Jake Virtanen update

[24K PureCool]

Just now, shayster007 said:

It is possible. I outlined that in my post that I'm sure you didn't read. Statics tell us 2-8 percent of sexual assult alligations are declared 'false alligations' and 0.5% of alligations are entirely fabricated. It's entirely possible that Jake falls into that category. But to declare him innocent based off those numbers is naive and ignorant.

I want to see those numbers when it comes to the accused being a public and wealthy figure.

There is really close to no incentive for the accuser to lie about this kind of things when the accused is a no body as there won't be tangible fiancial or political benefits from doing so. Given that context, it not surprising the number for false or overly exaggerated accusation would be low. 

 

Personally I will refrain from believing either side completely when it comes to the accused and/or accuser being a wealthy public figure without other victims also coming out. 

 

[Alflives]

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I do think people need to lay off guilt or innocence positions, we just can't know at the moment. 

 

I do think its worthwhile having a discussion tho, as we're still seeing a lot of victim blaming which tbh is a bit of a surprise but also tells me it might still be a prevalent point of view out there. That needs to stop. 

 

 

Legally though there is currently only one position.  All persons must be considered innocent until proven guilty, or we have chaos.  Even in these horrid cases of rape, we must allow the legal system to control the outcome.  If we don't do this, then what's to stop those who are seen as criminals for their appearance (or any other reasons) to be unjustly accused, and punished (by the mob) without a fair trial?  

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Legally though there is currently only one position.  All persons must be considered innocent until proven guilty, or we have chaos.  Even in these horrid cases of rape, we must allow the legal system to control the outcome.  If we don't do this, then what's to stop those who are seen as criminals for their appearance (or any other reasons) to be unjustly accused, and punished (by the mob) without a fair trial?  

for sure. But legally innocent is different from people pronouncing him innocent already, or making claims that she's just in it for money. 

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

Alf, this is an exact quote from a poster only 3 pages back.

 

"ya it seems like she was pissed he dudnt call her back and wanted some cash and to ruin his reputation if its true i hope they throw the book at her"

 

That's victim blaming. 

For certain, that is an ignorant comment.  However, without the legal system being allowed to control the innocence or guilt of accused people then we get chaos, and the mob mentality.  As sickening as what Jake is accused of doing, he must have the right to assumed innocence until legally proven guilty.  The statistics you already posted could be used to prove Jake's guilt, but in court.

[tas]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Legally though there is currently only one position.  All persons must be considered innocent until proven guilty, or we have chaos.  Even in these horrid cases of rape, we must allow the legal system to control the outcome.  If we don't do this, then what's to stop those who are seen as criminals for their appearance (or any other reasons) to be unjustly accused, and punished (by the mob) without a fair trial?  

innocent until proven guilty is all well and good, but it is also only relevant in the context of the legal system. rest assured, jake has legally been granted the benefit of the doubt. 

 

it's completely irrelevant when it comes to public perceptions and deciding what's right and wrong, though. the general public has no responsibility to assume that the accused is innocent and the accuser a liar. 

[MeanSeanBean]

6 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

I want to see those numbers when it comes to the accused being a public and wealthy figure.

There is really close to no incentive for the accuser to lie about this kind of things when the accused is a no body as there won't be tangible fiancial or political benefits from doing so. Given that context, it not surprising the number for false or overly exaggerated accusation would be low. 

 

Personally I will refrain from believing either side completely when it comes to the accused and/or accuser being a wealthy public figure without other victims also coming out. 

 

Then you can do your own research on those numbers. I have given numerous articles and statics to try to explain my point of view and it hasn't change anything. I can tell you that based off of this website (I don't know the credibility)

 

https://www.avoidjail.net/blog/2020/january/false-allegations-and-sexual-assault-an-in-depth/

 

The majority of flase alligations come from young people trying to avoid getting into trouble, not personal gain. But I'm sure it does happen, but I'm not doing any more research so try to acquire those numbers.

 

All I can tell you is I sincerely hope other victims don't start coming forward. That would be absolutely worst case scenario.

