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

Jake Virtanen update

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

It's true. Sometimes rape can happen without any physical resistance. Maybe there's no physical proof of this resistance. Maybe she consented to the sex and changed her mind in the middle of it (for various reasons). From the criminal aspect, I don't think she'll have a very strong case, especially if the rumours are true that she texted him afterwards (and had an ongoing conversation). Virtanen is saying that she consented, and claims to have proof of this (through the texts).

The question is how do jams like keep turning up on JV's watch. He's like a walking disaster

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, tas said:

uh, if any of those things are necessary, it's rape. are you saying a rape victim is at fault for being raped because she didn't gouge her rapist's eyes out?

 

I thought people like this were a myth. 

No, there's no need to put words in my mouth and make conclusions for me based on my statements, thank you. 

Our argument is she consent to the sexual act or not. Which everyone is trying to find out, but no one can prove. So I raised the question, if she was not consenting, why didn't she struggle to get out. 

 

You can argue that she froze up, which you already mentioned, but that's a pretty weak argument to me. And if there were already kissing, hugging and touching with consent, which the girl admitted, and she suddenly froze up when they start sex. Then can it be blamed on Virtanen and be said that he committed a crime? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

It's true. Sometimes rape can happen without any physical resistance. Maybe there's no physical proof of this resistance. Maybe she consented to the sex and changed her mind in the middle of it (for various reasons). From the criminal aspect, I don't think she'll have a very strong case, especially if the rumours are true that she texted him afterwards (and had an ongoing conversation). Virtanen is saying that she consented, and claims to have proof of this (through the texts).

you cant consent to sex then change your mind half way through and call it rape. that's total BS

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nucksfollower1983 said:

you cant consent to sex then change your mind half way through and call it rape. that's total BS

Actually, you can. Consent can be taken away at any time. If you ask someone to do something they're not comfortable doing, and then make them do it anyway, that is a violation.

 

What we don't know is when Virtanen and her disagreed. Their stories are substantially different.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

 

JV is on a "leave of absence".  To me this means that he has been separated from the team which is a good idea.  No mention of salary.  I assume he is collecting it.

 

Do you think that Jake spoke to the media on the advice of his lawyer?  I'd be willing to bet not.

He never spoke to the media.  What came out was what his lawyer filed in the civil case and was obtained by Glacier Media through court records.

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

No, there's no need to put words in my mouth and make conclusions for me based on my statements, thank you. 

Our argument is she consent to the sexual act or not. Which everyone is trying to find out, but no one can prove. So I raised the question, if she was not consenting, why didn't she struggle to get out. 

 

You can argue that she froze up, which you already mentioned, but that's a pretty weak argument to me. And if there were already kissing, hugging and touching with consent, which the girl admitted, and she suddenly froze up when they start sex. Then can it be blamed on Virtanen and be said that he committed a crime? 

If the girl suddenly has cold feet about doing the act, she absolutely has the ability to withdraw consent, especially if he said or did something she didn't like. I mean, more often than not, if a girl consents to sex and everything happened in an agreeable way to all parties involved, then there shouldn't (normally) be any problems. But the situation with Virt and her is not that simple. We just don't know. We can speculate about it all day, but we might be off-side to do it.

For all we know, they both could be in the wrong.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

Actually, you can. Consent can be taken away at any time. If you ask someone to do something they're not comfortable doing, and then make them do it anyway, that is a violation.

 

What we don't know is when Virtanen and her disagreed. Their stories are substantially different.

 

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

 

well if that's the case then anyone with money better watch out because as soon as some gold digger decides you having your dick in her is unwanted 5 seconds after she said it wanted it is rape well then.... if things got violent, that's something else, but if consent can be taken away at any time lots of people are going to get sued.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nucksfollower1983 said:

 

well if that's the case then anyone with money better watch out because as soon as some gold digger decides you having your dick in her is unwanted 5 seconds after she said it wanted it is rape well then.... if things got violent, that's something else, but if consent can be taken away at any time lots of people are going to get sued.

