Confirmed with Link: Carter Hart Officially Charged With One Count Of Sexual Assault (Per His Lawyers); Non-roster, salary cap info in OP

[DrinkFightFlyers]

The majority here seems to be very biased against the players and by the only „evidence“ yet to be known plus some background feeling about „Hockey culture“ in general this is no surprise. Convinces me about 70%.

Take those text messages. They are no proof. They can be interpreted both ways. Imagine you had a legal (by common moral standards low) group encounter with too much alcohol and fear a scandal, maybe regret it, wouldn‘t you try to cover it up? Do the text messages prove there was consent? No. Do they prove there wasn’t? No.

I have experienced over 1.000 lawsuits in my professional career. That doesn‘t mean I know better, but what I can say is that you need all cards on the table to make up your mind and judge. Those „I don’t need to know more“ comments are extremely naive and shortsighted.

There is a suspicion the players may have done similar things before? Well, it certainly does say sth. about their characters, but what does it say about the question of consent? Just ficton for now, but what if it came out the plaintiff has done this thing a couple of times before? Doesn’t answer the question of consent either, but wouldn’t it have a similar effect upon the case?

I posed this question to someone else and it didn't get an answer so maybe I can get a response from you.

What other info do you need to make up your mind? There isn't going to be physical evidence of consent or non-consent, that isn't a thing. It will be he-said-she-said. This is going to likely be similar to the multitude of other cases like this where the prosecution will present their evidence of why it was non-consensual and the defense attorneys are going to call her credibility into question and her sexual promiscuity (past, present, or future). This isn't a case where they are saying it didn't happen, it is simply about consent.

And you're right, text messages don't "prove" anything nor do videos, but I certainly can look at the texts where she specifically says that she was not ok with what happened and then is told by one of the players she better fix it or there will be serious implications for her, or the video where someone is saying "say it" at 3am and she then says what she is told to say after the alleged assault happened and form an opinion based on that.

 

[deadhead]

I posed this question to someone else and it didn't get an answer so maybe I can get a response from you.

What other info do you need to make up your mind? There isn't going to be physical evidence of consent or non-consent, that isn't a thing. It will be he-said-she-said. This is going to likely be similar to the multitude of other cases like this where the prosecution will present their evidence of why it was non-consensual and the defense attorneys are going to call her credibility into question and her sexual promiscuity (past, present, or future). This isn't a case where they are saying it didn't happen, it is simply about consent.

And you're right, text messages don't "prove" anything nor do videos, but I certainly can look at the texts where she specifically says that she was not ok with what happened and then is told by one of the players she better fix it or there will be serious implications for her, or the video where someone is saying "say it" at 3am and she then says what she is told to say after the alleged assault happened and form an opinion based on that.

There are two different courts at play, the legal system, which requires a high level of proof, and the court of public opinion, which only requires enough evidence to make a "common sense" judgment of bad behavior which is meet with disapproval.

They may prevail in a law court, but unless exculpatory evidence comes forth, they'll be judged as "scum" in the court of public opinion.

 

[trostol]

 

[eramosat]

There are two different courts at play, the legal system, which requires a high level of proof, and the court of public opinion, which only requires enough evidence to make a "common sense" judgment of bad behavior which is meet with disapproval.

They may prevail in a law court, but unless exculpatory evidence comes forth, they'll be judged as "scum" in the court of public opinion.

The trial of public opinion is the one the players charged are definitely going to lose. And any other players who can be placed in the room? They face the same condemnation...even watching something like that, in person, is not something NHL teams particularly want to be affiliated with, nor their fans.

 

[freakydallas13]

I have experienced over 1.000 lawsuits in my professional career.

That's way too many, you could have easily stopped commiting crimes after, like, 30.

 

[PDX Flyer]

I have a question about Hockey Canada... Shouldn't there be some kind of criminal charges? If you are made aware of a potential crime occurring and your immediate reaction isn't to go to police, but pay off the victim so they don't... It seems like there should be something illegal about those actions.

Blackhawks are operating as normal

 

[marcsson68]

I posed this question to someone else and it didn't get an answer so maybe I can get a response from you.

What other info do you need to make up your mind? There isn't going to be physical evidence of consent or non-consent, that isn't a thing. It will be he-said-she-said. This is going to likely be similar to the multitude of other cases like this where the prosecution will present their evidence of why it was non-consensual and the defense attorneys are going to call her credibility into question and her sexual promiscuity (past, present, or future). This isn't a case where they are saying it didn't happen, it is simply about consent.

And you're right, text messages don't "prove" anything nor do videos, but I certainly can look at the texts where she specifically says that she was not ok with what happened and then is told by one of the players she better fix it or there will be serious implications for her, or the video where someone is saying "say it" at 3am and she then says what she is told to say after the alleged assault happened and form an opinion based on that.

