|
Deleted, what did it say?
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
mik posted:Uh, isn't the stereotype the exact opposite? That women who file sexual assault complains are just having morning-after regrets? Christ the judge spent his 6 weeks of deliberation reading #ghomeshi tweets
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
That won't stop people from trying to warp the dialogue into a story about a big bad judge ripping apart these poor victims whose only crime was perjury. How dare the trier of fact be frustrated just because he's unable to convict someone who would be obviously guilty if the victims hadn't done just about everything they could to get him set free?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Too bad you can't be convicted of being a creep. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/01/jian-ghomeshi-i-dated-him?CMP=share_btn_link Having said that - the twitter lynch mob calling for a separate justice system for sexual assault is disturbing .
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/01/jian-ghomeshi-i-dated-him?CMP=share_btn_link "He’d lick his lips at me during dinner, even when I looked away" wait so this doesn't work on women?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that separate justice system is twitter/the internet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
The evidence presented wasn't sufficient for the court of law, but keep in mind this doesn't necessarily mean he didn't actually do these things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
jm20 posted:I wonder how much hhllp got paid for the trial. Minimum $100,000. The threshold for criminal conviction is a very high one but that's for good reason. Wistful of Dollars fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
I'm pretty disappointed by the verdict, but there's a tonne of people on my Facebook wall (predominantly old friends from LBGT and feminist activism) calling this is an affront to justice. If the prosecutors had been a bit more conservative, and the victims weren't caught colluding, they may have succeeded in making one of the charges stick. But as it is 'reasonable doubt' demanded an acquittal. Dude's a creepy rear end in a top hat with little respect for boundaries/consent. That much is clear from the victims and the larger community that has repeatedly backed the assertion he's a shady guy. But that's not enough for a guilty verdict.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
jm20 posted:The evidence presented wasn't sufficient for the court of law, but keep in mind this doesn't necessarily mean he didn't actually do these things. There was no real evidence unfortunately, it was just witness testimony and there was demonstrable perjury, collusion and other major inconsistencies in the testimony from all 3 witnesses. The irony is that before the trial most people had made up their minds with the whole "where theres smoke theres fire!" assumptions. Ghomeshi might be a weirdo into creepy stuff but I have no idea what to think of the charges anymore, some of the things those witnesses lied about was really hosed up. I think Decoutere specifically was lucky not to get a perjury charge, if this was anything other than a sexual assault case she might've been in some trouble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
It would be nice if the Feds would re-do the Code from scratch; decades of amendments have made it a real chore to read sometimes. That would be a hell of a job though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:It would be nice if the Feds would re-do the Code from scratch; decades of amendments have made it a real chore to read sometimes. AFAIK, it's on their radar. Jody Wilson-Raybould gave a talk the other week at which she said the gov't is interested in serious criminal law reform. What that means is still up in the air, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Given the evidence presented to the judge, it's a very reasonable verdict IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
I also have some LGBT activist types on Facebook and the meltdown is incredible. I don't think they're wrong exactly, but presumption of innocence exists for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Deleted, what did it say? It said "Judge: "We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful"". Turns out the actual quote is "Courts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of complainants", which is a bit more nuanced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Yeah. This isn't a failure of the courts. It's a failure of the Crown/Police who are really loving bad at their jobs when it comes to sexual assault cases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
So the general consensus is, not guilty of rape, but still a piece of poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
We mind have an actual contested race for the NDP presidency???? That's shocking. Élaine Michaud, defeated MP for Portneuf—Jacques Cartier and someone who is looking for Tom to step down, is running. I'm not sure if Rebecca is running for reelection?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:So the general consensus is, not guilty of rape, but still a piece of poo poo? Guilty not proven.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:There was no real evidence unfortunately, it was just witness testimony and there was demonstrable perjury, collusion and other major inconsistencies in the testimony from all 3 witnesses. The irony is that before the trial most people had made up their minds with the whole "where theres smoke theres fire!" assumptions. I disagree, there were more than 4 women accusing him however these four chose to proceed with charges against him. At the very least you can say he is a womanizer and exploits women who may not be in the most sound state of mind. The bar for conviction is not unreasonably high, however the testimonies and written statements were not enough for a conviction. Where there's smoke there is fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:So the general consensus is, not guilty of rape, but still a piece of poo poo? Piece of poo poo, still possibly sexually assaulted someone, but the Crown did an awful job with the case and they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt so the verdict made sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Too bad you can't be convicted of being a creep. I've seen people on twitter saying that he should have been compelled to testify  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