It's true. There's very little a person can do when rape accusations get flung at you. Just do your part and not put yourself in positions where you could get screwed. One way to protect yourself is not be an asshole. Also, reputation does go a long way.

 

Most importantly, find better women. Good women don't abuse the rape card. The ones who make false rape claims are hated by everyone, including the real women.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

I expect him to tell the truth

Haha the truth does not set you free. Deny and it is a he said she said and this goes nowhere.

It does not work out for JV in and circumstance he denies and is telling the truth and the me to movement finds him guilty any way. He Denies and he is lying the me to movement finds him guilty. Except one of these scenarios is better than the other. If he is guilty and tells the truth he has a criminal record. Why in the hell would he want to tell the truth in that scenario. There where 2 people in that room as long as there is no video there is no prove. It is a he said she said and tons of motivation for her to lie. Even if she is telling the truth there is still probable cause for her to lie. No body comes out of this looking good. The best case scenario in all this is JV keeps face with his parents and closes friends. For her if this happened she gets it aired and can finally deal with it in a healthy way after all the legal cap is done.

Edited by Arrow 1983
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

It's true. There's very little a person can do when rape accusations get flung at you. Just do your part and not put yourself in positions where you could get screwed. One way to protect yourself is not be an asshole. Also, reputation does go a long way.

define being an asshole. if you match with someone on tinder and they say they want to hook up, how are you being an asshole? also what does reputation have to do with being guilty or innocent?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nucksfollower1983 said:

define being an asshole. if you match with someone on tinder and they say they want to hook up, how are you being an asshole? also what does reputation have to do with being guilty or innocent?

Wow, if that's what you came up with, I don't know how I can help you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Haha the truth does not set you free. Deny and it is a he said she said and this goes nowhere.

It does not work out for JV in and circumstance he denies and is telling the truth and the me to movement finds him guilty any way. He Denies and he is lying the me to movement finds him guilty. Except one of these scenarios is better than the other. If he is guilty and tells the truth he has a criminal record. Why in the hell would he want to tell the truth in that scenario. There where 2 people in that room as long as there is no video there is no prove. It is a he said she said and tons of motivation for her to lie. Even if she is telling the truth there is still probable cause for her to lie. No body comes out of this looking good. The best case scenario in all this is JV keeps face with his parents and closes friends. For her if this happened she gets it aired and can finally deal with it in a healthy way after all the legal cap is done.

I don't think the girl has much evidence to prove that something criminal happened. Whatever physical evidence that could have been used as evidence is long gone. Therefore, he's probably not gonna have any record.

 

There's a reason why she's going the civil route as well, as some kind of backup plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tas said:

not really though. even if she was planning to hook up with virtanen that night and the messages make that clear, it doesn't (or shouldn't) play any role in deciding whether she consented in the moment. hell, she has the right to stop consenting half way through if she wants. 

 

that being said, if she didn't make things clear, how can he be expected to know?

 

these things are never black and white. 

Except it does matter because intent matters. There where 2 people in that room that night and unless there is video the police have a he said ahe said on their hands. Therefore, they will have to determine if pursuing charges is in the best interest of the crown aka can they get a conviction. Text between them would be admissible in court as to intentions. If there was intention of hooking up as you put it the court will take that into account. You are absolutely correct she has the right to take back consent at any point but in court it is not what you know it is what you can prove. 

People think this is about right and wrong that courts care about what is right and wrong this is not true at all they care about prove. They care about procedures. Right and wrong have no place in a court room. A person is found not guilty they do not use the term innocent. In a court room you are found not guilty due to reasonable doubt. Not because you are telling the truth.

 

Edit 

It is civil not criminal so text messages are going to have a higher degree of value and a lower degree of being in admissable

She has to prove that her story is more likely to have happen then his. Civil court is a lower degree of prove. So if JV has text proving intent then he has a better case than hers

Edited by Arrow 1983
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I don't think the girl has much evidence to prove that something criminal happened. Whatever physical evidence that could have been used as evidence is long gone. Therefore, he's probably not gonna have any record.

 

There's a reason why she's going the civil route as well, as some kind of backup plan.

The Civil route allows her a lower degree of prove.

