opinion on this board.

As MN said, and as I agreed in part, does Dube’s on ice play make all of this disagreement worth it?

Not everyone agrees with anything, best to make decisions based on the facts you know

I think everyone in this discussion is doing that. See the bolded

No many are still assuming guilt with no facts proving that.

Criminal legal guilt, or moral guilt? Because if you mean the former, I'd say you're wrong, that's not what people are assuming, and if it's the latter, then you saying a court acquitted him has little bearing on how people feel morally about his behavior in terms of the facts considered by the court.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's my argument that this is not as simple a conversation as you are presenting it to be.

I see what you are saying and I don't think its true at all.

Some people still think he is criminally guilty, some people just think morally guilty, some people think innocent, and some people are simply concerned about optics and to be quite honest I think a lot of people are simply virtue signaling.

Personally for me I don't care about the sexual adventures of a group of 19 year olds unless there was a criminal act and as far as I can tell there wasn't.

[skilles]

I believe the team started the turnaround when he arrived. He’s been fantastic in the playoffs. He’s a Center which we desperately need.

He was very young, and I believe he was not even convicted, although there was certainly some bad behavior in bad choices.

I would ask that, and even some of the older players have his behavior has been and if it looks like he’s learned and grown up, give him a second chance.

Here comes the “we all did dumb stuff at 19” crowd.

Right on cue.

This is extra hilarious/sad coming from an adult you of all people having twice asked this board to forgive you your behavior here.

Or has it been three times?

You can't make this up.

I think he's as big of a blowhard egomaniac dumb take writing guy as anyone but comparing his forum behavior and taking advantage of an intoxicated woman isn't even comparable.

Everyone was intoxicated

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

[CANADABLUE]

The honest answer is idk. I know the details of the case and that he was acquitted but you also have to factor in potential reputational damage to the org. I’m sure the Blues have a ton more info on it all than me though - a more detailed understanding of what all happened that night (regardless of what could or couldn’t be proven in court), Dube’s part in it, how he is as a person now as well as what the likely perception around the league would be if they were to sign him.

But given what I know, I’d be hesitant to sign him to a NHL deal. He’s a guy that could probably be a good 4C but is he worth the potential headache and baggage? Wouldn’t it just be easier to find someone else, go with Finley or see if Dean can work his way back on the map in camp?

I paid attention to the case pretty well and my sense is the girl didn’t make it all up but I also absolutely got the impression that Mikey McLeod was by far the worst perpetrator and it’s possible the rest of the guys didn’t fully know she really wasn’t all that into it. But it’s all a big he said, she said and she seemed timid as heck and didn’t really voice she wasn’t into it so I wasn’t remotely surprised they were found not guilty as there just wasn’t much of any proof, especially once the judge threw out a lot of the previous depositions from the accused that were a lot more damning than what they said in court this time around.

But again, the Blues would know the circumstances and the player way better than I so if they do decide to give him a NHL contract, I’d probably hesitantly be ok with it.

But even if the Blues feel he is completely innocent, or feel he’s a better person now and are willing to give him a 2nd chance, teams still have to weigh if he brings enough talent to truly be worth the baggage. I question if a guy that looks like he could be a solid NHL 4C is truly worth that baggage. It’s a harsh way of looking at it but businesses have to weigh potential risk/reward all the time.

I think the Blues have already shown they think he should be allowed to play though disguised behind Springfield as to not put their name on it.

I also think the potential is more than a 4th line center.

Well sure but a one year AHL only contract and a NHL contract bring different levels of scrutiny and risk.

What do you think he could be? He turns 28 this summer. Forwards tend to peak around age 23-27. It’s not like he has a ton of growth potential ahead of him.

Yes in public opinion risk the Blues have not committed but I'm saying they personally IMO have shown they are ok with it.

I think 3c and not by growth as I think that is what he already was/is. Its not a question of whether he can or has grown into that as much as a question of whether he has/can maintain that level.

I’d agree the Blues likely made their call on if they’re comfortable with him or not already and I’ll add that I would think Army’s position with Hockey Canada would allow him to gain quite a bit of additional info. They did an investigation as well. But still, taking the chance on him with a NHL contract is simply more risk than a AHL contract.

It’s possible he could be a NHL 3C but it’s been 5 years since he’s been at that level. Could he again? Maybe. But I seriously doubt he’d be better than Suter. And I doubt they’d play him over Dvorsky either - the kid they’re trying to groom into being their longterm 2C. So where’s that leave him?

To me, I would likely come to the conclusion that he’s not worth the risk to fill a need we really don’t have. If he was legit 2C level good then it’s probably a different story. But if Army/Steen make a different calculation, then fine. They certainly know the situation, the player and the person better than I do.

I agree. 5 Years out of the league things have changed. He will find out.

Secondly. How many players (centers) in the last 5 years have come though the league. How many have been sent down this last season and hunting and hoping for another shot.

