[Report] Jake Virtanen placed on leave by the Canucks following sexual misconduct allegation

[LionofJudah]

2 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

have you read her story.

 

She said no but then he smoothed talked her and he takes her shirt of few mins later. 

 

What she doesn't say is she took her shirt and put it back on

 

No and actions have to line up.

 

If she was drunk which she says she wasn't and did not have the capability to stop him or even put her shirt back on then yes no is all that would matter.  

No is all that matters actually. If anyone says no, you don't "smooth talk them" to try and get your way. 

[Arrow 1983]

IF YOU READ THE STORY AND YOU KNOW THE LAW NO CROWN PROSECTUTOR WILL SEND IT TO A GRAND JURY

 

 

she was not drunk and says she had the chance to leave and chose not to

[Arrow 1983]

1 minute ago, LionofJudah said:

No is all that matters actually. If anyone says no, you don't "smooth talk them" to try and get your way. 

As a lawyer I can tell you this is your opinion and not how the law sees it. 

 

she was not drunk and had multiple opportunities to leave according to her words

[Bad_BOI_pete]

3 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

There is no truth in law. There is law in law. Law is interpretation. That is what you are talking about one's interpretation of law. That is why there is so much Grey area.

 

I can tell you Virtanen does not have to figure out her mentality she says she was sober. We are taught no means no but actions play into it as well if she says no and is stopped from leaving. The law has been broken clearly. She says no and let's him take her shirt off and pants and gets naked she said she had the opportunity to leave but she didn't. Then at the end of the story she says she felt she couldn't leave because he was a hockey player. Virtanen doesn't have to figure out what she is thinking she stayed and was not forced to  stay she allowed it to escalate.her actions did not fit her words. I do believe her I think she felt pressured to stay because of who he was but that is not Virtanen's fault. It is a good possibility she went with him because he was a hockey player. She can then not use that as an excuse not to leave.

If she wanted to leave she physically could have he did not stop her

Mentality I believe she felt she couldn't. That's not Virtanen's fault 

 

 

wow, this is a rapists mentality. no, means no. no doesn't mean sometimes yes. there can't be grey area because they tell us that. even saying at least give me a ******* is wrong. from my experience the best way is to be honest with your intentions, from this report jake wasn't honest.

 

[Arrow 1983]

1 minute ago, Petey_BOI said:

wow, this is a rapists mentality. no, means no. no doesn't mean sometimes yes. there can't be grey area because they tell us that. even saying at least give me a ******* is wrong. from my experience the best way is to be honest with your intentions, from this report jake wasn't honest.

 

How do you know Jake wasn't honest 

 

Have you read the story. I think the intentions are pretty clear

[Arrow 1983]

4 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

wow, this is a rapists mentality. no, means no. no doesn't mean sometimes yes. there can't be grey area because they tell us that. even saying at least give me a ******* is wrong. from my experience the best way is to be honest with your intentions, from this report jake wasn't honest.

 

In law there is no truth. Law is Law. Law is interpretation. Therefore law is very grey especially when it comes to sexual matters.

 

There is no specific rape mentality every situation is different

Edited May 1, 2021 by Arrow 1983

[wallstreetamigo]

5 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

wow, this is a rapists mentality. no, means no. no doesn't mean sometimes yes. there can't be grey area because they tell us that. even saying at least give me a ******* is wrong. from my experience the best way is to be honest with your intentions, from this report jake wasn't honest.

 

Unfortunately thats not how the law works.

[Arrow 1983]

People 

 

NO is NO is not a legal term

 

Actions of both sides do count in Law

 

specific circumstances count in Law. On sexual matters all every thing is taken into account.

[LionofJudah]

8 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

As a lawyer I can tell you this is your opinion and not how the law sees it. 

 

she was not drunk and had multiple opportunities to leave according to her words

You never did answer my questions though, and at no point in my original comment was I referring to Jake. I was merely asking how things work in regard to guilty people believing their innocence. 

 

Maybe its not something to be commented in this thread and I suppose that's my mistake but you've twisted it on me. 

 

But how do you convict anyone when everything is so grey. I think that lends to the silence so many people tend to choose.

[kurtis]

I trust jake but at the same time I don't. 

[Arrow 1983]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Unfortunately thats not how the law works.

your right on that one.

 

Plus people I am not saying what happen is right I am saying in Legal terms I don't think there is much of a case

[Bad_BOI_pete]

2 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

How do you know Jake wasn't honest 

 

Have you read the story. I think the intentions are pretty clear

https://www.instagram.com/p/COTh0f9Akfz/ and there was a point she said she was physically trying to push him off her while saying no, repeatedly

[cuporbust]

5 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

It is possible to believe the victim is being truthful and still respect that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. 