Her lawyer has told her it is unwinnable in criminal court. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If JV has any texts that the intent of going to the hotel was to hook up are even makes it seem this way JV has an open and shut case in civil court. 

 

Civil court is a lower burden of prove however, because this is he said she said. Any prove showing intent prior to the circumstances is going to be in JV favor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

not sure this needs its own thread, but interesting that he doesn't deny they met up. 

 

maybe? who knows. 

 

Interesting that the Canucks chose to change investigators for a firm with more experience. 

 

There is probably prove that they met up a credit card record of him paying for a room the night she said they met up would be easy for her side to get.

 

There is nothing illegal about meeting up. He could even say they had sex and there would be nothing illegal that he is claiming to.

 

consent and consent allow is where the story will be different. I personally would have been shock if he said they didn't meet up. That's a whole different scenario all together

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dazzle said:

I think there's also a significant reputation damage.

 

It's foolish not to hear his side of the story and simply side with the 'other'. There's A LOT of questions to be answered still. I really wonder what took him so long to say this outright, not that it would change how people would perceive him anyway. Many of the twitter warriors, for instance, insist that Virtanen is guilty - even before all the evidence has been laid out.

 

I think it's also important that the criminal investigation is ongoing (not likely to get anything from it), alongside a civil one. This, to me, indicates that the accusations are not very strong. Far too much time has passed by (many reasons for this to happen, of course), which most certainly would not assist the accuser, with regards to the criminal aspect. And if there are texts that go back and forth AFTER the said incident, any rape claims could be nullified in court. Let's be clear though: in such a situation, that doesn't 'prove' that rape didn't happen. The only thing that would absolve Virtanen of all wrongdoing is if he wasn't there at all. Unfortunately, he was there. He put himself in that position. Very tricky.

In my opinion, this is going to be dealt with on the civil side. And if Virtanen is considering countersuing, this could be a very messy civil case. Even dropping her lawsuit may or may not stop him from proceeding with a countersuit. At best, she's hoping that Virtanen will settle. That is likely her only way to 'win'.

 

In the event that she lied or misrepresented her stuff, she's going to pay big time. Either way, Virtanen is going to get shipped out, no matter what. Such a terrible ending for a player that never could put it together.

His lawyer told him not to speak.

 

This only came out because it had to. They would have had to respond to the the allegation for the courts.

 

There really isn't a lot of question to get answer it is a question of consent.

 

Civil court allows for a lower burden of prove the changes of criminal charges are very slim.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

The Civil route allows her a lower degree of prove.

Her lawyer has told her it is unwinnable in criminal court. 

There isn't really going to be any 'proof'. I personally think she is hoping that Virt comes to some kind of settlement based on what was discussed. I'm not necessarily implying that she is doing it for nefarious purposes, but settling is essentially the only way she can win. I do not think there will be any conclusive 'proof', unless there is a hidden camera somewhere, that will confirm nor deny what each of them have been saying.

 

Frankly, both put themselves in this position. She shouldn't have accepted his invitation to go up in the room, knowing that there might POSSIBLY be a situation where she wouldn't be comfortable to be in. This isn't victim shaming. This is just common sense. It doesn't mean Virt had the liberty to do whatever he wanted - far from it. Virt, on the other hand, has had a decidedly poor reputation (according to all the hearsay surrounding him). He should've learned what not to do from the Kane incident, in which Kane was actually proven innocent, despite the accuser claiming that he raped her. The timelines and the story did not match up to the true events, which included Kane not actually being where she claimed he was.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dazzle said:

There isn't really going to be any 'proof'. I personally think she is hoping that Virt comes to some kind of settlement based on what was discussed. I'm not necessarily implying that she is doing it for nefarious purposes, but settling is essentially the only way she can win. I do not think there will be any conclusive 'proof', unless there is a hidden camera somewhere, that will confirm nor deny what each of them have been saying.

 

Frankly, both of them put themselves in this position.

If there is text proving prior consent or that there was intent to hooking up JV lawyer could easily advise him not to settle. If he has any text like that I would find it hard to see how she could win even a civil case

  • Hydration 1
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...