There are many things that could make the case clearer against them and maybe not so many things to let them look better (in the context of consent or not). But both would have influence upon my opinion. An all to often premature „I don‘t need more“ is the reason why we don‘t lynch by the way.

Examples? One or two players could „confess“. Additional videos may exist. A witness may show up who tells that the plaintiff told her what really happened (which could work either way). Really nothing is unthinkable and all of this isn‘t completely unlikely.

 

[marcsson68]

That's way too many, you could have easily stopped commiting crimes after, like, 30.

I gave this a „Like“ because it really is a justified and funny answer.

Sorry, maybe I didn’t put it right. English is not my native language.

 

[philly_28]

I gave this a „Like“ because it really is a justified and funny answer.

Sorry, maybe I didn’t put it right. English is not my native language.

No, your statement/English was fine. It could not really be understood the wrong way. Other than a person making a joke about it.

 

[renberg]

There are many things that could make the case clearer against them and maybe not so many things to let them look better (in the context of consent or not). But both would have influence upon my opinion. An all to often premature „I don‘t need more“ is the reason why we don‘t lynch by the way.

Examples? One or two players could „confess“. Additional videos may exist. A witness may show up who tells that the plaintiff told her what really happened (which could work either way). Really nothing is unthinkable and all of this isn‘t completely unlikely.

Being an American and so not familiar with the Canadian justice system, do potential defendants bargain down testimony for lesser prosecution/sentences? This is common in the U.S.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

There are many things that could make the case clearer against them and maybe not so many things to let them look better (in the context of consent or not). But both would have influence upon my opinion. An all to often premature „I don‘t need more“ is the reason why we don‘t lynch by the way.

Examples? One or two players could „confess“. Additional videos may exist. A witness may show up who tells that the plaintiff told her what really happened (which could work either way). Really nothing is unthinkable and all of this isn‘t completely unlikely.

But just because something could come out doesn't mean you can't form an opinion. That's literally possible in any situation ever. There's never a situation where you have all the evidence. Even after trials there is evidence that may not have been presented, may not have been admitted, or that either side didn't have at the time of trial.

I'm assuming you are a lawyer since you said you've seen 1,000 trials. Then you know not all the evidence has to be presented or will be admitted. You know that if there were these exculpatory texts or confessions we'd likely know about them given we already know about videos, texts, etc. Of course it is possible that there is a laundry list of other evidence or that someone will confess or recants or whatever else could happen, but you should be able to form an opinion based on the evidence that's out there. The fact that there MIGHT be something that exonerates the players shouldn't prevent you from forming an opinion. That's always a possibility even after trial and conviction/acquittal.

I don't want to get into the same back and forth as I had with someone else, but saying you need more evidence is saying you don't believe the victim.

 

[Embiid]

I've seen a lot of trials on Court TV and the People's Court with Judge Wapner ...

 

[Larry44]

Being an American and so not familiar with the Canadian justice system, do potential defendants bargain down testimony for lesser prosecution/sentences? This is common in the U.S.

Yes, plea deals are done in similar fashion. These guys don’t seem like the “plead guilty to a lesser charge” type, but that will be up to the individual. If you think the woman was pressured into saying she consented, I can’t imagine the pressure to close ranks and stick together these guys are under.

 

[freakydallas13]

I gave this a „Like“ because it really is a justified and funny answer.

Sorry, maybe I didn’t put it right. English is not my native language.

Like the other poster said, your English was perfectly fine. I just decided to make a joke about it.

 

[mja]

The majority here seems to be very biased against the players and by the only „evidence“ yet to be known plus some background feeling about „Hockey culture“ in general this is no surprise. Convinces me about 70%.

Take those text messages. They are no proof. They can be interpreted both ways. Imagine you had a legal (by common moral standards low) group encounter with too much alcohol and fear a scandal, maybe regret it, wouldn‘t you try to cover it up? Do the text messages prove there was consent? No. Do they prove there wasn’t? No.

I have experienced over 1.000 lawsuits in my professional career. That doesn‘t mean I know better, but what I can say is that you need all cards on the table to make up your mind and judge. Those „I don’t need to know more“ comments are extremely naive and shortsighted.

There is a suspicion the players may have done similar things before? Well, it certainly does say sth. about their characters, but what does it say about the question of consent? Just ficton for now, but what if it came out the plaintiff has done this thing a couple of times before? Doesn’t answer the question of consent either, but wouldn’t it have a similar effect upon the case?

