News Article: Thomas Steen facing assault charges

[Jets4Life]

People are typically innocent until they are proven guilty, thats the basis on which we have formed our justice system. Just because some lady said Thomas Steen hit her, does not mean he did. Doesn't mean he didn't, but there really isn't anything point to that he did. He went to the police right away, no injuries, no history of violence there. The guy is worth a fair bit of cash, maybe she's looking for a payout.

You cant sit there and say that it did happen, when you don't know. You can say that he did, but there is absolutely nothing to say that it did.

Well said.

It seems "innocent until proven guilty" is a foreign concept to some posters here.

 

[cheswick]

Well any credibility for him is gone after he attempted to sue the Uniter for defamation of character. Idiot does that for himself. So it may not be physical assault. And assault is assault regardless if it was a threat, etc. A threat of assault is 3rd degree assault.

Hopefully Steen didn't do anything stupid. Like the Steens. (Alex is rawr)

So your stream of logic is: You aren't surprised that Steen assaulted someone cause he's an associate of Katz and Katz sued a newspaper for defamation of character.

Makes perfect sense...


I'm surprised that Steen assaulted someone cause he's lived in the community for 30 years and I've never heard any rumours of any kind regarding him. I personally don't think his conservative politcal leanings make him more likely to assault someone.

 

[Huffer]

Maybe my line of thinking on this is wrong, but it seems like with the media we have now that maybe we should be moving to a system where the identities of the accused are kept secret, similar to how we do it now for victims.

Not saying that Steen is or isn't guilty in this case. Just thinking that in general, and if he isn't guilty in this case, that it seems like the harm to the innocent accused in the court of public opinion is massive.

Just a thought. Would be interested to hear from some of more learned Law peeps here.

 

[sully1410]

Maybe my line of thinking on this is wrong, but it seems like with the media we have now that maybe we should be moving to a system where the identities of the accused are kept secret, similar to how we do it now for victims.

Not saying that Steen is or isn't guilty in this case. Just thinking that in general, and if he isn't guilty in this case, that it seems like the harm to the innocent accused in the court of public opinion is massive.

Just a thought. Would be interested to hear from some of more learned Law peeps here.

I see what your saying Huff. The media definitely tries, whether its conciously or not, to paint people in a bad light. We love to believe in the saying innocent until proven guilty, but in cases such as this they end up being guilty until proven innocent. You even make a mention of wrong doing, and people lose their ****ing minds. Look at what happened with Kane, some dip accused him of skipping out on his bill, not a shred of evidence to say one way or another...just a baseless accusation and suddenly everyone in Winnipeg thinks he has character issues. My dad and brother in-law have actually told me that they want to trade the guy...both of which are cops and should know how to take things with a huge grain of salt.

And now we have Thomas Steen, some lady says he did something...and there are posters that are just willing to take her word on that. Just because it has appeared in the free press, does not make it gospel.

If Greg House has taught me anything its that everybody lies...although he may have been lying when he said that...so I think its more important to try and see this from both sides, with a pragmatic and objective eye.

 

[Howard Chuck]

Maybe my line of thinking on this is wrong, but it seems like with the media we have now that maybe we should be moving to a system where the identities of the accused are kept secret, similar to how we do it now for victims.

Not saying that Steen is or isn't guilty in this case. Just thinking that in general, and if he isn't guilty in this case, that it seems like the harm to the innocent accused in the court of public opinion is massive.

Just a thought. Would be interested to hear from some of more learned Law peeps here.

I agree with this. If this accusation were to be proven false, Steen would forever have this mess associated with him. In this age of information, all it takes is an accusation and some people will treat it like fact and ignore the actual outcome.

 

[TheDeuce]

Maybe my line of thinking on this is wrong, but it seems like with the media we have now that maybe we should be moving to a system where the identities of the accused are kept secret, similar to how we do it now for victims.

Not saying that Steen is or isn't guilty in this case. Just thinking that in general, and if he isn't guilty in this case, that it seems like the harm to the innocent accused in the court of public opinion is massive.

Just a thought. Would be interested to hear from some of more learned Law peeps here.

I think it's worse in the USA. Unless things have changed since the Atlanta Olympic bombings the media there reports on suspects who've not been arrested! Remember Richard Jewell?


