|
Post by bois on Feb 26, 2015 14:08:31 GMT -4
Benoit Groulx doesn't have a moral compass.... and making the playoffs is ultimately more improtant to him I would bet than sending a message to this many players
I predict he dresses his best available lineup until such time as charges are placed and perhaps his hands are tied by the league
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Feb 26, 2015 15:11:42 GMT -4
Yes but here is what you are missing. The team has no right to question the players about what happened. This is a criminal matter and anything the players say to team officials could be used against them in trial down the road. The team would be putting the players in jeopardy if they force them to tell the story, or face team discipline. Each of these players should be speaking with a lawyer only. The team should actually be making sure that these players are talking to a lawyer (they are the acting parents) and nobody else. They should not be involved at all in handing out any discipline at this time ... or questioning everybody in what went on. I know the perception of that will not sit well with many ... but the team cannot act on this right now. This isn't a breaking curfew type of incident where it is strictly a team matter ... this is a criminal where their entire lives moving forward could be changed forever. The team has to just sit back and wait for things to unfold ... and then act accordingly when the time is right. If they were to intervene and force the hand of a player to tell his story ... they'd be doing him a disservice. Not sure I missed anything. These guys were identified as Olympique players, out celebrating after a victory. I Imagine they even had some logo or two floating around on a jacket or hoodie. The team has every right to question these kids, they have every right to inquire about the comportment of their players. Regardless of any formal charges or convictions by the authorities they, the organization can dish out discipline. Now, down the road if there are no charges or convictions, these players disciplined by the team have every right if they felt the discipline by the team may have caused reputation or character damage, they could bring action against the team. If I got a speeding ticket last night my boss the next day can ask me about it, but really it's none of his business ( unless driving is part of my job etc etc.) These kids sign on for the season. They are in the care of the organization from September through to May. You represent the logo, not just while on the ice but when you are out and about in the community. So, yes, the organization can ask questions. This is not as you mentioned a Criminal matter, how do we know that? No charges have been laid. Yes, it may become one and that opens up a whole new can of worms for all involved. I found it interesting how you open up with how the team has no right to..etc. etc. and then in the later part of your post you give the Team the title of "acting parents" What parent sits back and waits for things to unfold and find out from the police about some crime that their son or daughter may have committed? They can ask questions of the players ... but they don't have any "right" to question them. If they take a young player aside and get the story from him ... and he is later charged ... the person(s) that spoke to him now become a witness for the Crown. The team put themselves in a very difficult situation where they actually have to give evidence against the player. The team should be talking to their own lawyer to ask how to proceed ... and that lawyer will say "just back off, you can do more harm than good by getting involved". The team should be arranging for lawyers for each of these players involved, so any conversations have to go through the lawyers. I agree 100% that the team should be concerned ... their public image has been tarnished no matter what the outcome. But they just can't barge into the middle of a criminal investigation and speak to suspects and witnesses. They have to sit back and wait their turn. If the team went to a young player and said "you'd better tell us what happened or you won't play here again" ... that player is suddenly pressured to give up his story which could be very detrimental to defending himself in court. If that is my kid ... I'm suing the Q and Gatineau for whatever I can get because they just affected his ability to defend himself in court. Your speeding ticket analogy makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by bigtimefan on Feb 27, 2015 10:26:35 GMT -4
anything said to the team would be considered voir dire evidence (hear say)...judge has to have a trial within a trial to see if the evidence can be admissible in court. That being said most times when this evidence is ascertain by a person in authority- teacher, boss etc. it becomes a very grey area as it can be looked at as the person telling the person in authority what they want to hear.I also agree that the team can take discipline towards players in this instance as all players sign a code of conduct that would definately cover this situation and they would be in violation.
|
|
|
Post by bigtimefan on Feb 28, 2015 9:17:49 GMT -4
Another minus 3 night should of been minus 4 as smith just got on the ice when they scored. Although to be fair he did stay on thru 2 1/2 shifts straight and had a hard time getting back over the redline. Frustrating to watch a highly skilled player play this way.......108 pts plus 10!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2015 9:43:18 GMT -4
Wildcats forgot it was a body contact league last night. Played pond hockey and lost. Too many flyby attempts at stick checking players. No bumping or physical play. Barbashev could have played with a dozen eggs in his pocket and not have any broken. Just a brutal effort all around. From the net out.
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Slick on Feb 28, 2015 13:47:40 GMT -4
They got completely outworked by a much hungrier hockey team last night. Not only that, but execution wise it certainly wasn't a banner night for a lot of players.
