Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Toronto-Cleveland trade will be 1 for 1, source says.
Shane Bieber for Khal Stephen.moves
Im on the fence about this. It could be great or a disaster.
He wont be back until mid August…maybe start him as a long relief arm until he’s 100%.
He has a player option which if he is good he will opt out, if he sucks, the Jays will be stuck paying it for a yearI’m tired of Jays playing it safe. If he gets back to form, their rotation becomes really good for a decent price (maybe 3rd best pitching prospect). The player option means he likely goes to FA. He’s pretty much a rental
What an F’n loser.
Seems to be the 2nd one here, probably by the same person. Who has time in their life for this nonsense?someone envy’s CC handle. like AA
I say enough stupid shit on my own. Fake account seems like overkill
They are deplorable human beings. Anyone who thinks they should be allowed to play again is a disgusting right wing extremist.
Fake account. There’s no space in mine. Kinda weird thing to do.
I’m not sure that she was the sexual aggressor when this players came up to the room with the express purpose of having sex with her – Cupsie
From the Athletic article:
“Throughout the trial, attorneys for the accused argued that E.M. was the instigator of the group sex, urging McLeod to invite his teammates back to the hotel room for a “wild night.” In her decision, Carroccia highlighted that multiple witnesses testified that E.M. was the aggressor in the room and called players “pussies” for not having sex with her.”
Yes, McLeod’s lawyer argued that it was her idea to invite the whole team up. She denied it and the judge didn’t come to a y conclusion on the point. The judge didn’t conclude however that was a willing participant in the sex with the other four and did
I’m not sure that she was the sexual aggressor when this players came up to the room with the express purpose of having sex with her – Cupsie
From the Athletic article:
“Throughout the trial, attorneys for the accused argued that E.M. was the instigator of the group sex, urging McLeod to invite his teammates back to the hotel room for a “wild night.” In her decision, Carroccia highlighted that multiple witnesses testified that E.M. was the aggressor in the room and called players “pussies” for not having sex with her.”
But did they say thank you when she was done? Did they offer her an iced tea or a snickers. Those may not be crimes but the lack of gang bang etiquette is disqualifying.
Was it immoral? To some no, but to many yes.
Was it disgusting? To some no, but to many yes.
I’m kinda rambling here, but I think that an underlying theme to this whole trial is that many are uncomfortable with the idea that a young woman could be the sexual aggressor. There’s a disbelief that she could have wanted to have sex with multiple partners in a hotel room.
It’s an incredible double standard – would anyone blink if they heard of a 20 year old male who was happy to have sex with multiple female partners – all successful, incredibly fit athletes?
She agreed to go back to have sex with McLeod. He texted the rest of the group to come up and join in. Most decided to stay away, some decided to come to the room and four of those decided to have sex with her. I don’t think there was any evidence that he invited them up at her request.
The players maintained that she was enthusiastic. The Crown argued that she was drunk and fearful and that any consent was invalid. The judge concluded that the Crown didn’t meet its burden of proof and they were acquitted.
I’m not sure that she was the sexual aggressor when the players came up to the room with the express purpose of having sex with her.
Sure, if you’re a piece of shit.
What they did was still very suspect.
A judge says otherwise..
Everything about this case wreaks of failure. Two juries were dismissed, judge seemed to bias against the girl, many things were ruled inadmissible.
I agree with this and it never should have gone to trail.. The crown prosecutor wasted everyone’s time and money
“I do not find the evidence of E.M. credible or reliable,” Carrocia told the court. “Considering the evidence in this trial as a whole, I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts.”
None of these guys will be signed by the leafs. I know ug loves his rapist and molesters, but sorry bud these sacks of crap arent going to be leafs. So save us the pages of your stupidity.
Don’t care if they are signed by the Leafs… Calling them rapists is a joke since they were not even charged with that but were acquitted. You clearly seem to think that everything the girl said is true and everything the guys did was illegal even though the legal system stated the opposite.
Maybe you should be come a judge so you can just accept the facts that you deem relevant to the outcome that you are predisposed to.
If they were actually guilty of rape(or if anyone else is) They should have been locked up and never been released. But in the same vein it has been proven over and over through the “Me Too” movement that Men are not automatically guilty because of a women claim.
As in was in this case the testimony and evidence was weak and the witness unreliable.
Sorry but you’re confused on a few points. No the judge never contradicted the assertion that the conduct of the players was “stinky”. It was alleged that the 5 players had sex with one victim in a hotel room with other players present. The defence never questioned this and the judge never addressed it. In fact she said that it was not her job to comment on the morality of the behaviour of the players but to determine whether the Crown had proven its case.