 

Society now likes to skip or discount one of those realities far more than they should in these situations.

this point , as far as hockey goes, he's more then worn out his welcome in Vancouver even before this. He's brought nothing but dead weight  for this team regardless.  Just another distraction from a guy that has already been a total dissapointment.  They needed to dump him and move on like 2 years ago . Now his name just makes me cringe. 

 

This is a personal problem he should be dealing with in another city, ( or county for that matter ). Personally,  I don't give a crap how this works out for him. He's a crappy hockey player on and off the ice that we wasted a high draft pick on . Bye bye Mr. Useless.  

Edited May 1, 2021 by cuporbust

[cuporbust]

Just now, cuporbust said:

At this point , as far as hockey goes, he's more then worn out his welcome in Vancouver even before this. He's brought nothing but dead weight  for this team regardless.  Just another distraction from a guy that has already been a total dissapointment.  They needed to dump him and move on like two years ago. Now his name just makes me cringe. 

 

[Arrow 1983]

1 minute ago, Petey_BOI said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/COTh0f9Akfz/ and there was a point she said she was physically trying to push him off her while saying no, repeatedly

yes and that is where the grey area comes in. 

 

This will be the she said he said part. As I said in the first post I wrote here. This is a clear case of he said she said. 

 

 

[cuporbust]

3 minutes ago, cuporbust said:

this point , as far as hockey goes, he's more then worn out his welcome in Vancouver even before this. He's brought nothing but dead weight  for this team regardless.  Just another distraction from a guy that has already been a total dissapointment.  They needed to dump him and move on like 2 years ago . Now his name just makes me cringe. 

 

This is a personal problem he should be dealing with in another city, ( or county for that matter ). Personally,  I don't give a crap about how this works out for him. He's a crappy hockey player we wasted a draft pick on that sucks off the ice too. Bye bye Mr. Useless.  That's my thoughts .

 

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

your right on that one.

 

Plus people I am not saying what happen is right I am saying in Legal terms I don't think there is much of a case

You were asking if people have read her allegations/story?

No, I haven't. 

I won't read a story from Jake either.

I will let the appropriate people do their jobs and see what results from that.

I am not a judge, they are more educated, and often smarter than me; they get paid the big bucks to figure this stuff out.

 

[Bad_BOI_pete]

10 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Unfortunately thats not how the law works.

cool, you found a way to walk the line of the law. congrats.

 

the law is not a expert on rape.

 

are you the kind of guy to hover your finger over someone and say i'm not touching you over and over again.

 

if you think you can get away with the act as comitted in the story your dead wrong.

 

a person can rescind consent at anytime.

 

if some guy knocked on my door and i asked him to leave repeatedly and the last time you start pushing my way past me and i try to stop but failed, thats on them

[grandmaster]

25 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

IF YOU READ THE STORY AND YOU KNOW THE LAW NO CROWN PROSECTUTOR WILL SEND IT TO A GRAND JURY

 

 

she was not drunk and says she had the chance to leave and chose not to

We don’t have a “grand jury” in Canada. 
 

The process here is the police collect the information/evidence and submit a report to Crown Counsel for charge approval. Crown counsel weighs the evidence/circumstances and decide to lay a charge based on:

1) likelihood of conviction (they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt)

AND

2) if it’s in the public’s interest.

 

As I mentioned before, sex assaults are the tricky one. Police are mandated to submit those cases even if it’s just based on an allegation with no corroborating evidence (like forensics, witnesses, video, etc).

 

Basically in those he said/she said situations, the judges will determine who is more credible and decide their judgements from there. 
 

Also, it is the defendant that chooses to be tried by judge or jury (not Crown).
 

 

[Arrow 1983]

At this point in time all we know based on her side of the story is that a sexual act between 2 people with good possibility happen.

 

I say that because she said it happen at a hotel. My guess is she remembers which one and on what day. This part can be proven as Jake probably used a credit card to pay for the room.

 

After that we have her side and we will never hear his side he is the public face and any statement even a denial would look bad in the public view. This will never go to court. It will be settled outside of it. If it happen he will pay her off if it didn't the Crown prosecutor will not even send it to the grand jury. This is what happen in the Patrick Kane case.

 

So honestly this happened between two people and all the pubic will do is turn on someone because he is a public figure and the public will truly never know the truth. Some of the Public may even turn on the accuser. If she is lying she has issues of her own to deal with and really does need to get out of the public eye.