Like was mentioned in the paper today, they just seemed to think it was going to be easy after grabbing a 2-0 lead early on. Considering who Gatineau has beaten recently there was really no reason to think it would be easy.
I guess the Cats were probably due for a bad game. Hopefully a bounce back tonight.
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Feb 28, 2015 15:43:08 GMT -4
Another minus 3 night should of been minus 4 as smith just got on the ice when they scored. Although to be fair he did stay on thru 2 1/2 shifts straight and had a hard time getting back over the redline. Frustrating to watch a highly skilled player play this way.......108 pts plus 10! So it was all his fault. I see.
|
|
|
Post by MikeC on Mar 1, 2015 9:29:08 GMT -4
anything said to the team would be considered voir dire evidence (hear say)...judge has to have a trial within a trial to see if the evidence can be admissible in court. No, that's not hearsay. Hearsay would be if Person A from the team testified that he heard from Person B what happened, because the players told Person B. The wikipedia example: For example, to prove Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" Since the witness' answer will rely on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, Susan is not available for cross-examination, and it is to prove the truth that Tom was in town, it is hearsay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 9:40:39 GMT -4
Another minus 3 night should of been minus 4 as smith just got on the ice when they scored. Although to be fair he did stay on thru 2 1/2 shifts straight and had a hard time getting back over the redline. Frustrating to watch a highly skilled player play this way.......108 pts plus 10! He's going to be playing for the Wildcats for another 2 years so cut the crap, will ya? Your nonsense posts are getting a little old already.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Mar 1, 2015 10:32:26 GMT -4
Another minus 3 night should of been minus 4 as smith just got on the ice when they scored. Although to be fair he did stay on thru 2 1/2 shifts straight and had a hard time getting back over the redline. Frustrating to watch a highly skilled player play this way.......108 pts plus 10! Garland definitely cheats on offense, but when you have a guy above 100 points you can have that. If Askew or Leger was doing the same, it's a different ballgame. The offense more than offsets the lack of defensive play.
|
|
topnet
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 310
|
Post by topnet on Mar 2, 2015 0:51:15 GMT -4
Not sure I missed anything. These guys were identified as Olympique players, out celebrating after a victory. I Imagine they even had some logo or two floating around on a jacket or hoodie. The team has every right to question these kids, they have every right to inquire about the comportment of their players. Regardless of any formal charges or convictions by the authorities they, the organization can dish out discipline. Now, down the road if there are no charges or convictions, these players disciplined by the team have every right if they felt the discipline by the team may have caused reputation or character damage, they could bring action against the team. If I got a speeding ticket last night my boss the next day can ask me about it, but really it's none of his business ( unless driving is part of my job etc etc.) These kids sign on for the season. They are in the care of the organization from September through to May. You represent the logo, not just while on the ice but when you are out and about in the community. So, yes, the organization can ask questions. This is not as you mentioned a Criminal matter, how do we know that? No charges have been laid. Yes, it may become one and that opens up a whole new can of worms for all involved. I found it interesting how you open up with how the team has no right to..etc. etc. and then in the later part of your post you give the Team the title of "acting parents" What parent sits back and waits for things to unfold and find out from the police about some crime that their son or daughter may have committed? They can ask questions of the players ... but they don't have any "right" to question them. If they take a young player aside and get the story from him ... and he is later charged ... the person(s) that spoke to him now become a witness for the Crown. The team put themselves in a very difficult situation where they actually have to give evidence against the player. The team should be talking to their own lawyer to ask how to proceed ... and that lawyer will say "just back off, you can do more harm than good by getting involved". The team should be arranging for lawyers for each of these players involved, so any conversations have to go through the lawyers. I agree 100% that the team should be concerned ... their public image has been tarnished no matter what the outcome. But they just can't barge into the middle of a criminal investigation and speak to suspects and witnesses. They have to sit back and wait their turn. If the team went to a young player and said "you'd better tell us what happened or you won't play here again" ... that player is suddenly pressured to give up his story which could be very detrimental to defending himself in court. If that is my kid ... I'm suing the Q and Gatineau for whatever I can get because they just affected his ability to defend himself in court. Your speeding ticket analogy makes no sense. 1. I understand now when guys get in confrontational pissin' posts with you. Believe it or not I say that respectfully cause I generally like your posts and views. 