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

Jake Virtanen update

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

54 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.

Just get a good lawyer.

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

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

I don't know about you, but texts are suggestive at best. Maybe she only wanted to do a certain act - and that's it. Anything more would have been crossing the line. Do you explicitly tell your girl that you're going to bang her via text? Probably not. Sexting is not quite the same as giving consent. And that's where texting as some kind of 'proof' of consent will have its limits.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PetterssonOrPeterson said:

Just get a good lawyer.

Or don't put yourself in bad positions.

  • Vintage 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also not that in civil court the burden of prove rest more on him than on her now. In criminal court the burden is on the crown. In Civil court the burden is on Her to claim it happen show some prove in this case he testimony and for him to then prove it didn't happen as she said. Text could easily do this as long as it showed intent 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Or don't put yourself in bad positions.

Or she could be out right lying and he would have never known he was getting in a bad position

 

your claim assumes he did it 

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

Or she could be out right lying and he would have never known he was getting in a bad position

He should've. Kane's incident should've been a learning moment.

 

And lol, no, my claim doesn't 'assume' anything. You're the only one assuming my position. Look at the rest of my posts. I haven't assumed anything. I don't know what happened.

Edited by Dazzle
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.

Good take.  From the Canucks POV, it will come down to the fans (or mainly the season ticket holders) appetite if they want JV on the team.  It seems the PR Department will be making another trade; wishing both parties all the best.

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I don't know about you, but texts are suggestive at best. Maybe she only wanted to do a certain act - and that's it. Anything more would have been crossing the line. Do you explicitly tell your girl that you're going to bang her via text? Probably not. Sexting is not quite the same as giving consent. And that's where texting as some kind of 'proof' of consent will have its limits.

I don't know what is on the text but if there is is what I have been saying if there is intent they he has a strong case. Limits yes but at the same time right now all any one has is he said she said. Text don't even have to go as far as saying bang you it could be implied intent. Anything is better than nothing 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

He should've. Kane's incident should've been a learning moment.

 

And lol, no, my claim doesn't 'assume' anything. You're the only one assuming my position. Look at the rest of my posts. I haven't assumed anything. I don't know what happened.

So how is he suppose to meet women get married and have children if he can't meet woman.

 

Also, text could imply his intent as well and if she still showed up that is implied intent. Little less than her intent defense but still a decent defense. 

Edited by Arrow 1983
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arrow 1983 said:

I don't know what is on the text but if there is is what I have been saying if there is intent they he has a strong case. Limits yes but at the same time right now all any one has is he said she said. Text don't even have to go as far as saying bang you it could be implied intent. Anything is better than nothing 

I agree with you that she has a huge hill to climb to 'prove' her case. The long delay in reporting (no physical evidence), plus the fact that she agreed to meet up with him at the hotel, plus the fact that she didn't try to leave the area (in her confession on the board, she says that she just laid there thinking he wouldn't do anything more). Even if Virt did do the things she claimed, she can't prove it now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I don't know about you, but texts are suggestive at best. Maybe she only wanted to do a certain act - and that's it. Anything more would have been crossing the line. Do you explicitly tell your girl that you're going to bang her via text? Probably not. Sexting is not quite the same as giving consent. And that's where texting as some kind of 'proof' of consent will have its limits.

Some one could easily tell a girl in a text that she was hot and he wanted to have sex with her right now. She could reply than pick me up you sexy stallion and that would be implied intent 

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

I agree with you that she has a huge hill to climb to 'prove' her case. The long delay in reporting (no physical evidence), plus the fact that she agreed to meet up with him at the hotel, plus the fact that she didn't try to leave the area (in her confession on the board, she says that she just laid there thinking he wouldn't do anything more). Even if Virt did do the things she claimed, she can't prove it now.

I read her original story and she said describe multiple times how she could have left with out being forced to stay her whole story punches holes in reality and truth

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arrow 1983 said:

Some one could easily tell a girl in a text that she was hot and he wanted to have sex with her right now. She could reply than pick me up you sexy stallion and that would be implied intent 

You're missing the point. Even if she agreed to it, but let's say he wanted to do a specific act that she wasn't comfortable doing, then any prior consent can be taken away at any time. Even forcing the girl not to use a condom is considered rape.

That's why texting as a defense is going to have its limits. You are seeing things on a very surface level. There's a lot of factors to consider though.

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

I agree with you that she has a huge hill to climb to 'prove' her case. The long delay in reporting (no physical evidence), plus the fact that she agreed to meet up with him at the hotel, plus the fact that she didn't try to leave the area (in her confession on the board, she says that she just laid there thinking he wouldn't do anything more). Even if Virt did do the things she claimed, she can't prove it now.

Yeah, you don't meet in a motel/hotel to have bible study - what a sad situation.

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was JV I would sue the Canucks for giving me a leave of absents on her flimsy story and he would have a case. My bet is the Canuck organization is still paying him.

 

It is also why I believe he will be bought out. Instead of them trying to terminate his contract

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

If I was JV I would sue the Canucks for giving me a leave of absents on her flimsy story and he would have a case. My bet is the Canuck organization is still paying him.

 

It is also why I believe he will be bought out. Instead of them trying to terminate his contract

Uh, no. The Canucks did the right thing. Having Virtanen continue playing is a PR disaster. It's not like the Canucks automatically believed the victim either. He just has a leave of absence so he isn't a distraction to the team. Imagine the awkwardness with his teammates.


Are you even listening to yourself?

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You're missing the point. Even if she agreed to it, but let's say he wanted to do a specific act that she wasn't comfortable doing, then any prior consent can be taken away at any time. Even forcing the girl not to use a condom is considered rape.

That's why texting as a defense is going to have its limits. You are seeing things on a very surface level. There's a lot of factors to consider though.

She could have consented to sex and half way through said ok get off of me we are not talking about the truth here. Truth has no place in a court room. It is not what you know it is what you can prove. A person gets a not guilty plea they don't tell you you are innocent. Facts matter not the truth

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

She could have consented to sex and half way through said ok get off of me we are not talking about the truth here. Truth has no place in a court room. It is not what you know it is what you can prove. A person gets a not guilty plea they don't tell you you are innocent. Facts matter not the truth

Oh my god... not only did you rip off the quote from Denzel Washington's character from the movie Training Day, you have just spewed a bunch of nonsense in the same post. Holy $&!#.

 

To be specific, what are "facts"? They are established truths.

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

Uh, no. The Canucks did the right thing. Having Virtanen continue playing is a PR disaster. It's not like the Canucks automatically believed the victim either. He just has a leave of absence so he isn't a distraction to the team. Imagine the awkwardness with his teammates.


Are you even listening to yourself?

He has not be found guilty of anything.

 

Innocent till proven guilty. JV has committed no crimes he has no criminal record.

 

So why the leave of absence

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dazzle said:

Oh my god... not only did you rip off the quote from Denzel Washington's character from the movie Training Day, you have just spewed a bunch of nonsense in the same post. Holy $&!#.

That might be a quote from a move but it is a saying that dates far back. 

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...