""The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case. They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well. There are still some holes in this case"

-NBC


FBI suspects 'hero' guard may have planted bomb

-Atlanta Journal-Constitution (who also compared Richard Jewell's case to that of serial killer Wayne Williams)

As it turns out the guy was totally innocent but the damage done to his rep was over the top. To be candid I almost always keep an open mind when I read that someone was arrested. The difference between an arrest and a conviction is long indeed.




m.

 

[LadyJet26]

So your stream of logic is: You aren't surprised that Steen assaulted someone cause he's an associate of Katz and Katz sued a newspaper for defamation of character.

Makes perfect sense...


I'm surprised that Steen assaulted someone cause he's lived in the community for 30 years and I've never heard any rumours of any kind regarding him. I personally don't think his conservative politcal leanings make him more likely to assault someone.

Not what I meant. My brain sucks when I'm sick. I'm actually more surprised at this then anything.

Maybe my line of thinking on this is wrong, but it seems like with the media we have now that maybe we should be moving to a system where the identities of the accused are kept secret, similar to how we do it now for victims.

Not saying that Steen is or isn't guilty in this case. Just thinking that in general, and if he isn't guilty in this case, that it seems like the harm to the innocent accused in the court of public opinion is massive.

Just a thought. Would be interested to hear from some of more learned Law peeps here.

I am a law peep. Very early law peep. No to keeping the accused a secret unless they're minors. Criminal cases, excluding certain judges and family court, are all open to the public. Anyone can go in and watch court proceedings. To me, it kind of depends on the situation. If it's a rapist being investigated or accused then I damn well want the public to know who this person is in case there is a not guilty conviction and he or she actually is a rapist.

 

[sully1410]

Not what I meant. My brain sucks when I'm sick. I'm actually more surprised at this then anything.



I am a law peep. Very early law peep. No to keeping the accused a secret unless they're minors. Criminal cases, excluding certain judges and family court, are all open to the public. Anyone can go in and watch court proceedings. To me, it kind of depends on the situation. If it's a rapist being investigated or accused then I damn well want the public to know who this person is in case there is a not guilty conviction and he or she actually is a rapist.

but there in lies the rub right. How many times have you ever heard about somebody being falsely accused of this, and even if they go through the process and are ruled out or found innocent...its still a stain that won't come out. Its a double edged sword, sure the people want to know if it is, but what if its not.

Sometimes you just can't un-ring the bell.

 

[Howard Chuck]

but there in lies the rub right. How many times have you ever heard about somebody being falsely accused of this, and even if they go through the process and are ruled out or found innocent...its still a stain that won't come out. Its a double edged sword, sure the people want to know if it is, but what if its not.

Sometimes you just can't un-ring the bell.

I agree Sully. It's just the way our society behaves now. An accusation is as good as a conviction these days. If I was accused of **** and went through a very high profile local trial where I was found completely 100% innocent, there would always be that stigma. Every job interview, every dinner party, people would look at you different. That's what is happening to Steen right now. We have no idea what his side of the story is.

 

[Huffer]

I am a law peep. Very early law peep. No to keeping the accused a secret unless they're minors. Criminal cases, excluding certain judges and family court, are all open to the public. Anyone can go in and watch court proceedings. To me, it kind of depends on the situation. If it's a rapist being investigated or accused then I damn well want the public to know who this person is in case there is a not guilty conviction and he or she actually is a rapist.

I know that cases are open to the public, and IMO I'm thinking they shouldn't be. Or at least some sort of amendment there on who can attend and a gag on info being public.

The bolded I just have to comment on though. That is ridiculous. And you're going into law?

You just outlined a situation where someone is given a not guilty verdict, but you want them tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion?

Wow.

 

[wpgsilver]

Not what I meant. My brain sucks when I'm sick. I'm actually more surprised at this then anything.



I am a law peep. Very early law peep. No to keeping the accused a secret unless they're minors. Criminal cases, excluding certain judges and family court, are all open to the public. Anyone can go in and watch court proceedings. To me, it kind of depends on the situation. If it's a rapist being investigated or accused then I damn well want the public to know who this person is in case there is a not guilty conviction and he or she actually is a rapist.