2. This thing will probably fade to black and we may not even hear anymore unless some reporter like a dog with a bone keeps hounding the authorities for a follow-up. The team can come up to a player and ask any player any friggin' question they want about a player comportment as a member of their organization. Here we go again, they have the r i g h t to ask the questions. I typed it slow so hope it sticks in. The team can ask a member of their organization any questions they want when it comes to them as representatives of the team. The player on the other hand has the RIGHT not to answer the questions if he believes answering the question(s) may hinder an investigation as in this case. You've got everybody lawyering up. going to be some money being made in Gatineau this spring. In terms of the speeding ticket statement you wrote about. You forgot one word. "Your speeding ticket analogy makes no sense...(you then should have added....) to me (meaning you). Let's say I work as a cashier at Target. I'm driving home from work, or not even that, I am out and about on a day off. My boss drives by as I am getting a ticket. Monday morning he can ask me if I got a ticket. I don't have to answer the question, it is none of his business. I was not representing Target at the time. That is what I was getting at. These boys, were representing the team and that is why it was newsworthy because they were identified not a young teenage hormone charged kids, but Gatineau Junior hockey players. Because they were then the team has the right to ask certain questions. Help me follow this through from your original point. The organization hears from a police call/news reporter/twitter/FB whatever way that some of their players were involved possibly in a criminal activity while celebrating a victory at Boston Pizza. Probably got a call from the Police, almost sure they got a call prior to any parents of any of the players receiving one. But you feel the players should show up on Monday for practice, come into a room, put on their skates and head out for practice with no assumption that someone from management would be stopping by to ask a few questions. That's a utopian world you are living in there. I understand the lash out at the ticket analogy, but there was no reply to my questioning your cake-and-eat-it-too mentality towards the organization having NO right to ask questions and yet have to act on behalf of the players as "stand it parents". I guess we pick and chose our battle topics. respectfully submitted.
|
|
|
Post by bigtimefan on Mar 2, 2015 9:20:01 GMT -4
navigation, search Look up hearsay in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
In law Hearsay is a testimony based on what a witness heard rather that what they witnessed personally.
with the question being asked and no criminal caution statement been read then its inadmissable as the person asking the question is a person in authority(team rep) this is only in the case of it moving forward to criminal proceedings...if it league or team discipline then yes its ok. If what was said to a team or league rep was put forth to police and included in the charge then yes there would be a voir dire
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 11:07:03 GMT -4
navigation, search Look up hearsay in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. In law Hearsay is a testimony based on what a witness heard rather that what they witnessed personally. with the question being asked and no criminal caution statement been read then its inadmissable as the person asking the question is a person in authority(team rep) this is only in the case of it moving forward to criminal proceedings...if it league or team discipline then yes its ok. If what was said to a team or league rep was put forth to police and included in the charge then yes there would be a voir dire Thanks Judge Judy.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Mar 2, 2015 11:42:57 GMT -4
They can ask questions of the players ... but they don't have any "right" to question them. If they take a young player aside and get the story from him ... and he is later charged ... the person(s) that spoke to him now become a witness for the Crown. The team put themselves in a very difficult situation where they actually have to give evidence against the player. The team should be talking to their own lawyer to ask how to proceed ... and that lawyer will say "just back off, you can do more harm than good by getting involved". The team should be arranging for lawyers for each of these players involved, so any conversations have to go through the lawyers. I agree 100% that the team should be concerned ... their public image has been tarnished no matter what the outcome. But they just can't barge into the middle of a criminal investigation and speak to suspects and witnesses. They have to sit back and wait their turn. If the team went to a young player and said "you'd better tell us what happened or you won't play here again" ... that player is suddenly pressured to give up his story which could be very detrimental to defending himself in court. If that is my kid ... I'm suing the Q and Gatineau for whatever I can get because they just affected his ability to defend himself in court. Your speeding ticket analogy makes no sense. 1. I understand now when guys get in confrontational pissin' posts with you. Believe it or not I say that respectfully cause I generally like your posts and views. 