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

Jake Virtanen update

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

How is any criminal having a fair trial blaming the victim? 

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. 

Edited by shayster007
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Which is exactly why Jake is being sued in a civil case, and under investigation in a (potential) criminal matter.  His actions are in question.  However, his opportunity to have a fair trial shouldn't be in question.  

bingo. Trial by social media mob would be a scary thing.

 

Its really a tough thing. How do you "prove" something like this either way between two people in a room somewhere? If other people start coming forward with similar stories that would lend more credibility to a persons accusation but I don't think thats happened here. 

 

I think this goes on for quite a while. The Canucks are going to have to decide on a buyout likely long before this thing is concluded. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -DLC- locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...