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

[Law of Goalies]

6 hours ago, kloubek said:

Ok, let's look at the facts against him:
- History of making poor decisions and not caring about others
- Canucks' statement doesn't support Jake in any way, and they place him on leave immediately. Perhaps the latter is protocol? Seems a quick decision... almost as if they know something we do not.

- Jake's twitter goes dark

- No statement denying the allegations

 

So on the surface, this really doesn't look good for him. 

BUT, innocent until proven guilty. 

I expected Jake to be off this team by the offseason, but not like this. One has to think the Canucks may use this to terminate his contract... which, if you think about it, might be really, really good for us.

1. History of making poor decisions does not mean rape. 

2. Protocol

3. When people bring pitchforks and flood your media accounts, wouldn't you close your accounts? 

4. The legal and investigation process takes time, you dont just come out and deny and it will go away. 

5. You are already making judgment against him. 

[Arrow 1983]

7 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

All good buddy, I was the first one to call you on that and admire the fact that you owned up to it and even gave you a beer emoji!

I wasn't refereeing to you i was talking about the two guys that came after I apologized 

[JDLax16]

The young lady in question could gofundme an airplane to fly a banner saying “I lied” and Jake’s still a goner. This regime does not care for headaches. 

 

Gaudette’s days were numbered as soon as he patient zeroed the whole team after his wife had been popping off about covid restrictions. 

Kassian became a liability because of his inconvenient addiction issues and was traded for noted man of the year Brandon Prust. Jethro Bodine even added a draft pick. 
 

Bye Jake. 

[Jaimito]

1 minute ago, JDLax16 said:

The young lady in question could gofundme an airplane to fly a banner saying “I lied” and Jake’s still a goner. This regime does not care for headaches. 

 

Gaudette’s days were numbered as soon as he patient zeroed the whole team after his wife had been popping off about covid restrictions. 

Kassian became a liability because of his inconvenient addiction issues and was traded for noted man of the year Brandon Prust. Jethro Bodine even added a draft pick. 
 

Bye Jake. 

Add the antimask anthem singer to the list. 

[CupIsComing]

2 hours ago, iinatcc said:

I am tired of people saying "why is she only coming out now?". It's a pretty ignorant thing to say in this day in age. Aside from the obvious that the victim might not want to bring this in public so they can protect their privacy, let's not pretend that we don't have a culture that shifts the blame on the victim. And who knows that state the person is mentally after experiencing such trauma.

 

I am not saying Virtanen is guilty, that's not my point, but using the "why is she only coming out now" is always a dumb counter argument to use against the victim (or even the alleged victim) and needs to be stopped.

Don't put words in my mouth! I never said what you have quoted and it is very wrong of you to attribute those words to me. If you had followed the thread after you will see that I clarify more than once that I am not questioning her veracity, but her timing of the media interview. 

As well, as I clarified later, that when there is a gap in reporting and the first hint of the offense is a report to the public (actually an interview before the process has been allowed to work itself out), that it detrimentally effects the convict ability of the perpetrator...as it brings the possibility of other motives into the picture.

Once again for the thick heads out there...I am not blaming the victim or even questioning her story myself, but trial by media (and in forums such as this) is just plain lynch mob material. As is going after comments like mine. What was your agenda...you didn't even have enough integrity to quote my entire comment to provide the needed context.

I get this is an emotional issues for most, which is precisely the time to take a breath and think before accusing and labelling people.

I expect an apology.

[grandmaster]

6 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I wasn't refereeing to you i was talking about the two guys that came after I apologized 

I get that. Like a pack of wolves, they went in with out noticing. Just wanted to also make sure to the others that you quickly acknowledged it and realized the mistake.

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by grandmaster

[wallstreetamigo]

13 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

the odds are she isn't lying. just because you cant prove that he isn't lying, doesn't mean that she is. of course she may be lying, but if she is thats a damn good lie.

 

but probably he will have a different story, maybe shes bat$&!# crazy, but likely not.

 

anyways if his story is good enough he probably walks, but the odds are she isn't lying.

No one knows yet who is lying or not. You are just saying he is and she isnt.

[Arrow 1983]

9 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

the odds are she isn't lying. just because you cant prove that he isn't lying, doesn't mean that she is. of course she may be lying, but if she is thats a damn good lie.

 

but probably he will have a different story, maybe shes bat$&!# crazy, but likely not.

 

anyways if his story is good enough he probably walks, but the odds are she isn't lying.

I actually think the story has truth but we don't know how it was interpreted by Virtanen. 

 

There is grey area that would lead to misinterpretation. If you notice they are calling it sexual misconduct  in terms of law this is more accurate way to call it then sexual assault. People should really understand these 2 terms Sexual misconduct and Sexual assault 

[Jaimito]

Dp

Edited May 2, 2021 by Jaimito

[Bad_BOI_pete]

34 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

What does this have to do with what I said? 

 

The law comes down to what can be proven. Just because YOU believe what was written - which could be true or could be a lie - doesnt mean it can be proven in a court of law. Thats not how the system works.

 

Not gonna lie, I normally ignore personal insults but if you are somehow suggesting I must be a rapist or someone who assaults people because I think I can get away with it, then &^@# you. Hard to tell with the gobbledygook you write but if defaming another person that way isnt worth a ban nothing on here is.

i never defamed you. all i said was that if it happened as it is worded it doesn't look good.

 

then everyone started quoting law.

 

i haven't even said jake surely did it.