The case rested on the question of consent. The Crown argued that EM was too drunk and fearful and that any consent she gave was not valid. The judge didn’t buy that argument and they were acquitted.
People are free to decide that 5 guys having sex with one girl is kind of stinky and others can be ok with it. The evidence and the judgement from the judge don’t affect that one way or another.
You’re also wrong to make a point about them not being charged with rape. There is no offence in the Canadian Criminal Code called rape. The term is sexual assault. They were charged with the equivalent of rape.
Doesn’t matter if YOU forgive them.
This is kinda my point.. There is nothing to forgive.. The error here was made by
1) The initial police investigation(Which was half assed)
2) Hockey Canada
3) The crown prosecutor that decided to try the case based of a civil settlement that the players didnt even know about.The judge did everything but come out and call her a liar.
These guys had their names dragged through the mud and likely have permanent harm to their reputation when they did nothing wrong but party with the wrong.
The NHL is now saying they are ineligible to play because they has consensual sex with a woman. Guess they will need to shut the league down and suspend 99% of the players. My assumption at this point is consensual sex with a man puts you in a marginalized group and that then makes it ok.
I cannot believe I am on the same side of this argument as UG. I feel dirty.
99% huh? McLeod texted all the players in London asking if they wanted to come up to his room to join a 3-way. Most stayed away. A few came up but didn’t participate. 5 did. I think your math is a bit off.
There are two sets of decisions, one in court and one by the league and teams.
The judge’s decision came down to her conclusion that EM was not drunk enough or afraid enough to invalidate her consent. The actions of the players was not in question.
The league and teams will decide simply on the basis of their behaviour. Do they believe that behaviour reflects the “highest standards of morality, honesty, fair play and sportsmanship and is not detrimental to the best interests of the team, league and professional hockey” as required in player contracts. I don’t think it’s obvious that Gary says yes. The fact that they’re fairly marginal players shouldn’t matter but probably will. The PA will appeal and who knows how long it might get drawn out. If they are allowed to play will any team sign them?
Being found guilty means they’re not going to jail. The terms of the morals clause doesn’t say anything about criminal convictions – “highest standard of honesty, morality“, etc. If teams don’t think they’re worth the headache, they might impose. Obviously, the PA would intervene on behalf of the players. Yeah unions, amitite?
They pose no risk or headache as they have acted perfectly fine since the accusations were levied. Teams would be stupid to avoid quality hockey players for what would amount to a few days of whining from a bunch of cult minded losers on BlueSky.
The Leafs would be a better team with McLeod, Formenton and Foote and save a lot of cap space too. They’re not guilty and should be allowed to move forward with their lives after years of wrongful persecution and lost opportunity.
Even if deemed guilty in the court of public opinion, it gives them an opportunity to become ambassadors to teach people how not to make the same mistakes.
Maybe it’ll play out that way. I’m not arguing one way or the other. I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry as to say not guilty means they’re back. Teams will make their own decisions
Nope, it’s a simple business decision. Players sign contracts committing “to conduct themselves on and off the rink to the highest standard of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interests of the league, their team and hockey in general.” If teams decide that their behaviour (which was never questioned) hurts their brand, they’re gone.
Nope, it’s very simple. They’re not guilty. And they’ve done nothing while under contract that they are guilty for. They’ve been prosecuted unjustly by both the government and the idiots among the cult mob of social justice warriors. They were 18 year olds who acted immaturely. They’ll be the last ones to ever do anything like that ever again. They can be given a second chance because the business is playing hockey and they’re still good at it.
Being found guilty means they’re not going to jail. The terms of the morals clause doesn’t say anything about criminal convictions – “highest standard of honesty, morality“, etc. If teams don’t think they’re worth the headache, they might impose. Obviously, the PA would intervene on behalf of the players. Yeah unions, amitite?
least surprising thing iv read today
Least surprising thing is actually a bunch of woke social justice idiots who believe these guys are guilty until proven innocent and then follow that up with guilty even when proven not guilty.
People deserve second chances especially when they’re found not guilty. That’s the purpose of the justice system, even one that absolutely loves to let professional criminals back out on the streets to perpetually reoffend. These guys will never do anything even remotely like this ever again and don’t deserve to lose their ability to continue to play hockey.
Nope, it’s a simple business decision. Players sign contracts committing “to conduct themselves on and off the rink to the highest standard of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interests of the league, their team and hockey in general.” If teams decide that their behaviour (which was never questioned) hurts their brand, they’re gone.
