Lafleur comments about Subban

[DON]

But, idiot or not #10 is not fond of Subban's 'antics', just like uber idiot Archie Bunker Don Cherry was ranting about and not fond of a few years ago also.

[Neech]

Lafleur may be dumb, but making sweeping judgments about his worth as a human being away from the rink seems like an overreach given the circumstances. Especially since we're only talking about him because of some off the cuff comments about PK. Lots of former players in all sports have dumb opinions on the current state of the game and its players.

[Commandant]

Lafleur may be dumb, but making sweeping judgments about his worth as a human being away from the rink seems like an overreach given the circumstances. Especially since we're only talking about him because of some off the cuff comments about PK. Lots of former players in all sports have dumb opinions on the current state of the game and its players.

My judgment of his worth has nothing to do with his statement about PK.

My judgment of his worth has to do with his being an accessory to the crime of rape.... to lying under oath.... and to being involved in numerous DUIs.

[Guest Stogey24]

Brian can you move the lafleur stuff to a more suitable location? I wish to argue more about it. Thanks

Ha

[BCHabnut]

I can just see them talking together. "Hey Mark. You like rape? I can give you a ride so can go do rape and such!" "Gee thanks dad. Your the best!" "Anything for you champ"

[Commandant]

I can just see them talking together. "Hey Mark. You like rape? I can give you a ride so can go do rape and such!" "Gee thanks dad. Your the best!" "Anything for you champ"

His son HAD ALREADY BEEN ARRESTED CHARGED WITH THE CRIME and was under a RESTRAINING ORDER not to be with that girl.

Guy Lafleur was well aware of both those facts. He was well aware that his son had been charged with raping the girl, and that the judge ordered his son to be under curfew and not to be within 500 meters of that girl.

Despite the fact that Lafleur bailed his son out, and was aware of all the allegations there, and pledged as his surety to ensure his son was home on time.

He still drove him to the hotel to meet up with the underage girl again.

But sure, lets play the ignorance card here.

[habs rule]

Ok just so we are clear. Guy's adopted son Mark is a troubled individual. Guy like any good father backs him, and tries to help him, what else would you expect?

from wiki:

"Lafleur's son Mark had a number of run-ins with the law, including charges of sexual assault. Mark remained at his father's house as part of his bail conditions. In 2008, questions about Lafleur's testimony in his son's case resulted in an arrest warrant being issued for Lafleur, which his lawyer criticized as an unnecessary embarrassment.^[11] In 2009 Lafleur was charged with obstruction of justice for helping Mark to break his curfew by driving him to a hotel to see his girlfriend; the trial was scheduled for April 2009. Lafleur has filed a $2.8 million civil suit against police and prosecutors, claiming that his rights were violated.^[12]

On May 1, 2009, Lafleur was convicted and on June 18, 2009, was given a one-year suspended sentence. Lafleur was also fined $100 and ordered to donate $10,000 to charity.^[13][14]

On August 17, 2010, Lafleur was unanimously acquitted of all charges by the Quebec Court of Appeal, throwing out his previous conviction." Cleared of all charges, seems pretty clear to me. So he is despicable because he has a SON who is nuts? He gave him a ride to see the kid's girl freind. I cannot find any reference to rape on that night. What? you think Guy held her down while Mark raped her? You know some people just have to so holier than thou, that it gets stupid. I have never ever in my life done anything stupid nor have I ever hurt anyone. And if you believe that, I want you to come and buy my restaurant cause you gonna give me far more than it is worth. I will go live on the Margarita islands.

[BCHabnut]

His son HAD ALREADY BEEN ARRESTED CHARGED WITH THE CRIME and was under a RESTRAINING ORDER not to be with that girl.

Guy Lafleur was well aware of both those facts. He was well aware that his son had been charged with raping the girl, and that the judge ordered his son to be under curfew and not to be within 500 meters of that girl.

Despite the fact that Lafleur bailed his son out, and was aware of all the allegations there, and pledged as his surety to ensure his son was home on time.

He still drove him to the hotel to meet up with the underage girl again.

But sure, lets play the ignorance card here.

I don't believe there was a rape charge. Sexual assault was acqitted. There was definitely never an underage charge. Age of consent prior to 2008 was 14. At the time mark was 19 I believe. I think what you had was an effed up young man and an effed up girl doing a tonne of drugs and Mark manipulating and abusing this girl. I don't doubt that.

What I doubt is the role Guy took in all this. The hotel rides were over 2 years after the initial crimes allegedly took place. I say allegedly because he was never convicted of a sex crime. Mark probably manipulated Guy as well and painted it over as a fight with his girlfriend. The one he was still seeing 3 years later at the hotel. A crime allegedly took place in 2004 and mark went to meet the victim in 2007.

I would say Guy used some bad judgement with the hotel trips and he should have endured his spoiled kid's pleas. I do know that parents want to make their kids happy and are usually unwilling to admit that they are bad or have done something bad. You portray it as some premeditated rape scandal.

Guys conviction was later overturned.

Edit. I agree with you that he was aware of the charges and the restraining order. Where I disagree is the severity of Guy's intentions. The restraining order was years old and they were still seeing each other.

[Commandant]

Ok just so we are clear. Guy's adopted son Mark is a troubled individual. Guy like any good father backs him, and tries to help him, what else would you expect?

Tries to help him????

We have a different definition of tries to help him.

