Moved Thread #1: Majak Daw -

[TooUglyForFugly]

Me too.

 

[Saintly31]

It was nothing more than a detailed (Tas like ) assessment of how, at this stage, it is not my view that Majak has or will be a victim in the actual sense if proven innocent.

In short, there is absolutely no proof of harm to Majak which is required under the definition of victim. I'll give the Oxford example;
A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action: victims of domestic violence

In Majaks case;
- he has lost been harmed professionally as the club has supported his innocence and as a footballer
- he has lost no future earnings at this stage, nor proof he will if proven innocent
- he has not been injured physically or mentally
- he has not been killed

Emotional harm due to having to face charges does not automatically count as being a victim. Otherwise we are victims every time our lives are interrupted or someone upsets us or what ignorant people like Joe Bloggs down the road might think of us. Completely ignorant yes but not of substantive harm to Majak as who knows, the same ignorant types may think less of Majak (quite obviously wrongly) based on skin colour or race.

The girl may have suffered an absolutely terrible experience. MAY. If proven correct then she is of course a victim. If found innocent though there is;
One - no guarantee it didn't happen, as the evience may not have been substantive enough to reach the required burden of proof.
Two - no guarantee it did happen even if Majak is proven guilty - THEN yes he would most certainly become a victim as an innocent party being substantially harmed by being convicted due to the legal process not being effective. But only then.

At this stage there is absolutely no proof of harm to Majak nor is there anything substantive to suggest it will if proven innocent, which in my view is quite likely. It is going to be hard to prove based on the facts as we know them (and of course we don't know it all).

There. That is similar to what I wrote and if people want to disagree that's fine. I don't agree with him automatically being a victim if proven innocent, and that the girl must have been lying, he will lose sponsors and earnings and so on. They are conclusions reached without substance.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

^ As usual, I totally disagree with you.

If he is innocent of the allegation against him, he is categorically a victim. His reputation, at least, is irreparably harmed by the allegation. Ergo meeting the definition of victim that you have painstakingly (albeit unnecessarily) provided.

 

[Higgins2Waite]

It was nothing more than a detailed (Tas like ) assessment of how, at this stage, it is not my view that Majak has or will be a victim in the actual sense if proven innocent.

In short, there is absolutely no proof of harm to Majak which is required under the definition of victim. I'll give the Oxford example;
A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action: victims of domestic violence

In Majaks case;
- he has lost been harmed professionally as the club has supported his innocence and as a footballer
- he has lost no future earnings at this stage, nor proof he will if proven innocent
- he has not been injured physically or mentally
- he has not been killed

Emotional harm due to having to face charges does not automatically count as being a victim. Otherwise we are victims every time our lives are interrupted or someone upsets us or what ignorant people like Joe Bloggs down the road might think of us. Completely ignorant yes but not of substantive harm to Majak as who knows, the same ignorant types may think less of Majak (quite obviously wrongly) based on skin colour or race.

The girl may have suffered an absolutely terrible experience. MAY. If proven correct then she is of course a victim. If found innocent though there is;
One - no guarantee it didn't happen, as the evience may not have been substantive enough to reach the required burden of proof.
Two - no guarantee it did happen even if Majak is proven guilty - THEN yes he would most certainly become a victim as an innocent party being substantially harmed by being convicted due to the legal process not being effective. But only then.

At this stage there is absolutely no proof of harm to Majak nor is there anything substantive to suggest it will if proven innocent, which in my view is quite likely. It is going to be hard to prove based on the facts as we know them (and of course we don't know it all).

There. That is similar to what I wrote and if people want to disagree that's fine. I don't agree with him automatically being a victim if proven innocent, and that the girl must have been lying, he will lose sponsors and earnings and so on. They are conclusions reached without substance.

I disagree with some parts of it Saintly. Simply because we just don't know the ins and outs.

If the allegations are false and she was lying (e.g completely fabricated for whatever reason or they did the deed, everything was fine, later changed her mind for whatever reason). He absolutely has been the victim.

