|
Post by SteveUL on Mar 2, 2015 12:13:55 GMT -4
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). Oh I agree ... they have a much smaller burden of proof ... but they certainly better have their facts straight if they are going to suspend somebody when there are "sexual misconduct" allegations being tossed around. If you suspend "John Smith" without getting the full story ... with all the media attention, you have just branded the kid as a "rapist" in the public. What do you think the parents will do after that ? The team is in a very precarious position. Criminal matters have cropped up before for players in the Q and so I hope the Q has procedures in place that teams must follow. In this case they also have a duty to the other 16 or so players that weren't involved because they are being tarnished as well. A few years back this happened to the University of Ottawa ... similar story ... and the University suspended the entire hockey program which for I guess which has become two years now. That approach sort of places dirt on many players that weren't involved, and now I understand that some of them are suing the university for that type of defamation. That was an easy decision for the university as they are in the business of education ... and not hockey. Gatineau is in the business of hockey so suspending an entire team ... or even 12 guys ... really decimates the business.
|
|
|
Post by npsh on Mar 2, 2015 13:57:27 GMT -4
If there is talk/suggestion of criminal matters, I would hope those players involved would be made aware of their constitutional rights, obtain advise from a CDA and heed such instructions without delay.
|
|
topnet
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 310
|
Post by topnet on Mar 2, 2015 16:01:17 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 ? Fair enough and enough said on the topic, but, just wondering why Groulx in your story gets a chance to ask Player John Smith a question since in your opinion he doesn't have the RIGHT to ask any questions. I believe he has the right to and can ask those questions you mentioned above. If the player wasn't there or had zero knowledge then fine, next. How can you say "Groulx just inserted himself into the case when he shouldn't be there" Of course he should be there. You yourself mentioned in an earlier post that the team act as parents on behalf of these players. Must be the arms length parenting technique "here son is the yellow pages, get a lawyer" You ended with a question. The answer is is No a lawyer of a guilty player would not want him to talk to anyone. 12 kids at a Boston pizza and you have them all getting lawyered up with the help of the organization. I would say that the only ones that might need a lawyer are the guilty players involved. We'll see how it plays out. I wonder how this would have played out if it was a Wildcat issue. Not fun to think about. But, it makes you wonder about the differences in organizational mentality and moral fibre. Look at the present situation. Trainer gets busted some time back in the summer. Case comes up in the February and as soon as they (upper management) are made aware of the situation the team cuts ties with the offending employee. Imagine how much stuff in junior hockey never comes to light.
|
|
|
Post by npsh on Mar 3, 2015 13:02:07 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Mar 3, 2015 13:39:17 GMT -4
The Police are now calling this a "Public Sex Act" so it appears they are no longer investigating any sort of sexual assault. Not sure about Quebec, but this type of crime is often classed as a "misdemeanor". Where Quebec is very liberal about sex and nudity, I would expect they were better off to have this happen in Gatineau rather than over in Ottawa ... but just guessing. Now that the magnitude of the crime has sort of been identified by the Police, the team can now step in and do their own investigation, without stepping on the toes of the Police. IMO, the team acted appropriately in waiting for the Police to do their thing. Question: Does a conviction of a public sex act land you on the sex offender registry ? I'm thinking of that incident that occurred on an Air Canada flight recently, and I believe that both parties in that have now had their names added to the sex offender registry. Of course it probably depends on the ages of the participants also. Being on that list can do a whole lot to ruin a person's life.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Mar 3, 2015 14:35:24 GMT -4
The Police are now calling this a "Public Sex Act" so it appears they are no longer investigating any sort of sexual assault. Not sure about Quebec, but this type of crime is often classed as a "misdemeanor". Where Quebec is very liberal about sex and nudity, I would expect they were better off to have this happen in Gatineau rather than over in Ottawa ... but just guessing. Now that the magnitude of the crime has sort of been identified by the Police, the team can now step in and do their own investigation, without stepping on the toes of the Police. IMO, the team acted appropriately in waiting for the Police to do their thing. Question: Does a conviction of a public sex act land you on the sex offender registry ? I'm thinking of that incident that occurred on an Air Canada flight recently, and I believe that both parties in that have now had their names added to the sex offender registry. Of course it probably depends on the ages of the participants also. Being on that list can do a whole lot to ruin a person's life. The linked story is over a week old - there is nothing new here ... Whatever investigation the Olympiques are conducting is being kept quiet with no apparent consequences for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by bois on Mar 3, 2015 14:42:39 GMT -4
Exactly
Any repercussions will happen when the season is over
and that shows the character of Benoit Groulx yet again
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Mar 3, 2015 16:51:14 GMT -4
Exactly Any repercussions will happen when the season is over and that shows the character of Benoit Groulx yet again It would be the owners of the team that would be directing this. Groulx is just an employee taking orders.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Mar 3, 2015 16:52:12 GMT -4
Exactly Any repercussions will happen when the season is over and that shows the character of Benoit Groulx yet again Based on what you think you know ... what kind of punishment do you think is appropriate ?
|
|
|
Post by bois on Mar 3, 2015 19:11:53 GMT -4
Based on what we think we know benching the players involved would be the appropriate action to take but Groulx wants to make the playoffs because of his gm job he did so he wont do that.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Mar 3, 2015 19:48:46 GMT -4
Based on what we think we know benching the players involved would be the appropriate action to take but Groulx wants to make the playoffs because of his gm job he did so he wont do that. Ok ... but for how long ? The season ? A couple of games? Some more than others ?
|
|
|
Post by bois on Mar 3, 2015 20:53:31 GMT -4
Based on what we think we know benching the players involved would be the appropriate action to take but Groulx wants to make the playoffs because of his gm job he did so he wont do that. Ok ... but for how long ? The season ? A couple of games? Some more than others ? How long? not sure The season? perhaps some more than others? most likely but he did none of that... and nobody can tell me it's for any legal ramifactions... it's because he wants to make the playoffs and was very much in doubt of that happening when the incident occurred
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 21:41:51 GMT -4
Ok ... but for how long ? The season ? A couple of games? Some more than others ? How long? not sure The season? perhaps some more than others? most likely but he did none of that... and nobody can tell me it's for any legal ramifactions... it's because he wants to make the playoffs and was very much in doubt of that happening when the incident occurred Stop...just stop. You sound like a jilted ex lover of Groulx. Seriously, you spewed crap and half truths about Groulx all through the World Juniors. Now you are ranting from your own mangled conclusions about moral compasses and who controls suspensions of players who haven't been proven guilty of any wrong doing. Get counseling it isn't healthy to be so obsessed with a middle aged man.
|
|
|
Post by bigtimefan on Mar 4, 2015 9:44:48 GMT -4
misdemeanor is and American Law term....Canada the equivalent is a Summary Conviction...in this case Public sex could be considered A Dual Procedure offence which means it could go by way of Summary conviction or an indictable offence. and yes a judge can order upon conviction for someone to be added to the SOR.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Mar 4, 2015 11:58:43 GMT -4
misdemeanor is and American Law term....Canada the equivalent is a Summary Conviction...in this case Public sex could be considered A Dual Procedure offence which means it could go by way of Summary conviction or an indictable offence. and yes a judge can order upon conviction for someone to be added to the SOR. Thanks. So perhaps 6 in a bathroom might be viewed more severely than just a man and woman in the bathroom.
|
|