I'm not sure you realize how flawed and frankly dangerous that logic is. Im not sure what type of "law peep" you're aspiring to be, but that stance flies in the face of how a functioning legal system has to work.
False accusations can ruin a persons life as is, without further broadcasting of that information.

 

[sully1410]

I know that cases are open to the public, and IMO I'm thinking they shouldn't be. Or at least some sort of amendment there on who can attend and a gag on info being public.

The bolded I just have to comment on though. That is ridiculous. And you're going into law?

You just outlined a situation where someone is given a not guilty verdict, but you want them tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion?

Wow.

I'm not sure you realize how flawed and frankly dangerous that logic is. Im not sure what type of "law peep" you're aspiring to be, but that stance flies in the face of how a functioning legal system has to work.
False accusations can ruin a persons life as is, without further broadcasting of that information.

I don't think that is what she is saying.

I think what she is trying to say is that she would want to know about these things in the off chance that a guilty person gets off. and lets face facts, it happens quite often. In a world where Karla Homolka can only get ten years...it can happen. There's always the cases of technicalities or most of the evidence is circumstantial. The system isn't without its flaws, and from the standpoint that I would want to be informed that a suspected sex offender or serial killer was living in my area...I would probably want to know as well I guess.

But that's in an ideal world, and the world is anything but that. People will always jump to conclusions and make judgements without knowing all or any of the facts.

This begs the question though...do people really need to know. The crown knows where these people. The police know where these people live...does the general public? I understand in the case of a convict...but a suspect? Or a person that has been cleared?

No, that should stay private.

 

[Jets4Life]

The bolded I just have to comment on though. That is ridiculous. And you're going into law?

You just outlined a situation where someone is given a not guilty verdict, but you want them tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion?

Wow.

Exactly what I was thinking....Not showing much faith in our legal system.

 

[Jets4Life]

To me, it kind of depends on the situation. If it's a rapist being investigated or accused then I damn well want the public to know who this person is in case there is a not guilty conviction and he or she actually is a rapist.

So you must be ok with the way the Duke Lacrosse team was treated by the media and the community, back in 2006.

 

[HannuJ]

I don't think that is what she is saying.

I think what she is trying to say is that she would want to know about these things in the off chance that a guilty person gets off. and lets face facts, it happens quite often. In a world where Karla Homolka can only get ten years...it can happen. There's always the cases of technicalities or most of the evidence is circumstantial. The system isn't without its flaws, and from the standpoint that I would want to be informed that a suspected sex offender or serial killer was living in my area...I would probably want to know as well I guess.

But that's in an ideal world, and the world is anything but that. People will always jump to conclusions and make judgements without knowing all or any of the facts.

This begs the question though...do people really need to know. The crown knows where these people. The police know where these people live...does the general public? I understand in the case of a convict...but a suspect? Or a person that has been cleared?

No, that should stay private.

that's when the police and a judge determine how much of a threat that person is to society.
that's when bail is set and the higher the flight risk, the higher the bail.
or, if the person's being charged for murder, you keep them in jail.

a man being accused of punching a woman in the face does not equal **** and does not equal a threat to society.

i know that if a woman or man accused me of ****** them and i knew I was 100% innocent, I would not want the world to know of these charges. it is character defamation and people usually remember the accusation and not the verdict

 

[sully1410]

that's when the police and a judge determine how much of a threat that person is to society.
that's when bail is set and the higher the flight risk, the higher the bail.
or, if the person's being charged for murder, you keep them in jail.

a man being accused of punching a woman in the face does not equal **** and does not equal a threat to society.

i know that if a woman or man accused me of ****** them and i knew I was 100% innocent, I would not want the world to know of these charges. it is character defamation and people usually remember the accusation and not the verdict

Yea, thats basically what I said.

 

[Jets4Life]

I think what she is trying to say is that she would want to know about these things in the off chance that a guilty person gets off. and lets face facts, it happens quite often. In a world where Karla Homolka can only get ten years...it can happen. There's always the cases of technicalities or most of the evidence is circumstantial. The system isn't without its flaws, and from the standpoint that I would want to be informed that a suspected sex offender or serial killer was living in my area...I would probably want to know as well I guess.

So because of one specific case, where justice was not served, we should punish the 99% of accused persons who were legitimately innocent? It works both ways. Some people have been wrongfully convicted, and found to be innocent of their crimes years later.

