Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Devils to terminate prospect's contract after sexual assault conviction


Recommended Posts

Quote

The New Jersey Devils are in the process of terminating 22-year-old prospect Ben Johnson's contract after he was found guilty of sexual assault in a Windsor, Ontario courtroom Thursday.

 

The Devils released the following statement:

 

Earlier today, the club was informed of Windsor Superior Court Justice Kirk Munroe’s ruling against Mr. Johnson. Based on the ruling, the club has initiated the process required to terminate Mr. Johnson’s Standard Player’s Contract.

 

The charge originated from Johnson's time with the OHL's Windsor Spitfires. A woman alleged Johnson forced her to perform oral sex and then had non-consensual intercourse with her at a nightclub on March 17, 2013, according to CTV Windsor. She was 16 at the time and her friends testified that she was extremely intoxicated on the night in question.

 

In his ruling, Justice Munroe said he had no doubt an assault occurred and called Johnson's testimony, in which he said the girl pulled him into a bathroom stall and consented to perform oral sex, "a huge mystery to me."

 

Johnson was drafted 90th overall by the Devils in 2012, and spent the past three seasons in the AHL and ECHL. He had one year remaining on his entry-level contract.

http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1091074

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

If she was extremely intoxicated then her testimony shouldn't mean squat.  She probably woke up hungover and ashamed of herself so she told everyone he forced her.  I have seen this happen before.  

And sometimes entitled athletes take advantage of girls, that happens too.

 

It's not up to you to decide which scenario this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

If she was extremely intoxicated then her testimony shouldn't mean squat.  She probably woke up hungover and ashamed of herself so she told everyone he forced her.  I have seen this happen before.  

Victim blaming is ugly - you should feel shame for typing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As they should.

 

Wondering if this opens the door for the victim and her family to sue the nightclub? They allowed her access to the club and served her alcohol to the point of "extreme intoxication", leaving her in a situation where she was unable to prevent herself from being raped.

 

If it was my daughter, I'd sue, and systematically kick the crap out of every employee responsible, for their negligence. I worked as a bartender for years and I did ID at the bar if I doubted their age, even after they got through the bouncers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in my 40s now...here is a letter to my 17 year old self.

 

Hey Dumbass,

 

It is a miracle that you were to be able to get away with treating girls the way this kid Ben Johnson treats girls.  Just because you played some hockey and were a teensy weensy bit good at it (and trust me, you aren't nearly good enough to make a career out of it), it doesn't mean you had any reason for thinking you were entitled to having your way with them.  You and your buddies were total frickin' morons macking on drunk girls knowing full well they were less inclined to fight off your advances (because you knew full well that you didn't have the goods to close it out if any of the girls were of clear mind, you inadequate fool).

 

Be grateful that the girls, whose backs you should have had instead of taking advantage of them, didn't take any action against you.  And be equally grateful because you will be given the chance to grow up, get married to an amazing woman, and be given a chance to make things right by having daughters to teach you respect for the fairer sex (but you better watch out, because the universe will get back at you by having punks like Ben Johnson and you and your idiot hockey playing buddies around when your daughters are older).

 

Regards, Your 40-something self (who is now deathly worried about his daughters)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

If she was extremely intoxicated then her testimony shouldn't mean squat.  She probably woke up hungover and ashamed of herself so she told everyone he forced her.  I have seen this happen before.  

You weren't there so its not right to assume. Just because you have seen this before does'nt mean it applies in this case. If she was extremely intoxicated, then she does not have the ability to give consent. A rape is a rape. Stop blaming the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, taiwanchik said:

You weren't there so its not right to assume. Just because you have seen this before does'nt mean it applies in this case. If she was extremely intoxicated, then she does not have the ability to give consent. A rape is a rape. Stop blaming the victim.

 

This. At the end of the day the fact is she was deemed to be highly intoxicated and not able to give consent. Add the fact she was a minor, Mr. Johnson was clearly in the wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

Can't give consent for sex but can give a testimony.  Seems fair

 

 

You realize there were witnesses right?

 

I'm sure this is just another case of a vindictive girl taking advantage of a poor athlete though. Probably for financial gain right?

