CoachX

Priceless…. well played!

Good call…. Back to hockey

Good luck shutting down or changing the porn industry

P.s. pretty sure that was my best post ever!

I am now a Grand Master. From this point forward I prefer to be addressed in this manner, “GrandMaster Coach”, “Grandmaster X”, or just “GCX” now that I have reached this powerful status, i will use my power to influence DB to trade Scott Laughton, just so I can say, “I told you so” to all you haters. you may now go back to paying attention to anything else, which is more important then my useless drivel

I fcking hate the Kraken

I heard it was his best game all season. He didn’t hurt the team once

I get your point but each of those examples potentially threaten, or cause harm to others. I would also agree that being intoxicated should not be an excuse to enact violence on another, although I guess based on a recent CA court case you can stab someone to death while stoned, as long as you claim “psychotic episode”. But, in each of these examples crimes are committed because the person is impaired, and the standard is that “impaired” means inability to do something, like make sound rational decisions

I don’t want to speak for someone else, but being a person who’s investigated these type of incidents, and a former coach, who’s witnessed the personalities and behaviors of young men, I would imagine 5 high profile athletes walking into a room to have sex with a single girl, already have a certain level of disdain and lack of respect for that girl. Carrying on with your intent knowing she’s intoxicated is way beyond bad judgement.

Carter, Richards and the Center City Crew were all legit too, at the start. As soon as the Flyers got a hold of them and elevated Richards to captain, shidt spiraled. Its a common thing with Philly franchises. They coddle young superstars, give them the key to the city, then watch them drown in pool of their own popularity

Not so fast! Im pretty sure Precious Scottie Upshall broke a world record for Guitar Hero.....or was that a 13 year old boy? Anyway, all the teenage girls thought he was dreamy.

Yep, agree to disagree we’ll see how it plays out. I just don’t see how a heavily intoxicated person making any kind of admission can be considered credible

and don't take a video ....too soon?

REPORTED!

thats a big "IF"......bird in the hand and all

@JR Ewing interesting stuff. Thanks. I recognize that celebrities are often the targets of fictitious allegations, with money and fame being the motive. It just doesn't seem like that's the case here

Im actually surprised there isnt a charge related to false imprisonment (not sure what it would be in Canada). If it was here, you could also attach "coercion of a witness", which is normally a felony in most states. If there was some threat conveyed to her if she didnt make the video, that would be "intimidation of a witness", a higher level felony. That video might blow up in their faces Have we ever confirmed the girl's age?

you mean when the girl sobers up and is capable of making sound rational judgements and is aware of her surroundings? Im going to stand by my opinion that these guys taping that girl was an attempt to cover their azzes, something you would not need to do if you thought what you were doing was righteous

it all comes down to level of intoxication and what the laws are about that. I think you also have to consider the number of people present. Did she feel like she had to say what they wanted? I think the questions on both sides of the video will make it less impactful then you might think. This is where I do think public perception could play a role. What will the impact be if these guys are cleared? Does this mean its ok to get a girl intoxicated, have sex with her, then get her on tape admitting its consensual? Thats a scary precedent.

After I posted that last statement, I realized this point would be made. What I was referring to was a general statement that if there was a video of the offense, it would be telling as to what actually happened in that room (irrefutable evidence) the videos in question are, questionable. It was pretty common knowledge that she was intoxicated from what I read. So those videos could be under duress, or true evidence that they did nothing wrong. Here’s the problem I have though, if nothing illegal happened in that room, why do you need to make video in the first place? I stand by my original position though, I question what the “new” evidence was/is, that brought this to where we are today

Aren’t we really getting off topic about all this “porn” talk. I seem to recall you recently warning us to stay on topic

So let’s go with that. At the time of the offense, the victim came forward and made her allegations. But there wasn’t enough evidence. Ok, her word alone isn’t enough. So what is enough? What exactly would this new evidence be? I’m pretty sure none of the accused came forward. If there was video, that wouldn’t have been kept secret. The initial investigation would have indicated any witnesses in the room. So I’m very confused. it still feels to me like they thought this was going to be safely brushed under the rug, but something happened that they couldn’t hide from. I suspect career preservation is at the heart of this, and if they are guilty, that’s fine by me, as long as the truth comes out

Yes, “reopened”. So they did that NOT have that evidence the first time? That’s what I’m curious about

Take breath. the majority of your posts aren’t hockey related