As a result this guy is the "only one" that this Organization can come up with? 5 Years and we listen to this Organization justify the position to PTO and possibly sign him. This I just plain insulting to Blues Fans. Whether stand by the guy or not does not matter.

The Blues Organization has stooped to a new low. Of how many kids and the one with I am sure the most baggage is the best candidate???

I can only hope these decision makers can go home to there wives and daughters and justify to them what they are doing like they have done to the Blues Fans. I am sure the Ladies have a different outlook on the situation. Have a nice supper (if you get one) and wish your wife a "Happy Mothers Day" The dog house will look pretty good.

[George Zipp]

To me its pretty dumb to expect the Blues to do any investigating what happened outside of going over the case information and evaluating the player as a person.

How can you evaluate the player as a person if you're not looking into a moment where he was accused of sexual assault? You can say the verdict is enough for you. Not everyone is going to agree.

Well I can use the information already gathered by an actual real criminal investigation

That’s your choice. Just know that not everyone is going to agree.

There’s a difference between the standard of proof in a court of law and in life, and for good reason. As the saying goes it’s better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent one.

The logic behind that is intentional, but also means that sometimes a guilty person goes free.

Secondly, even if we could all agree that Dube’s behavior wasn’t criminal, that doesn’t mean everyone in our society will accept it. You’re seeing these differences of opinion on this board.

As MN said, and as I agreed in part, does Dube’s on ice play make all of this disagreement worth it?

Not everyone agrees with anything, best to make decisions based on the facts you know

I think everyone in this discussion is doing that. See the bolded

No many are still assuming guilt with no facts proving that.

Criminal legal guilt, or moral guilt? Because if you mean the former, I'd say you're wrong, that's not what people are assuming, and if it's the latter, then you saying a court acquitted him has little bearing on how people feel morally about his behavior in terms of the facts considered by the court.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's my argument that this is not as simple a conversation as you are presenting it to be.

I don't see anyone assuming guilt without facts proving it.

He was in the group chat where they conspired to stick to one story. That, itself, can be grounds for conspiracy and perjury charges and, while not charged, is enough for us to find it immoral.

There are likely other facts that are uncontested which many of us may find immoral, including being in the room, getting the girl drunk, and/or relying on her intoxicated "consent" as moral justification for their behavior.

He was acquitted because it's (drat) near impossible to prove rape, period. Even harder when the parties are intoxicated. Even harder when enough time has elapsed. It would have been virtually impossible to sustain a conviction based upon the evidence the prosecutors were able to produce.

That means we can't punish Dube for illegal conduct. It doesn't entitle Dube to forgiveness or require the rest of us to pretend he didn't do a bad thing.

Perjury has zero to do with the group chat. You can’t perjure yourself in a group chat. You have to be under oath to commit perjury. And it has to be a lie that can be proved. It’s also a charge that is rarely used in the justice system.

Conspiracy is not really in play here either. If a bunch of dudes are chatting about keeping a story tight and the prosecutors get that chat, they will use it to impeach witnesses and make them look foolish. Conspiracies are much more common as an element before a crime is committed. Think of a bunch of people planning a crime. There is a notion in the law of conspiracy after the fact but again it is rarely used.

Your statements about rape are not wrong for the most part. However, in this case, what little I know the victims story wasn’t believable and there were other factors in play that hurt her credibility.

BTW when someone is found not guilty of a crime the legal system can’t use that against them down the road. The public can as seen by posts in this thread.

[bluetunehead]

The honest answer is idk. I know the details of the case and that he was acquitted but you also have to factor in potential reputational damage to the org. I’m sure the Blues have a ton more info on it all than me though - a more detailed understanding of what all happened that night (regardless of what could or couldn’t be proven in court), Dube’s part in it, how he is as a person now as well as what the likely perception around the league would be if they were to sign him.

But given what I know, I’d be hesitant to sign him to a NHL deal. He’s a guy that could probably be a good 4C but is he worth the potential headache and baggage? Wouldn’t it just be easier to find someone else, go with Finley or see if Dean can work his way back on the map in camp?

I paid attention to the case pretty well and my sense is the girl didn’t make it all up but I also absolutely got the impression that Mikey McLeod was by far the worst perpetrator and it’s possible the rest of the guys didn’t fully know she really wasn’t all that into it. But it’s all a big he said, she said and she seemed timid as heck and didn’t really voice she wasn’t into it so I wasn’t remotely surprised they were found not guilty as there just wasn’t much of any proof, especially once the judge threw out a lot of the previous depositions from the accused that were a lot more damning than what they said in court this time around.

But again, the Blues would know the circumstances and the player way better than I so if they do decide to give him a NHL contract, I’d probably hesitantly be ok with it.