It comes down to this: how do you possibly have a spontaneous consensual group sex encounter with an inebriated woman? It defies common sense. From what I've seen, she wasn't in on the planning of this whatsoever. It was sprung on her, while she was sleeping, drunk and naked, after already having had sex, i.e. profoundly vulnerable. I've been trying to avoid the details, but I believe that's the general gist, right?

Group sex with a bunch of other dudes is really not my idea of a good time, but if it's consensual, then I don't even have a moral issue with it. The problem being consent in that dynamic better be absolutely crystal clear. The pains one would need to take to make sure that is the case would preclude "too much alcohol" or even any alcohol at all, and would certainly require a degree of prior planning with all parties far above and beyond the "Surprise!" shit these guys pulled on an unsuspecting woman after an alcohol-fueled hook-up. And none of that should be up for debate.

There are many things that could make the case clearer against them and maybe not so many things to let them look better (in the context of consent or not). But both would have influence upon my opinion. An all to often premature „I don‘t need more“ is the reason why we don‘t lynch by the way.

Examples? One or two players could „confess“. Additional videos may exist. A witness may show up who tells that the plaintiff told her what really happened (which could work either way). Really nothing is unthinkable and all of this isn‘t completely unlikely.

Sure, perhaps the woman in question somehow lured these poor innocent unsuspecting chaps into planning group sex behind her back just so she could cry foul and profit. Maybe she even has a history of such a thing. She's some sort of master manipulator. That's about the only out that these guys would have, given the information that I understand to already be out there. Just how likely is that though? Not terribly, so people are free to form their own opinions without getting lectured about innocent until proven guilty.

And these guys aren't being lynched. They aren't being chased with pitchforks. They aren't being strung up from trees. They just aren't going to be millionaire athletes anymore, and if found guilty, then they may do some time.

 

[Fight4yourRight]

It comes down to this: how do you possibly have a spontaneous consensual group sex encounter with an inebriated woman? It defies common sense. From what I've seen, she wasn't in on the planning of this whatsoever. It was sprung on her, while she was sleeping, drunk and naked, after already having had sex, i.e. profoundly vulnerable. I've been trying to avoid the details, but I believe that's the general gist, right?

Group sex with a bunch of other dudes is really not my idea of a good time, but if it's consensual, then I don't even have a moral issue with it. The problem being consent in that dynamic better be absolutely crystal clear. The pains one would need to take to make sure that is the case would preclude "too much alcohol" or even any alcohol at all, and would certainly require a degree of prior planning with all parties far above and beyond the "Surprise!" shit these guys pulled on an unsuspecting woman after an alcohol-fueled hook-up. And none of that should be up for debate.



Sure, perhaps the woman in question somehow lured these poor innocent unsuspecting chaps into planning group sex behind her back just so she could cry foul and profit. Maybe she even has a history of such a thing. She's some sort of master manipulator. That's about the only out that these guys would have, given the information that I understand to already be out there. Just how likely is that though? Not terribly, so people are free to form their own opinions without getting lectured about innocent until proven guilty.

And these guys aren't being lynched. They aren't being chased with pitchforks. They aren't being strung up from trees. They just aren't going to be millionaire athletes anymore, and if found guilty, then they may do some time.

KHL has entered the room.

 

[swami24]

I've seen a lot of trials on Court TV and the People's Court with Judge Wapner ...

15 minutes to Judge Wapner...10 minutes to Judge Wapner

 

[Superman33]

Florida gonna Florida

 

[cannucky]

Bettman already said that the teams are just going to let their contracts end which will occur at the end of this season.

Or are you asking specifically about the potential witnesses?

No I was wondering if the teams would get any cap relief

 

[Larry44]

No I was wondering if the teams would get any cap relief

Bettman said the teams would get cap relief but not sure what that looks like.

 

[cannucky]

Bettman said the teams would get cap relief but not sure what that looks like.

thanks that seems fair because you can be sure the league had inside knowledge the teams probably didn't have .

 

[Larry44]

thanks that seems fair because you can be sure the league had inside knowledge the teams probably didn't have .

I'm sure the league knew which players were involved from last year, as did all the teams. That's why Carter Hart was untradeable. It's just that no one knew what the Police would do for sure.

 

[1865]

Apologies, i know this is probably covered somewhere but there's 54 pages here and I can't be bothered going through it.

Should i just drop Hart in my fantasy league, or is there a chance he comes back?

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Apologies, i know this is probably covered somewhere but there's 54 pages here and I can't be bothered going through it.

Should i just drop Hart in my fantasy league, or is there a chance he comes back?

Not a chance in hell will he play again this year in the NHL.

 

[1865]

Not a chance in hell will he play again this year in the NHL.

I thought as much. Not even the important point really, but they haven't put him on IR yet so this frees up a spot.