[bigbadcanucks]

21 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I do think people need to lay off guilt or innocence positions, we just can't know at the moment. 

 

I do think its worthwhile having a discussion tho, as we're still seeing a lot of victim blaming which tbh is a bit of a surprise but also tells me it might still be a prevalent point of view out there. That needs to stop. 

 

 

Agree with you on all fronts, "it's all good man".

 

I'm no lawyer (unlike you, Jimmy McGill...or are you just an actor playing one?) or a private investigator, but I think @shayster is calling those who are making comments from the POV that you mention without having any facts, low-lifes.  At least that's my understanding. 

 

Am I understanding correctly, @shayster?

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

for sure. But legally innocent is different from people pronouncing him innocent already, or making claims that she's just in it for money. 

Jake is by law legally innocent.  That's how our system works, and it must.  Or we get chaos, and mob rule. 

[MeanSeanBean]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

For certain, that is an ignorant comment.  However, without the legal system being allowed to control the innocence or guilt of accused people then we get chaos, and the mob mentality.  As sickening as what Jake is accused of doing, he must have the right to assumed innocence until legally proven guilty.  The statistics you already posted could be used to prove Jake's guilt, but in court.

Statics mean litterally nothing in court. I already explained that to you. The entire reason why I'm part of this conversation is because of comments like what Travella and Patel are saying. I'm not asking for Jake to be burned at the stake. I'm trying to enlighten people who are ignorantly victim blaming. 

 

Like I already said, I have not once brought up my opinion on his guilt or innocence. Just provided the strict statics around these sorts of crimes.

[bigbadcanucks]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Jake is by law legally innocent.  That's how our system works, and it must.  Or we get chaos, and mob rule. 

Sort of the kangaroo court that we have here on CDC...

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, tas said:

innocent until proven guilty is all well and good, but it is also only relevant in the context of the legal system. rest assured, jake has legally been granted the benefit of the doubt. 

 

it's completely irrelevant when it comes to public perceptions and deciding what's right and wrong, though. the general public has no responsibility to assume that the accused is innocent and the accuser a liar. 

Certainly we as the public get to form an opinion, but we cannot act on that opinion by attacking the person who is accused, and infringing upon their rights.  Jake's case, even though he's accused of a terrible crime, is part of our broader system.  

[EmilyM]

On 6/9/2021 at 6:03 PM, Bertuzzipunch said:

I think her text messages and social media direct messages to him might save jake 

How so? Consent can be taken away at any time regardless of what was texted/DMed earlier. I'm not saying Jake is guilty, but earlier text messages mean nothing if she removed consent later.

[MeanSeanBean]

2 minutes ago, bigbadcanucks said:

Agree with you on all fronts, "it's all good man".

 

I'm no lawyer (unlike you, Jimmy McGill...or are you just an actor playing one?) or a private investigator, but I think @shayster is calling those who are making comments from the POV that you mention without having any facts, low-lifes.  At least that's my understanding. 

 

Am I understanding correctly, @shayster?

I don't know who I called a low life. But I'll openly say anyone victim blaming in this thread is a low life. Anyone ignoring the numbers and also declaring Jake innocent is also a low life. We 100% should be taking this seriously, but also have open minds that it's a possibility that this situation is far more complicated then what meets the eye and Jake isn't guilty of sexual assult. We should not be assuming innocents or guilt right now. But unfortunately the numbers are able to tell us that there is a much higher possibility that the victim isn't fabricating this story.

 

[tas]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Certainly we as the public get to form an opinion, but we cannot act on that opinion by attacking the person who is accused, and infringing upon their rights.  Jake's case, even though he's accused of a terrible crime, is part of our broader system.  

define attack? if by attack you mean commenting on the internet, then absolutely we can, and in no way does that infringe on his rights. 

[bigbadcanucks]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Certainly we as the public get to form an opinion, but we cannot act on that opinion by attacking the person who is accused, and infringing upon their rights.  Jake's case, even though he's accused of a terrible crime, is part of our broader system.  