We don't know if sponsor x is sitting in the conference room as we speak discussing with other members why they shouldn't approach Majak for sponsorship. Current sponsors may be sticking around (similar to sponsors at *essendon currently) based on legal commitments (can't jump ship unless guilty verdict etc). But he could be losing potential memberships and even if innocent there is that doubt in peoples minds. Once again we just don't know. To say there is no proof of harm is a conclusion reached without substance.

We also don't know if he has been affected mentally. As i've mentioned before - imagine trying to focus on the last year of your contract with this hanging over your head. He'd have to be ridiculously strong mentally for it not to impact him. Yes he's an athlete but athletes see psychologists all the time for a host of different reasons (e.g Harper - and that is nothing in comparison).

Also a difference between emotion brought on by a court case vs people on big footy harassing me (sorry LB2snake get over it I was right!)

 

[Saintly31]

I disagree with some parts of it Saintly. Simply because we just don't know the ins and outs.

If the allegations are false and she was lying (e.g completely fabricated for whatever reason or they did the deed, everything was fine, later changed her mind for whatever reason). He absolutely has been the victim.

We don't know if sponsor x is sitting in the conference room as we speak discussing with other members why they shouldn't approach Majak for sponsorship. Current sponsors may be sticking around (similar to sponsors at *essendon currently) based on legal commitments (can't jump ship unless guilty verdict etc). But he could be losing potential memberships and even if innocent there is that doubt in peoples minds. Once again we just don't know. To say there is no proof of harm is a conclusion reached without substance.

We also don't know if he has been affected mentally. As i've mentioned before - imagine trying to focus on the last year of your contract with this hanging over your head. He'd have to be ridiculously strong mentally for it not to impact him. Yes he's an athlete but athletes see psychologists all the time for a host of different reasons (e.g Harper - and that is nothing in comparison).

Also a difference between emotion brought on by a court case vs people on big footy harassing me (sorry LB2snake get over it I was right!)

Why? Where is the substantive harm or injury to reach that conclusion.

You also rely on hypotheticals. If those hypotheticals were to become reality then yes, he may indeed be a victim but at this stage and potentially future he most certainly is not.

He is in fact very lucky we have such a fair judicial process. Other countries are not so lucky.

 

[Saintly31]

^ As usual, I totally disagree with you.

If he is innocent of the allegation against him, he is categorically a victim. His reputation, at least, is irreparably harmed by the allegation. Ergo meeting the definition of victim that you have painstakingly (albeit unnecessarily) provided.

Again, his "reputation is irreparably harmed". What does that actually mean if it doesn't affect him personally or professionally and no proof of harm? He might even benefit as the "AFL player who beat false charges" and be able to use his experience for the positive.

People are found not guilty all the time and they are not victims rather exonerated. Why you want to isolate Majak as someone different to any other defendant says more about your assertion Majak is different than it does anything else in reality.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Again, his "reputation is irreparably harmed". What does that actually mean if it doesn't affect him personally or professionally?

By definition, "reputation is irreparably harmed" DOES affect him personally and professionally.

 

[Saintly31]

By definition, "reputation is irreparably harmed" DOES affect him personally and professionally.

That's only if it is/was irreparably harmed. There is no evidence of that, so again it's irrelevant.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

That's only if it is/was irreparably harmed. There is no evidence of that, so again it's irrelevant.

Mate, give up on this circular, semantics-driven argument. I said IF. We all said IF. So, IF he is innocent, then his reputation is irreparably damaged. There is zero chance that his reputation is restored to the point before the allegation was made. Zero. So, IF he is innocent, he is the victim here.

 

[Saintly31]

Mate, give up on this circular, semantics-driven argument. I said IF. We all said IF. So, IF he is innocent, then his reputation is irreparably damaged. There is zero chance that his reputation is restored to the point before the allegation was made. Zero. So, IF he is innocent, he is the victim here.

You have an opinion. You aren't always right but I (at least) respect it.

But no, in bold he isn't.

He has just been exonerated as part of our legal system.

Nothing more.

His reputation may even be enhanced if it were to come out the girl was lying, and how Majak handles himself during and what transpires after. That is the result we should be hoping for.