2. This thing will probably fade to black and we may not even hear anymore unless some reporter like a dog with a bone keeps hounding the authorities for a follow-up. The team can come up to a player and ask any player any friggin' question they want about a player comportment as a member of their organization. Here we go again, they have the r i g h t to ask the questions. I typed it slow so hope it sticks in. The team can ask a member of their organization any questions they want when it comes to them as representatives of the team. The player on the other hand has the RIGHT not to answer the questions if he believes answering the question(s) may hinder an investigation as in this case. You've got everybody lawyering up. going to be some money being made in Gatineau this spring. In terms of the speeding ticket statement you wrote about. You forgot one word. "Your speeding ticket analogy makes no sense...(you then should have added....) to me (meaning you). Let's say I work as a cashier at Target. I'm driving home from work, or not even that, I am out and about on a day off. My boss drives by as I am getting a ticket. Monday morning he can ask me if I got a ticket. I don't have to answer the question, it is none of his business. I was not representing Target at the time. That is what I was getting at. These boys, were representing the team and that is why it was newsworthy because they were identified not a young teenage hormone charged kids, but Gatineau Junior hockey players. Because they were then the team has the right to ask certain questions. Help me follow this through from your original point. The organization hears from a police call/news reporter/twitter/FB whatever way that some of their players were involved possibly in a criminal activity while celebrating a victory at Boston Pizza. Probably got a call from the Police, almost sure they got a call prior to any parents of any of the players receiving one. But you feel the players should show up on Monday for practice, come into a room, put on their skates and head out for practice with no assumption that someone from management would be stopping by to ask a few questions. That's a utopian world you are living in there. I understand the lash out at the ticket analogy, but there was no reply to my questioning your cake-and-eat-it-too mentality towards the organization having NO right to ask questions and yet have to act on behalf of the players as "stand it parents". I guess we pick and chose our battle topics. respectfully submitted. Sure the team reps can ask questions ... but they can't demand answers or face repercussions (suspensions) without jeopardizing the players defense against current or future charges. The team can do anything they want to do ... but they may face repercussions down the road from doing those things. They have to act in the best interest of the players (that is the responsibility they took on from the parents) involved, and forcing them to tell their story is not in their best interest at this time, until the Police have sorted out the details. Hearsay evidence is allowed in certain circumstances ... when the person that allegedly made the statement is there to deny/defend such a claim. You can't give hearsay evidence for something said by a party that is not involved in the trial. There is also the issue of minors being involved in this also, and I'm not sure how that fits in. Can the team question a minor on the issue of a criminal matter ... without his parents present or a lawyer appointed by the parents ? This isn't a case of missing curfew where the investigation is strictly internal ... this is a criminal matter where a higher "court" takes precedence. Unfortunately, every kid involved in this should have a lawyer ... and yes that costs money. I doubt that the team would pay for all of that, but they would probably make the arrangements in concert with the parents. Anybody going into this without a lawyer is crazy. Right now, the entire 22+ man team is under suspicion because no names have yet been released ... so they all get tarnished, even if they weren't there. So back to your speeding ticket scenario. My boss passes me on the road while I am pulled over and getting a ticket. I am in my own personal vehicle that does nothing to link me to a business. My boss asks me the next day what was going on ... I say well I was pulled over for speeding but I do not believe I was speeding and will contest it ... or I say ... I was pulled over for speeding and I probably was going a little over the limit , so I'll pay the fine and get it over with. I didn't say anything that I'm not prepared to accept. So then lets call our Player John Smith ... Groulx calls him before practice and asks for his side of the story. He says ... I didn't see anything ... I was eating and watching the game on TV. Whether that is true or not that will not hurt him. But if he says ... well ... things got out of hand ... I was holding her arms while the other two were going at it with her, and then I had a turn. Saying that ... while probably very close to the truth ... could be used against him if he pleads not guilty to charges. Then Benoit Groulx could be called to testify against one of his players ... whether he wants to or not. The truth is all that matters ... but Groulx just inserted himself into the case when he shouldn't have been there. I fully understand the implications on the team image and even on the Q's image ... but they have to take a back seat to the criminal investigation and should not interfere until that is concluded. Again ... the best thing they can do for the players is arrange lawyers. Do you think a lawyer representing one of the players would allow his young client to speak freely to Groulx ?