jm20 posted:I disagree, there were more than 4 women accusing him however these four chose to proceed with charges against him. At the very least you can say he is a womanizer and exploits women who may not be in the most sound state of mind. The bar for conviction is not unreasonably high, however the testimonies and written statements were not enough for a conviction. You disagree with what exactly? He wasn't charged with "being a womanizer" and I have no idea what you're on about with that sound state of mind bit. Not enough for a conviction is a pretty large understatement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/letters/march-24-budget-principles-plus-other-letters-to-the-editor/article29371311/Letters to Globe & Mail editor posted:There wasn’t much excitement in the budget for me. Being an honest taxpayer (drat that T4) with income over $200K, my economic interests got thrown under the bus well before the budget. I’m an easy target, it would appear.  I wonder if he also happens to make over $200k, but under $215k? I'm sure he'd be surprised to learn that he is still getting a tax reduction...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
My northern residency tax deduction went up! Also, gently caress Ghomeshi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:It said "Judge: "We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful"". Turns out the actual quote is "Courts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of complainants", which is a bit more nuanced. I predict zero backtracking from the people who used the misquote as a reason to start frothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:the bad decision only lasted a week. oooh right, I remember that story now. Student councils are hilarious, and Carleton has had some bad ones. The student body is largely apathetic to it, so voter turnout is near single digits (or at least it was when I was there a decade ago) and there tend to be a lot of cliques of friends running as slates that get in mostly on name recognition by being the only ones organized enough to do real promotion. The student body tries their best to completely ignore students' council so they basically do whatever they want, until they do something like this case where they tried to mess with a 60 year school tradition that people have sentimental attachment to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
The newest CUSA group ran almost solely on a platform of making things better for foreign students. Meanwhile tuition keeps climbing for Canadians. Weren't the caught up in some legal drama a few years ago?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
I wish Canadian law had the third verdict of "not proven".
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:It said "Judge: "We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful"". Turns out the actual quote is "Courts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of complainants", which is a bit more nuanced. I'm seeing the former quote from multiple places now. Can you link a source that it's a misquote?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
The crown and police had little to go on, and if Ghomeshi wasn't high profile it probably would never have gone to trial. I don't think it's fair to say they did a poor job. The witnesses lied to them too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Seems like kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If you don't seem like what a victim should to the cop asking you questions that aren't even relevant (your actions after the fact should have no bearing on whether something was assault), does it even get past a complaint?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:It's fine; death shouldn't shield someone from criticism. I think it kind of depends. If a man's damaging ideas die with him, there's not much utility in arguing with his corpse. I'll admit to some unfounded, mystical respect for the dead inclinations, but... In the case of Ford, his particular brand of poison - - which he was both a conduit for and creator of - - lives on in the stupid hearts of hundreds of thousands of low-info voters. And his thug of a brother still lives. It's fair and moral imo. E; phone postin. Look at all those skipped pages Wasting fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
odiv posted:Seems like kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If you don't seem like what a victim should to the cop asking you questions that aren't even relevant (your actions after the fact should have no bearing on whether something was assault), does it even get past a complaint? Your actions do have some bearing when you're claiming certain things happened a decade ago. There is nothing else for people to go on as to whether or not to believe you. Especially when those actions are sending hundreds of texts or emails to another witness about how you're totally gonna burn this guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
I'm always confused with cases like this because the judge literally said that he must acquit due to reasonable doubt. I don't disagree, but then it begs the question, in any case like this where it's primarily he said/she said, isn't it basically impossible to remove reasonable doubt? Does this judge ever convict in this case regardless of the witnesses perceived reliability?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:I wish Canadian law had the third verdict of "not proven". That's exactly what we have now, with a wording change. We don't have a "proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt" verdict, because there's no reason for such a thing to exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
CountingCrows posted:I'm always confused with cases like this because the judge literally said that he must acquit due to reasonable doubt. I don't disagree, but then it begs the question, in any case like this where it's primarily he said/she said, isn't it basically impossible to remove reasonable doubt? Does this judge ever convict in this case regardless of the witnesses perceived reliability?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
CountingCrows posted:I'm always confused with cases like this because the judge literally said that he must acquit due to reasonable doubt. I don't disagree, but then it begs the question, in any case like this where it's primarily he said/she said, isn't it basically impossible to remove reasonable doubt? Does this judge ever convict in this case regardless of the witnesses perceived reliability? The answer is it's complicated and there's a fairly large body of precedents laying out when a judge should/should not believe a witness. e: Specifically about sexual assault I mean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That's exactly what we have now, with a wording change. We have two verdicts, not three.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
El Scotch posted:We have two verdicts, not three. Yes, I'm aware of that. There's: - Proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - Not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt Why does it matter what words we use? The third verdict could only cause problems by allowing different levels of "not proven" to be treated differently. It would essentially mean that you'd have: - Guilty - Not Proven Guilty (but we think they are) - Not Proven Guilty (and we're sure we're right) That seems like a really, really horrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:52
|
|