 

[Higgins2Waite]

Why? Where is the substantive harm or injury to reach that conclusion.

You also rely on hypotheticals. If those hypotheticals were to become reality then yes, he may indeed be a victim but at this stage and potentially future he most certainly is not.

He is in fact very lucky we have such a fair judicial process. Other countries are not so lucky.

I know you like to look at it from a law point of view but if you look at it from a human perspective you would have to it could cause harm. Of course I'm looking at it from a hypothetical...as are you.

I'm not Majak, Majak's mum or his psychologist so I don't know the inner workings of his mind. It's naive to think all of this is not affecting him. So much is said these days about depression and we know people bottle things up. A major event such as this, crossed with constant injuries + pressure of earning a new contract + potential loss of income + public perception...I would not be surprised if it impacted him severely.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

You have an opinion. You aren't always right but I (at least) respect it.

But no, in bold he isn't.

He has just been exonerated as part of our legal system.

Nothing more.

His reputation may even be enhanced if it were to come out the girl was lying, and how Majak handles himself during and what transpires after. That is the result we should be hoping for.

Nah. Again you choose to ignore arguments that counter your own inflexible view. I'll repeat the bit that any reasonable person would agree with "There is zero chance that his reputation is restored to the point before the allegation was made. Zero."

 

[Saintly31]

I know you like to look at it from a law point of view but if you look at it from a human perspective you would have to it could cause harm. Of course I'm looking at it from a hypothetical...as are you.

I'm not Majak, Majak's mum or his psychologist so I don't know the inner workings of his mind. It's naive to think all of this is not affecting him. So much is said these days about depression and we know people bottle things up. A major event such as this, crossed with constant injuries + pressure of earning a new contract + potential loss of income + public perception...I would not be surprised if it impacted him severely.

Neither do I mate. But it hasn't as yet from all reports so claiming it has when it really hasn't is just hypothetical - especially when we don't the facts.

Then for sure if found not guilty then that is massively unfair. No suggestion of that at the moment though.

 

[Saintly31]

Nah. Again you choose to ignore arguments that counter your own inflexible view. I'll repeat the bit that any reasonable person would agree with "There is zero chance that his reputation is restored to the point before the allegation was made. Zero."

I'm not ignoring you or counter arguments. I don't agree with you or them.

Majak is unaffected as it stands and is current life has continued. We didn't cut his contract nor has any other material party shown disrespect to Majak. As it should be under the innocent until proven guilty principle and Majak is rightly afforded that.

I know you like to be always right and get upset if not agreed with.

 

[Higgins2Waite]

Neither do I mate. But it hasn't as yet from all reports so claiming it has when it really hasn't is just hypothetical - especially when we don't the facts.

Then for sure if found not guilty then that is massively unfair. No suggestion of that at the moment though.

Just because it hasn't been reported doesn't mean it isn't true.

At the end of the day we are both making assumptions. it's safe to say I'm speaking about Majak the human, whereas you are speaking about Majak the non-feeling robot.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I'm not ignoring you or counter arguments. I don't agree with you or them.

Majak is unaffected as it stands and is current life has continued. We didn't cut his contract nor has any other material party shown disrespect to Majak. As it should be under the innocent until proven guilty principle and Majak is rightly afforded that.

I know you like to be always right and get upset if not agreed with.

Nah, missed or ignored the point again. It's not an ‘opinion’ to state that Majak is unaffected as it stands, because it's a question of fact. You tend to confuse this distinction regularly.

Only Majak can know if he is ‘unaffected’.

I suspect if you polled men accused of rape as to whether or not they are affected by the accusation pre-trial, not many would tick the ‘unaffected’ box.

 

[Dan]

 

[Saintly31]

Nah, missed or ignored the point again. It's not an ‘opinion’ to state that Majak is unaffected as it stands, because it's a question of fact. You tend to confuse this distinction regularly.

Only Majak can know if he is ‘unaffected’.

I suspect if you polled men accused of rape as to whether or not they are affected by the accusation pre-trial, not many would tick the ‘unaffected’ box.

