Ex-NHLer Mike Comrie accused of rape | Mod warning in OP

[Vladys Gumption]

What would the benefit be to naming the accuser and the potential eyewitness at this current juncture?

Counter question: what is the benefit to naming the accused based only on a preliminary accusation? This kind of stuff should not be played out in the court of public opinion.

 

[Ari91]

What has been the benefit to naming anyone at this current juncture?

No benefit at all, but the moment you become a public figure the world thinks they own you. If this was some regular Joe, this wouldn't have made news. Unless women are reporting rape by some unknown assailant, there's no reason for the media to report this information at this point when police investigation hasn't even begun because it's not a matter of public safety.

The decent and right thing to do is to reserve any opinion until details are known that can either substantiate the accusation or the innocence of the accused.

 

[Joannie9]

Counter question: what is the benefit to naming the accused based only on a preliminary accusation? This kind of stuff should not be played out in the court of public opinion.

I agree 100%. It doesn't benefit the accused nor the alleged victim...

 

[JT Kreider]

It wasn't my intent to imply that the purported victim have her name plastered everywhere during a sensitive investigation process. What I don't understand is why its completely OK to do that to him.

Prominent name makes it newsworthy.

 

[g00n]

Again, this is not a thread to hash out agendas or statistics. Don't do it here.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Counter question: what is the benefit to naming the accused based only on a preliminary accusation? This kind of stuff should not be played out in the court of public opinion.

The accused was named because of who he is and its relevance to a story. You can argue the issue with bringing up notable people in issues too early, but that is not connected to the accuser and the potential eyewitness, especially when it comes to sexual assault/rape.

Like I said, you can make the argument regarding public figures and how news about them is immediately aired before indictments are even levied.

 

[TOGuy14]

This is certainly a unique situation in that it appears that not only was there a witness for the entire event, but also another willing participant to the whole thing.

From a purely legal perspective I am sure this has interesting ramifications to the case.

Is the third part female considered to be a witness? Is she an accomplice, making the accusation a gang rape?

I can't think of a scenario in recent memory where there was an accusation of rape from one of the females involved in a threesome with another man and woman.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Perhaps the media should stay the hell out of it until he is charged with a crime?

 

[covfefe]

Counter question: what is the benefit to naming the accused based only on a preliminary accusation? This kind of stuff should not be played out in the court of public opinion.

Comrie retains the presumption of innocence, and 'the court of public opinion' is a baseless, ephemeral concept with no bearing on reality. The fact that his name is plastered around the internet with obviously catastrophic connotations only lends him more actionable recourse in the event that the prosecution is not able to demonstrate the burden of proof.

Placing limitations on the naming of defendants in rape and sexual assault cases also creates a significant hurdle in terms of precedent. Simply put, providing defendant anonymity in sexual assault cases would likely result in a push for defendant anonymity in non-sexual offences of a similar magnitude. At that point there would have to be an effort to qualitatively arrange offences in terms of their severity or stigma, which are decidedly non-qualitative properties.

There is a debate to be had over this topic, and it is an intriguing one, but I suspect it will not likely reach a resolution in my/our lifetime..

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

Perhaps the media should stay the hell out of it until he is charged with a crime?

why?

 

[The Noot]

Prominent name makes it newsworthy.

It's not until he's convicted.

Literally the only reason why they do it is because the papers make bank like that. Journalistic integrity be damned

 

[JT Kreider]

It's not until he's convicted.

Literally the only reason why they do it is because the papers make bank like that. Journalistic integrity be damned

With or without reporting on Mike freaking Comrie's rape accusation, I can assure you newspapers are not making bank.

 

[The Noot]

With or without reporting on Mike freaking Comrie's rape accusation, I can assure you newspapers are not making bank.

While that's true, it also leads to them being desperate. Celebrity (as minor a celebrity Comrie is) news still sell units. Traditional news is dying, doesn't mean that they don't try to get whatever scraps they can get.

 

[Little Psycho]

Hmm it's really sad but i know a lot of people don't understand consent. It says he "thinks" he did nothing wrong. Oh boy...

 

[Hawksfan2828]

why?

Because he hasn't been charged with a crime......

It's unethical....

 

[covfefe]

Because he hasn't been charged with a crime......

It's unethical....

There is no overarching code of ethics between news outlets. Once one of them runs with a story, you had better come up with something equally compelling, piggy back along, or else run the risk of being left in the dust.

The market for page clicks is intensely competitive and it's important to think about how these people are able to monetize their business in a declining market..

 

[caymanmew]

Hmm it's really sad but i know a lot of people don't understand consent. It says he "thinks" he did nothing wrong. Oh boy...

I think everyone understand basic consent of yes or no. IMO it does get a bit complicated when one or especially both parties are drunk/on drugs.

Perhaps she feel she was not in a condition to consent and therefore feel it is raped. If he was in the same condition though was he any more capable to consent then she was? Was someone more drunk? Did someone(both? neither?) take advantage of the other?

Add in a third party it gets even more complicated.


So if he says he think he did nothing wrong then maybe from his perspective everything was consensual at the time it happened. For her maybe she was to drunk/high to really be consenting and the next days felt she was taken advantage of in a state where she was not capable of consenting to sex.


The third party might help or might be in the same boat as Comrie saying "I don't think i did anything wrong".

 

[End on a Hinote]

With all the things that are illegal to print, why are rape investigations that haven't even begun yet involving eyewitnesses who haven't even given crucial testimony yet something that is totally kosher to throw out there to the world, while naming names? How is this legal to do?

There was a woman present who could invalidate the entire accusation, and you're gonna put the name of only one party in the article? Jesus Christ.

Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Sam Spade]

I don't even read the articles anymore. I feel bad because of it.

Until their is a conviction it just seems like a waste of time. Once again I feel horrible that this is how I feel.

It's too bad that girls/woman who make stuff up for revenge or money have ruined it for all the legitimate cases.

 

[g00n]

Since this doesn't seem to be anything official from the LAPD and we can't seem to follow the instructions about what topics to avoid this thread is being closed.

If some OFFICIAL announcement is made by the police regarding charges and an in-depth investigation then maybe we'll open this back up or someone can start another one.