But even if the Blues feel he is completely innocent, or feel he’s a better person now and are willing to give him a 2nd chance, teams still have to weigh if he brings enough talent to truly be worth the baggage. I question if a guy that looks like he could be a solid NHL 4C is truly worth that baggage. It’s a harsh way of looking at it but businesses have to weigh potential risk/reward all the time.

I think the Blues have already shown they think he should be allowed to play though disguised behind Springfield as to not put their name on it.

I also think the potential is more than a 4th line center.

Well sure but a one year AHL only contract and a NHL contract bring different levels of scrutiny and risk.

What do you think he could be? He turns 28 this summer. Forwards tend to peak around age 23-27. It’s not like he has a ton of growth potential ahead of him.

Yes in public opinion risk the Blues have not committed but I'm saying they personally IMO have shown they are ok with it.

I think 3c and not by growth as I think that is what he already was/is. Its not a question of whether he can or has grown into that as much as a question of whether he has/can maintain that level.

I’d agree the Blues likely made their call on if they’re comfortable with him or not already and I’ll add that I would think Army’s position with Hockey Canada would allow him to gain quite a bit of additional info. They did an investigation as well. But still, taking the chance on him with a NHL contract is simply more risk than a AHL contract.

It’s possible he could be a NHL 3C but it’s been 5 years since he’s been at that level. Could he again? Maybe. But I seriously doubt he’d be better than Suter. And I doubt they’d play him over Dvorsky either - the kid they’re trying to groom into being their longterm 2C. So where’s that leave him?

To me, I would likely come to the conclusion that he’s not worth the risk to fill a need we really don’t have. If he was legit 2C level good then it’s probably a different story. But if Army/Steen make a different calculation, then fine. They certainly know the situation, the player and the person better than I do.

I agree. 5 Years out of the league things have changed. He will find out.

Secondly. How many players (centers) in the last 5 years have come though the league. How many have been sent down this last season and hunting and hoping for another shot.

As a result this guy is the "only one" that this Organization can come up with? 5 Years and we listen to this Organization justify the position to PTO and possibly sign him. This I just plain insulting to Blues Fans. Whether stand by the guy or not does not matter.

The Blues Organization has stooped to a new low. Of how many kids and the one with I am sure the most baggage is the best candidate???

I can only hope these decision makers can go home to there wives and daughters and justify to them what they are doing like they have done to the Blues Fans. I am sure the Ladies have a different outlook on the situation. Have a nice supper (if you get one) and wish your wife a "Happy Mothers Day" The dog house will look pretty good.

Not weighing in on the details of the case, but it will have been more like 2 1/2 years since he has played in the NHL when training camp starts. It was January 2024 when he was charged and had to leave the Flames. He was playing with them at the time.

[CANADABLUE]

Yes you are right. I stand corrected.

Thank you for getting the facts straight. I do appreciate it.

[Walter Sobchak00]

I believe the team started the turnaround when he arrived. He’s been fantastic in the playoffs. He’s a Center which we desperately need.

He was very young, and I believe he was not even convicted, although there was certainly some bad behavior in bad choices.

I would ask that, and even some of the older players have his behavior has been and if it looks like he’s learned and grown up, give him a second chance.

Here comes the “we all did dumb stuff at 19” crowd.

Right on cue.

This is extra hilarious/sad coming from an adult you of all people having twice asked this board to forgive you your behavior here.

Or has it been three times?

You can't make this up.

I think he's as big of a blowhard egomaniac dumb take writing guy as anyone but comparing his forum behavior and taking advantage of an intoxicated woman isn't even comparable.

Everyone was intoxicated

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

[CANADABLUE]

Well said Walter.

100% correct.

[Rollin' on the River]

Call me a troll, call me a virtue signaler, hell you can even call me a white knight. I don’t give a [fork].

This has been a very enlightening thread. It’s exposed quite a few people for who they truly are.

A bunch of scumbags.

There’s many of you that should never have children and if you already did, I truly feel for them. Especially your daughters.

Unsurprisingly, very few actual men post in this group. The rest of you need to be better.

[skilles]

I believe the team started the turnaround when he arrived. He’s been fantastic in the playoffs. He’s a Center which we desperately need.

He was very young, and I believe he was not even convicted, although there was certainly some bad behavior in bad choices.

I would ask that, and even some of the older players have his behavior has been and if it looks like he’s learned and grown up, give him a second chance.

Here comes the “we all did dumb stuff at 19” crowd.

Right on cue.

This is extra hilarious/sad coming from an adult you of all people having twice asked this board to forgive you your behavior here.

Or has it been three times?

You can't make this up.

I think he's as big of a blowhard egomaniac dumb take writing guy as anyone but comparing his forum behavior and taking advantage of an intoxicated woman isn't even comparable.

Everyone was intoxicated

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

Oh I disagree completely, if all parties were willing she is just as responsible for her drunken bad choices as they are IMO.

To be honest I can't even wrap my head around why you would think if they all got drunk and did it together anyone is more guilty than the others.