Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[Argus]

So you don't think choking someone is assault?

I know a woman who confesses to enjoying being choked during sex. It's actually not that unusual.

[Argus]

Apparently they disclosed enough to police that when it got to the crown, charges were deemed appropriate. Which once again goes to the concept of lax pre trial preperation.

The assumption a witness is telling the truth is absurd from the basis that the police should be neutral in processing information and deciding on its value. We know that any witness can be mistaken, or even dishonest, on any subject. It is not the duty of police to comfort and sympathize but to arrive at the truth.

Police should change their approach to allegations of sex abuse and not automatically believe the complainant, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has suggested. Speaking at a BBC event, the Met Police commissioner said it was time to "reformulate" the policy, so police showed empathy towards victims but kept an open mind as they tested claims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35546690

Perhaps that policy, which the Toronto sexual assault unit follows, was at fault for the witnesses not being thoroughly questioned.

The first complainant, for instance, was interviewed once, a process that took less than an hour and which, after time deducted for various standard cautions, saw the woman “tell her story” for 14 minutes, and detectives question her for a grand total of 35 minutes.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/christie-blatchford-the-ghomeshi-sex-assault-case-started-falling-apart-right-from-the-start

Edited February 15, 2016 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

The assumption a witness is telling the truth is absurd from the basis that the police should be neutral in processing information and deciding on its value. We know that any witness can be mistaken, or even dishonest, on any subject. It is not the duty of police to comfort and sympathize but to arrive at the truth.

Police should change their approach to allegations of sex abuse and not automatically believe the complainant, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has suggested. Speaking at a BBC event, the Met Police commissioner said it was time to "reformulate" the policy, so police showed empathy towards victims but kept an open mind as they tested claims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35546690

Perhaps that policy, which the Toronto sexual assault unit follows, was at fault for the witnesses not being thoroughly questioned.

The first complainant, for instance, was interviewed once, a process that took less than an hour and which, after time deducted for various standard cautions, saw the woman “tell her story” for 14 minutes, and detectives question her for a grand total of 35 minutes.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/christie-blatchford-the-ghomeshi-sex-assault-case-started-falling-apart-right-from-the-start

Um, my post sums up what you have just pointed out, but simply a shorter version.

[cybercoma]

I know a woman who confesses to enjoying being choked during sex. It's actually not that unusual.

Does she file charges against people after they do it?

I know someone who likes kickboxing. I guess he doesn't get to file charges if someone assaults him in the street.

[On Guard for Thee]

I know a woman who confesses to enjoying being choked during sex. It's actually not that unusual.

That's fine, as long as it starts, and remains consensual. Stop, at any point, means stop, according to the law.

[Big Guy]

Notwithstanding the results, It will be interesting to see if the complaintants go to civil court for damages. Civil court only requires a "preponderance" of the evidence - i.e. more likely than not - for guilt.

[On Guard for Thee]

Notwithstanding the results, It will be interesting to see if the complaintants go to civil court for damages. Civil court only requires a "preponderance" of the evidence - i.e. more likely than not - for guilt.

Actually in Canada it's known as the "balance of probability", but I suspect they very well may.

[bush_cheney2004]

Notwithstanding the results, It will be interesting to see if the complaintants go to civil court for damages. Civil court only requires a "preponderance" of the evidence - i.e. more likely than not - for guilt.

I think that's an American term....learned from watching so much American media in Canada.

Example: some Canadians think they have "Miranda rights"....because of U.S. cop shows.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think that's an American term....learned from watching so much American media in Canada.

Example: some Canadians think they have "Miranda rights"....because of U.S. cop shows.

Already been corrected, thanks.

[TimG]

Youre arguing that people who act irrationally can't be assaulted.

I said nothing of the sort. You need to read what I wrote more carefully. I said, that the irrational actions were material evidence that should be disclosed at trial. If they were not hidden and included in the original crown testimony then the crown could submit any number of reasonable explanations for the irrational behavior. However, by keeping it hidden and lying to the police the witnesses undermined their own credibility and raised doubt about all of their accusations. IOW. I am saying if you are assaulted and act irrationally after the fact then don't hide it from the police.

You're also stepping away from your comment that explicitly said cops should be "more adversarial" to sexual assault victims.

I said " If offending the sensibilities of the complainants is necessary to get the entire truth out before trial then so be it." which is another way of stating more adversarial. How adversarial depends on how forthcoming the complainants are. Edited February 15, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

Um, my post sums up what you have just pointed out, but simply a shorter version.

You said there was lax pre trial preparation. What I'm saying is that witnesses need to be challenged to ascertain the full truth of what happened, not simply believed, as is presently the case.

[On Guard for Thee]

You said there was lax pre trial preparation. What I'm saying is that witnesses need to be challenged to ascertain the full truth of what happened, not simply believed, as is presently the case.