Conversely, we cannot act on an opinion by placing blame on the alleged victim and infringing upon her rights.  Both should be afforded the same level of civil rights.  That too is part of our broader system.

 

BTW, I'm not implying that is how you feel and or think, Alf.  You've been nothing but fair and equitable in your views.

[bigbadcanucks]

3 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

I don't know who I called a low life. But I'll openly say anyone victim blaming in this thread is a low life. Anyone ignoring the numbers and also declaring Jake innocent is also a low life. We 100% should be taking this seriously, but also have open minds that it's a possibility that this situation is far more complicated then what meets the eye and Jake isn't guilty of sexual assult. We should not be assuming innocents or guilt right now. But unfortunately the numbers are able to tell us that there is a much higher possibility that the victim isn't fabricating this story.

 

Sorry for putting words into your posts...

[JM_]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Jake is by law legally innocent.  That's how our system works, and it must.  Or we get chaos, and mob rule. 

we'll get a social media mob regardless. Just glad there isn't a swipe option for guilty or innocent. 

 

I do wonder how deep the Canucks are investigating things, if they are going beyond just this one incident. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, tas said:

define attack? if by attack you mean commenting on the internet, then absolutely we can, and in no way does that infringe on his rights. 

Infringing upon the accused rights, especially to a fair trial. 

[tas]

15 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Infringing upon the accused rights, especially to a fair trial. 

they'll be sure to weed out any potential jurors that have cdc accounts ...

[Patel Bure]

56 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

Answer the question Patel. I have provided numerous links, reports, statics both globally and from the Canadian government that all lead the to conclusion that we must take these alligations very seriously. Answer why you "truely believe he has been wronged". I want to know the reasoning behind why you believe that so whole heartedly.

 

Further more, I have never once stated that Virtanen is guilty. I have only replied to people saying that he is innocent with facts regarding sexual assult cases. I haven't stated an opinion one time this entire thread. Only cold hard facts around the subject.

 

You have stated your opinion on him being innocent. So @Patel Bureanswer the question.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nsnews.com/amp/bc-news/canucks-jake-virtanen-named-in-civil-suit-alleging-sexual-misconduct-3777501
 

1) Jake Virtanen and this girl mutually agreed to meet in Jake’s hotel room.   So, either this girl is VERY naive as to the underlying implications of what it means to “agree to meet someone in someone’s hotel room,” or, she had a change of heart upon arriving at the hotel room (which is perfectly normal and perfectly acceptable, which leads me to point #2).   
 

2) Jake Virtanen kissed her neck from behind and startled the girl.  She told him to back off. Although Jake, from the story, appeared to have wanted to go further, he did NOT appear to initiate more physical contact.  Period.  
 

Although this story does not mention this, I also read/heard from somewhere that this girl stayed over night in the same hotel room as Jake, but stayed in another section of the room.........and so despite the incident from earlier, still felt comfortable staying over night.

 

So, to review:

 

1) Two the consenting adults agreed to meet in a hotel room prior to the meeting, to which Jake picked her up and drove her.

 

2) With the obvious implications that a hotel room “meeting” entails, Jake wanted to get intimate with her, to which she declined his advances and expressed her discomfort.   
 

3) After possibly pleading with the woman, Jake stopped.  No other physical contact took place, no RAPE took place (the most important thing), and the woman apparently stayed overnight in the same room as Jake in a different part of the hotel room (the story above does not mention this, but this is something that I heard/read somewhere......will try and provide the link if I find it).

 

The incident took place in 2017, four years ago.   
 

The most important thing here is that no rape took place.  I don’t doubt that Jake may have kissed her for a second too long, and may have tried to sell the woman on the idea of not changing her mind about having sex, but NONE of this warrants having Jake’s reputation being completely ruined and/or him losing his career.   
 

Based on this evidence, I think it would set a very dangerous precedent if Jake was charged with attempted rape or sexual assault in this instance, and based on this, I would strongly discourage anyone from attempting to meet women at a bar.