So yes, once again we don't know. You are relying on assumptions not facts.

Hence don't call Majak a victim when there is no evidence to suggest he is.

Pretty simple and I don't care what poll you wish to take amongst those charged with rape, it is irrelevant as every case and situation is different.

 

[naturally north]

By the time this is resolved either way I expect Daw to have already been de-listed based purely on his AFL/VFL footballing output. Has given himself every chance of succeeding, prepares like a true sporting professional from what you can see, but still has glaring weakness' after years in the system.

I agree and also looking forward to Currie, McKenize, Tarrant, Jacobs, Dumont- ya know court case, drafted in 2013 no one can say he's delivered anything but bad press.

Another poor season from Black- gone, Tippett first drafted back in 1816 by University from memory. Horace can probably confirm that


Garner gone, Harper gone.

So ten players gone at the end of the season including Daw.

Hope draft picks #1087 and #1099 turn out alright, not sure what type of players we'd be looking at around those picks?

Yes Daw has weaknesses but so do 75% of footballers drafted. I see so many take the field game after game for their respective AFL sides, but I'm struggling to understand why so many North fans on BF find Majak on our list insulting? Can someone please enlighten me. Especially as we've Drew and now Waite both nearing the end of the road, and apart from two youngsters in Brown and Durdin I don't see many other options in our KP fwd stocks.

I still think he's worth persisting with in the ruck/fwd department. And if he hits his straps at the ripe old age of 26 I fail to see how that's a problem. But it's only my opinion of course. But I need not worry ( court case aside) the North hierarchy rate him highly.

 

[Rockstar6]

Being charged with rape isnt a charge to be laughed at. IF Majak is proven innocent, I sincerely hope he does sue her for defamation! Or at the bare minimum, the girl in question is hit with a conviction or massive fine for being a bullsh!t artist. You cant just go around saying someone raped you 6 or 7 years ago. I'm not Maj's biggest fan but I truly think he is innocent.

 

[Jay-Z]

I think the only thing that would change Saintly's mind was if he was wrongly accused of a similar charge (not wishing that on him btw). Or maybe then he would still talk about how he is unaffected by it.

But by all means, ignore me and continue arguing semantics. It makes such riveting reading

 

[Saintly31]

I think the only thing that would change Saintly's mind was if he was wrongly accused of a similar charge (not wishing that on him btw). Or maybe then he would still talk about how he is unaffected by it.

But by all means, ignore me and continue arguing semantics. It makes such riveting reading

I didn't say he would be unaffected, I said that being found not guilty alone and having to face charges does not make him a victim.

 

[gokangas]

Being charged with rape isnt a charge to be laughed at. IF Majak is proven innocent, I sincerely hope he does sue her for defamation! Or at the bare minimum, the girl in question is hit with a conviction or massive fine for being a bullsh!t artist. You cant just go around saying someone raped you 6 or 7 years ago. I'm not Maj's biggest fan but I truly think he is innocent.

If the Police have laid charges they believe there is a case to answer. Suing for false accusation rarely, if ever, happens. The girl clearly thinks she was raped and the Police are saying there is enough evidence to put before a court for a decision. Neither you nor I have any idea if Majak is innocent or guilty, unless you were there on the night. The legal system will run its course.

 

[Saintly31]

Being charged with rape isnt a charge to be laughed at. IF Majak is proven innocent, I sincerely hope he does sue her for defamation! Or at the bare minimum, the girl in question is hit with a conviction or massive fine for being a bullsh!t artist. You cant just go around saying someone raped you 6 or 7 years ago. I'm not Maj's biggest fan but I truly think he is innocent.

Why is the girl a liar if Majak is found innocent? Amazing comment.

Being found not guilty does not mean the charge did not have merit, rather it did not reach the burden of proof required.

 

[naturally north]

Why is the girl a liar if Majak is found innocent? Amazing comment.

Being found not guilty does not mean the charge did not have merit, rather it did not reach the burden of proof required.

True comment that, but it also doesn't mean she didn't make it up. As apposed to being a 'burden of proof' required.