 

all i said is she's likely not lying.

[wallstreetamigo]

5 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

i never defamed you. all i said was that if it happened as it is worded it doesn't look good.

 

then everyone started quoting law.

 

i haven't even said jake surely did it.

 

all i said is she's likely not lying.

Either of them not lying and remembering things differently are two different things. Thats why people are talking about the law. The law only cares about what you can prove.

 

No one should question whether she is telling the truth but no one should automatically assume he is guilty or lying or anything else. Thats what investigations are for.

[canuck73_3]

48 minutes ago, Provost said:

You are clearly not a lawyer.

 

We don’t even have grand juries in Canada, you don’t know what you are talking about.

He is a contract lawyer that gets owned in contract threads here. 

[MikeyD]

I'm surprised at the amount of rational responses in this thread. 

 

Probably because many of us are older and don't have that pitchfork mentality. 

[Coconuts]

Innocent until proven guilty, we'll see what comes of it. I hope there's nothing to it, but women don't typically make false accusations. Speaking up is hard.

 

It'll all come out in the wash. 

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

You are clearly not a lawyer.

 

We don’t even have grand juries in Canada, you don’t know what you are talking about.

I think you mean you hope he's not a lawyer. 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

8 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I actually think the story has truth but we don't know how it was interpreted by Virtanen. 

 

There is grey area that would lead to misinterpretation. If you notice they are calling it sexual misconduct  in terms of law this is more accurate way to call it then sexual assault. People should really understand these 2 terms Sexual misconduct and Sexual assault 

Sexual misconduct is not a legal term, at least in Canada, and I’d argue that, if anything, it’s a much less accurate way to describe these allegations.

 

“Sexual misconduct is a lay term, sometimes used in institutional policies or by professional bodies. It covers an array of problematic sexual behaviour including sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual abuse. Two of these terms have specific (and different) legal meanings: Sexual assault has a specific meaning in the criminal law context, unlike sexual misconduct, which may cover both criminal and non-criminal conduct.”

(The quote above is from Elaine Craig, associate professor, Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, where she researches and teaches on law and sexuality.)

 

I really wouldn’t draw any conclusions from initial press reports or organizational statements using the “sexual misconduct” lay terminology, especially this early on. 

 

If the investigation actually leads to any charges against Virtanen, they would be for sexual assault.
 

And, if the allegations are true, the account from the alleged victim clearly describes a sexual assault, under the Canadian legal definition.

 

However, this early into the story, without an investigation completed, and with no charges, it makes sense for the press and the Canucks to use “sexual misconduct” to describe the allegations against Virtanen. The legal system will determine if a crime was committed. And if so, it will almost certainly be termed a sexual assault.

 

But the use of “sexual misconduct” at this early stage, either by media or the Canucks organization, should not be misconstrued as anything that would lessen the severity of what’s been alleged.

[Provost]

22 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

He is a contract lawyer that gets owned in contract threads here. 

Yes, he alleges he is a contract lawyer but can’t read basic labour contract clauses.  

He has shown repeatedly that he has no idea about contracts... even though he claims to work for major league sports teams.

Now he has made it clear he doesn’t know about criminal law either.

 

There is a possibility that he is a lawyer... just a really terrible one.  I have met some of them who were as dumb as doorknobs. 

[Provost]

15 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I think you mean you hope he's not a lawyer. 

Correct, I hope for the sake of any alleged clients that he is not a lawyer... for their sake.

[Arrow 1983]

8 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Sexual misconduct is not a legal term, at least in Canada, and I’d argue that, if anything, it’s a much less accurate way to describe these allegations.

“Sexual misconduct is a lay term, sometimes used in institutional policies or by professional bodies. It covers an array of problematic sexual behaviour including sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual abuse. Twoof these terms have specific (and different) legal meanings: Sexual assault has a specific meaning in the criminal law context, unlike sexual misconduct, which may cover both criminal and non-criminal conduct.”
(The quote above is from Elaine Craig, associate professor, Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, where she researches and teaches on law and sexuality.)

 

I really wouldn’t draw any conclusions from initial press reports or organizational statements using the “sexual misconduct” lay terminology, especially this early on. 

 

If the investigation actually leads to any charges against Virtanen, they would be for sexual assault.
 

And, if the allegations are true, the account from the alleged victim clearly describes a sexual assault, under the Canadian legal definition.

 

However, this early into the story, without an investigation completed, and with no charges, it makes sense for the press and the Canucks to use “sexual misconduct” to describe the allegations against Virtanen. The legal system will determine if a crime was committed. And if so, it will almost certainly be termed a sexual assault.

 

But the use of “sexual misconduct” at this early stage, either by media or the Canucks organization, should not be misconstrued as anything that would lessen the severity of what’s been alleged.

Right out of Wikipedia. 

 

Sexual Misconduct isn't a legal term per say but it is what you will often hear the police or media say. The police will often use it because they understand that labeling allegations as Assault or Abuse holds specific connotation. The police will often hold those terms back till charges are actually laid. 

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

Yes, he alleges he is a contract lawyer but can’t read basic labour contract clauses.  

He has shown repeatedly that he has no idea about contracts... even though he claims to work for major league sports teams.

Now he has made it clear he doesn’t know about criminal law either.

 

There is a possibility that he is a lawyer... just a really terrible one.  I have met some of them who were as dumb as doorknobs. 

your opinion.

 

I do find your post towards me funny.