I am saying what is now happening at trial, should have happened pre trial. The crown obviously determined there was enough evidence to go to trial.

[Hal 9000]

I think it's the police's job to take the statement/complaint and pass it over to the Crown if need be. I don't think cops interrogate complainants too much. I know that if a woman calls the cops on a domestic, the cops don't try to sort out the truth, they take the man away to jail - nearly every time.

Maybe some women don't feel comfortable with telling the cops every detail, and prefer to talk to a lawyer.

[Hal 9000]

I am saying what is now happening at trial, should have happened pre trial. The crown obviously determined there was enough evidence to go to trial.

So, what procedural issues got in the way of this trial?

[On Guard for Thee]

So, what procedural issues got in the way of this trial?

I refer you to post 962.

[Hal 9000]

I refer you to post 962.

You can't just suggest that because the Crown wasn't good enough, we should determine that to be a procedural issue and enter a guilty verdict.

[On Guard for Thee]

You can't just suggest that because the Crown wasn't good enough, we should determine that to be a procedural issue and enter a guilty verdict.

And who do you propose is suggesting such a thing?

[Argus]

I am saying what is now happening at trial, should have happened pre trial. The crown obviously determined there was enough evidence to go to trial.

But the process in place at the moment is based on believing whatever sexual assault complainants say, without challenge.

[On Guard for Thee]

But the process in place at the moment is based on believing whatever sexual assault complainants say, without challenge.

I wonder where the hell you came up with that idea. However you do seem to like wild assumptions. Would you care to try to back this one up?

[Hal 9000]

And who do you propose is suggesting such a thing?

Simple deductions. Because you people have such a difficult time explain your points, we are forced to extract tidbits of info.

Cybercoma has suggested that the inevitable loss will be due to "procedural Issues". You have backed him up by saying that that includes not preparing the complaintants. You have commented that the women weren't prepared well enough - and I somewhat agree. But they were prepared as good as the Crown deemed necessary . The simple deduction is that we should consider this poor, albeit accomplished preparation as a procedural error and back to what cyber suggested (and you backed), not allow someone to go free based on errors in procedural issues.

I fully agree that the Crown messed up big time, but that's just how it goes sometime. I would rather see Ghomeshi walk free, then send him to prison while not 100% sure of guilt - and based on this trial, no one other than him (and maybe not even him) knows his level of guilt.

[On Guard for Thee]

Simple deductions. Because you people have such a difficult time explain your points, we are forced to extract tidbits of info.

Cybercoma has suggested that the inevitable loss will be due to "procedural Issues". You have backed him up by saying that that includes not preparing the complaintants. You have commented that the women weren't prepared well enough - and I somewhat agree. But they were prepared as good as the Crown deemed necessary . The simple deduction is that we should consider this poor, albeit accomplished preparation as a procedural error and back to what cyber suggested (and you backed), not allow someone to go free based on errors in procedural issues.

I fully agree that the Crown messed up big time, but that's just how it goes sometime. I would rather see Ghomeshi walk free, then send him to prison while not 100% sure of guilt - and based on this trial, no one other than him (and maybe not even him) knows his level of guilt.

Well the so called "simple deduction" you have so awkwardly tried to discuss, is not one anyone I have read here has arrived at. But yes Ghomeshi will in all likelihood go free, for the simple reason that the burden of proof is on the crown, and it's unlikely they have achieved that.

[Hal 9000]

Well the so called "simple deduction" you have so awkwardly tried to discuss, is not one anyone I have read here has arrived at. But yes Ghomeshi will in all likelihood go free, for the simple reason that the burden of proof is on the crown, and it's unlikely they have achieved that.

As it should be.

The less responsibility we put on the Crown to actually prove their cases, the more danger we're in as a society. I'd like to believe complainants and help them ease whatever they're going through, but we just can't do that if it means putting potential innocents in prison or labelling them offenders.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Hal 9000

[On Guard for Thee]

As it should be.

The less responsibility we put on the Crown to actually prove their cases, the more danger we're in as a society. I'd like to believe complainants and help them ease whatever they're going through, but we just can't do that if it means putting potential innocents in prison or labelling them offenders.

It has nothing to do with easing what a complainant is going through. If they are going through something perhaps that speaks to the guilt of the accused. Your statement is simply a general one that is rather clumsy. What is a "potential innocent" for instance?.More specifically, a long time ago it was understood that in these types of cases, complainants were at an extreme disadvantage due to the opportunity for completely unfair and biased cross examination from the defense, which is why the Rape Shield law was introduced. But it is often breached still. I expect we will see these type cases moving more and more into civil courts.

[Hal 9000]

I have to explain what a potential innocent is; Really?

It is a person who is potentially innocent.

[On Guard for Thee]

I have to explain what a potential innocent is; Really?

It is a person who is potentially innocent.

So that would be the population of the earth not convicted of anything.