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Mar 2, 2015 11:56:06 GMT -4
1. I understand now when guys get in confrontational pissin' posts with you. Believe it or not I say that respectfully cause I generally like your posts and views. 2. This thing will probably fade to black and we may not even hear anymore unless some reporter like a dog with a bone keeps hounding the authorities for a follow-up. The team can come up to a player and ask any player any friggin' question they want about a player comportment as a member of their organization. Here we go again, they have the r i g h t to ask the questions. I typed it slow so hope it sticks in. The team can ask a member of their organization any questions they want when it comes to them as representatives of the team. The player on the other hand has the RIGHT not to answer the questions if he believes answering the question(s) may hinder an investigation as in this case. You've got everybody lawyering up. going to be some money being made in Gatineau this spring. In terms of the speeding ticket statement you wrote about. You forgot one word. "Your speeding ticket analogy makes no sense...(you then should have added....) to me (meaning you). Let's say I work as a cashier at Target. I'm driving home from work, or not even that, I am out and about on a day off. My boss drives by as I am getting a ticket. Monday morning he can ask me if I got a ticket. I don't have to answer the question, it is none of his business. I was not representing Target at the time. That is what I was getting at. These boys, were representing the team and that is why it was newsworthy because they were identified not a young teenage hormone charged kids, but Gatineau Junior hockey players. Because they were then the team has the right to ask certain questions. Help me follow this through from your original point. The organization hears from a police call/news reporter/twitter/FB whatever way that some of their players were involved possibly in a criminal activity while celebrating a victory at Boston Pizza. Probably got a call from the Police, almost sure they got a call prior to any parents of any of the players receiving one. But you feel the players should show up on Monday for practice, come into a room, put on their skates and head out for practice with no assumption that someone from management would be stopping by to ask a few questions. That's a utopian world you are living in there. I understand the lash out at the ticket analogy, but there was no reply to my questioning your cake-and-eat-it-too mentality towards the organization having NO right to ask questions and yet have to act on behalf of the players as "stand it parents". I guess we pick and chose our battle topics. respectfully submitted. Sure the team reps can ask questions ... but they can't demand answers or face repercussions (suspensions) without jeopardizing the players defense against current or future charges. The team can do anything they want to do ... but they may face repercussions down the road from doing those things. They have to act in the best interest of the players (that is the responsibility they took on from the parents) involved, and forcing them to tell their story is not in their best interest at this time, until the Police have sorted out the details. Hearsay evidence is allowed in certain circumstances ... when the person that allegedly made the statement is there to deny/defend such a claim. You can't give hearsay evidence for something said by a party that is not involved in the trial. There is also the issue of minors being involved in this also, and I'm not sure how that fits in. Can the team question a minor on the issue of a criminal matter ... without his parents present or a lawyer appointed by the parents ? This isn't a case of missing curfew where the investigation is strictly internal ... this is a criminal matter where a higher "court" takes precedence. Unfortunately, every kid involved in this should have a lawyer ... and yes that costs money. I doubt that the team would pay for all of that, but they would probably make the arrangements in concert with the parents. Anybody going into this without a lawyer is crazy. Right now, the entire 22+ man team is under suspicion because no names have yet been released ... so they all get tarnished, even if they weren't there. So back to your speeding ticket scenario. My boss passes me on the road while I am pulled over and getting a ticket. I am in my own personal vehicle that does nothing to link me to a business. My boss asks me the next day what was going on ... I say well I was pulled over for speeding but I do not believe I was speeding and will contest it ... or I say ... I was pulled over for speeding and I probably was going a little over the limit , so I'll pay the fine and get it over with. I didn't say anything that I'm not prepared to accept. So then lets call our Player John Smith ... Groulx calls him before practice and asks for his side of the story. He says ... I didn't see anything ... I was eating and watching the game on TV. Whether that is true or not that will not hurt him. But if he says ... well ... things got out of hand ... I was holding her arms while the other two were going at it with her, and then I had a turn. Saying that ... while probably very close to the truth ... could be used against him if he pleads not guilty to charges. Then Benoit Groulx could be called to testify against one of his players ... whether he wants to or not. The truth is all that matters ... but Groulx just inserted himself into the case when he shouldn't have been there. I fully understand the implications on the team image and even on the Q's image ... but they have to take a back seat to the criminal investigation and should not interfere until that is concluded. Again ... the best thing they can do for the players is arrange lawyers. Do you think a lawyer representing one of the players would allow his young client to speak freely to Groulx ? The part I think you are overlooking is that the team has a much lower burden of proof to discipline the players than the court system does ... If Groulx feels they were probably up to no good, regardless of whether he formed that opinion by talking to them, other witnesses, or just by reading the newspaper, he can act if he so chooses. I don't think anything stops him from suspending them until further notice - say come back once you have it straightened out and can prove your innocence ... and if you can't prove your innocence, don't come back. Of course, that doesn't help Groulx win hockey games - which leads to the current stalemate. IMO, a man of integrity would have acted ... the fact that the Olympiques have done nothing does not reflect well on any of their senior leadership (Groulx or owner).
|
|