There is also the issue of whether publishing the names and addresses of violent and sexual offenders does society any good. I think we should be focusing on rehabilitation, rather than shaming a person for life. I've actually seen studies that show the rate of recidivism is higher for offenders who have their names and addresses listed, since they are denied housing, jobs, etc., and more likely to have problems with substance abuse. There is also the problem with vigilantism.

The courts should concentrate on what is best for society as a whole, IMHO.

 

[sully1410]

So because of one specific case, where justice was not served, we should punish the 99% of accused persons who were legitimately innocent? It works both ways. Some people have been wrongfully convicted, and found to be innocent of their crimes years later.

There is also the issue of whether publishing the names and addresses of violent and sexual offenders does society any good. I think we should be focusing on rehabilitation, rather than shaming a person for life. I've actually seen studies that show the rate of recidivism is higher for offenders who have their names and addresses listed, since they are denied housing, jobs, etc., and more likely to have problems with substance abuse. There is also the problem with vigilantism.

The courts should concentrate on what is best for society as a whole, IMHO.

How many cases of vigilantism is there really? I don't think there is a large cue people lining up to be ****ing batman here. I find it interesting that you conveniently left out the rest of my post saying that I DID NOT think that they should be releasing names of accused before they are proven guilty.

But I also see it from LJ26's pov as well. As a father of three, I would want to know if there was a potentially dangerous person in my neighbourhood so I could do all I could to protect my children from harm.

 

[Huffer]

How many cases of vigilantism is there really? I don't think there is a large cue people lining up to be ****ing batman here. I find it interesting that you conveniently left out the rest of my post saying that I DID NOT think that they should be releasing names of accused before they are proven guilty.

But I also see it from LJ26's pov as well. As a father of three, I would want to know if there was a potentially dangerous person in my neighbourhood so I could do all I could to protect my children from harm.

I want to know about potentially dangerous people as well. The people who have been arrested, tried, and then found guilty in a court of law.

It's beyond a slippery slope if we start to say we want to be warned about people that are accused. Let alone accused and then found innocent.

To me that's throwing the concept of innocent until proven guilty out the window.

 

[sully1410]

I want to know about potentially dangerous people as well. The people who have been arrested, tried, and then found guilty in a court of law.

It's beyond a slippery slope if we start to say we want to be warned about people that are accused. Let alone accused and then found innocent.

To me that's throwing the concept of innocent until proven guilty out the window.

That's the way it is now though, and I'm with you...I don't agree.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Please direct the thread back to original topic, which is Steen. It's OT for a hockey board, but an interesting story given his history in the Winnipeg hockey market, and his place in the community. That said, we're heading into discussion of topics best left to the Politics board at this point.

Thanks!

 

[TheDeuce]

Bringing the discussion back to the OP:


Does a City Councillor still collect a paycheque when they're off duty in cases like this?




m.

 

[sully1410]

Bringing the discussion back to the OP:


Does a City Councillor still collect a paycheque when they're off duty in cases like this?




m.

I imagine so. He wasn't suspended or anything, he voluntarily took time off.

 

[Duir]

Maybe my line of thinking on this is wrong, but it seems like with the media we have now that maybe we should be moving to a system where the identities of the accused are kept secret, similar to how we do it now for victims.

Not saying that Steen is or isn't guilty in this case. Just thinking that in general, and if he isn't guilty in this case, that it seems like the harm to the innocent accused in the court of public opinion is massive.

Just a thought. Would be interested to hear from some of more learned Law peeps here.

I would be a law peep and would have to say I whole heartedly disagree with the idea of accused identities being secret. That is a slippery slope.

 

[Duir]

Please direct the thread back to original topic, which is Steen. It's OT for a hockey board, but an interesting story given his history in the Winnipeg hockey market, and his place in the community. That said, we're heading into discussion of topics best left to the Politics board at this point.

Thanks!

My bad, read this after my last post.

As for the OP, there is nothing that is known nor will any or all details be provided. There is no such thing as 3rd degree assault. A punch in the face does not always leave a mark, in fact rarely immediately does in my experience. Also, there is no such thing as an overblown domestic situation.

In my opinion, for what it is worth, this thread should be closed until any actual legal information comes forward.