 

Oh wait, he only makes 60k a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

Can't give consent for sex but can give a testimony.  Seems fair

JMFC, did you even read the article?:

 

Quote

She was 16 at the time and her friends testified that she was extremely intoxicated on the night in question.

 

This is the type of victim-blaming sentiment that continues to encourage rape

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Fantomex said:

This. At the end of the day the fact is she was deemed to be highly intoxicated and not able to give consent. Add the fact she was a minor, Mr. Johnson was clearly in the wrong. 

Not that I'm condoning any of what he did, but I do have a question...

 

What if Johnson was completely intoxicated too, does that change anything legally?  Who raped who if both are legally intoxicated and neither can give consent?

 

Also interesting how in the story this girl was 16 but was in a nightclub completely intoxicated...  Wouldn't you assume that everyone in a nightclub would be of age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

Can't give an opinion without a bunch of politically correct heroes coming to the rescue. 

I didn't see the original comment but I'm glad a bunch of other members preserved your jackassery.

 

Just ignoring the fact that your attitude towards these types of cases is revolting, the judge even came down hard on the side of the victim. That's usually a pretty good indicator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

Can't give an opinion without a bunch of politically correct heroes coming to the rescue. 

You can give an opinion but at least back it up with facts, not feelings.

 

It has nothing to do with being politically correct, it's about sympathizing with victims. Which the girl is in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

They testified that she was extremely drunk, and she had mixed drugs with alcohol.  

 

Whatever, it's not like I am the first person to second guess a legal trial.  I am not encouraging or defending rape or any other sick twisted crime.  

Which you said somehow invalidated her from making a testimony, when it was actually her friends who testified.

 

I don't even know what or why you are arguing any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, luckylager said:

As they should.

 

Wondering if this opens the door for the victim and her family to sue the nightclub? They allowed her access to the club and served her alcohol to the point of "extreme intoxication", leaving her in a situation where she was unable to prevent herself from being raped.

 

If it was my daughter, I'd sue, and systematically kick the crap out of every employee responsible, for their negligence. I worked as a bartender for years and I did ID at the bar if I doubted their age, even after they got through the bouncers.

IMO, the bar should be reprimanded but a governing body.  I don't think the victim or the family should be able to sue as I'm assuming she went in there willingly.  Sue Ben Johnson by all means ,but she shouldn't be able to sue the bar because she knew she wasn't supposed to be there before entering the place.  Let the courts, with whoever is responsible for bars in this case, reprimand the bar for letting in underagers to the full extent of the law.

 

 

39 minutes ago, mpt said:

Not that I'm condoning any of what he did, but I do have a question...

 

What if Johnson was completely intoxicated too, does that change anything legally?  Who raped who if both are legally intoxicated and neither can give consent?

 

Also interesting how in the story this girl was 16 but was in a nightclub completely intoxicated...  Wouldn't you assume that everyone in a nightclub would be of age?

I'm pretty sure you can't use being drunk as an excuse to get away with rape.

 

On the second question, sexual assault is sexual assault.  I'm sure there are harsher penalties when a minor is involved but 16 or 19 Ben Johnson would still be looking at jail time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wilbur said:

IMO, the bar should be reprimanded but a governing body.  I don't think the victim or the family should be able to sue as I'm assuming she went in there willingly.  Sue Ben Johnson by all means ,but she shouldn't be able to sue the bar because she knew she wasn't supposed to be there before entering the place.  Let the courts, with whoever is responsible for bars in this case, reprimand the bar for letting in underagers to the full extent of the law.

 

 

I'm pretty sure you can't use being drunk as an excuse to get away with rape.

 

On the second question, sexual assault is sexual assault.  I'm sure there are harsher penalties when a minor is involved but 16 or 19 Ben Johnson would still be looking at jail time.

I get what you mean, but are we just assuming that a man can only take advantage of a female that is drunk and not the other way around?  What if both people are drunk and have sex, since both aren't capable of consenting, didn't both parties rape each other?  If yes means yes and intoxication prevents consent, then you would think that it's true.

 

Obviously what I'm talking about isn't about Ben Johnson, but more in general. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...