Driving him to a hotel so he can meet up with a girl that he is up on charges of statuatory rape for being with her when she was 14, is not my idea of helping a troubled individual.

Enabling? yes

Helping? No

As far as the conviction goes or not... Guy did it, he lied under oath about it, then he got off on a technicality. If you followed the case, it was clear. Guy knew his son was under curfew and under a restraining order from a girl who he was charged with statuatory rape. He drove him to the hotel anyway. He was found guilty, the court of appeal overturned it on a technicality where the police ed up gathering evidence.

He's as innocent as O.J. Simpson is innocent of the murder of his wife and Goldman. But sure, lets believe him anyway. (not saying the action is the same as murder; just saying both are guilty and got off on technicalities).

Same with his DUI... he got off on the DUI cause he was the most famous hockey player in the world. He still drove his car drunk and nearly killed himself, and could have killed someone else.

But you want to keep defending him, and say he's not an asshole; go ahead.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Lafleur was always kind of an idiot savant. A true 'natural,' as Dryden called him - but those gifts seem to have enabled him never really to mature into a level-headed individual (as opposed to a guy who smokes like a chimney, spouts off fatuous opinions, drinks and drives to the point of near-suicide, gets embroiled with his son's criminal bullsh*t, etc., etc.). Anyway, it's what he did on the ice that matters most. Let's remember that Patrick Roy was/is probably a wife-beater. What we relate to is the man on the ice, and on the ice, these were true greats.

[Commandant]

Lafleur was always kind of an idiot savant. A true 'natural,' as Dryden called him - but those gifts seem to have enabled him never really to mature into a level-headed individual (as opposed to a guy who smokes like a chimney, spouts off fatuous opinions, drinks and drives to the point of near-suicide, gets embroiled with his son's criminal bullsh*t, etc., etc.). Anyway, it's what he did on the ice that matters most. Let's remember that Patrick Roy was/is probably a wife-beater. What we relate to is the man on the ice, and on the ice, these were true greats.

I said earlier, great hockey player... despicable human being.

Nothing he did off the ice diminishes his on-ice accomplishments.

Nothing he did on the ice, forgives him for his stupidity off of it.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Lafleur was always kind of an idiot savant. A true 'natural,' as Dryden called him - but those gifts seem to have enabled him never really to mature into a level-headed individual (as opposed to a guy who smokes like a chimney, spouts off fatuous opinions, drinks and drives to the point of near-suicide, gets embroiled with his son's criminal bullsh*t, etc., etc.). Anyway, it's what he did on the ice that matters most. Let's remember that Patrick Roy was/is probably a wife-beater. What we relate to is the man on the ice, and on the ice, these were true greats.

The only complicated one for me was Damphousse. First he was charged with assaulting his wife and then it was reversed to be that his wife assaulted him. I don't know if that was just celebrity superstar hockey player getting a break or his wife did beat him, 911 was called and they just assumed assault = husband.

[BCHabnut]

There was no statutory rape charge. The age of consent prior to 08 was 14. There was a sexual assault charge which was dropped. The assault was alledged to have happened in 05 yet they were together in 07. You keep saying statutory rape and underage. I would argue that the dispicable scum Guy was manipulated by his kid into thinking it was a troubled relationship and they love each other and want to be together. Since the hotel visit was nearly three years after the time of the initial incedent, I would say that is more reasonable than to say that evil Guy conspired to commit rape with his kid. It's ridiculous. Guy was convicted and the conviction was later overturned. Judges consulted on it and decided he was not guilty. Mark Lafleur is a messed up spoiled kid who took a bunch of drugs and abused his girlfriend. Guy did not do these things. He didn't take him to meet her the next day. It was three years later. Obviously there is more to the story than was released to the press.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

There was no statutory rape charge. The age of consent prior to 08 was 14. There was a sexual assault charge which was dropped. The assault was alledged to have happened in 05 yet they were together in 07. You keep saying statutory rape and underage. I would argue that the dispicable scum Guy was manipulated by his kid into thinking it was a troubled relationship and they love each other and want to be together. Since the hotel visit was nearly three years after the time of the initial incedent, I would say that is more reasonable than to say that evil Guy conspired to commit rape with his kid. It's ridiculous. Guy was convicted and the conviction was later overturned. Judges consulted on it and decided he was not guilty. Mark Lafleur is a messed up spoiled kid who took a bunch of drugs and abused his girlfriend. Guy did not do these things. He didn't take him to meet her the next day. It was three years later. Obviously there is more to the story than was released to the press.

Your focus is on the law and not on ethics. Once upon a time it was okay to own slaves. That doesn't excuse slave owners just because they were not breaking the law. Any adult who took advantage of the age of consent when it was 14 was absolute scum.

"Mark Lafleur is a messed up kid" no Mark Lafleur is privileged scum of the earth who knows his daddy will get him bailed out of whatever he does.

[KoRP]

...And the meek shall inherit the earth.

[Commandant]

There was no statutory rape charge. The age of consent prior to 08 was 14. There was a sexual assault charge which was dropped. The assault was alledged to have happened in 05 yet they were together in 07. You keep saying statutory rape and underage. I would argue that the dispicable scum Guy was manipulated by his kid into thinking it was a troubled relationship and they love each other and want to be together. Since the hotel visit was nearly three years after the time of the initial incedent, I would say that is more reasonable than to say that evil Guy conspired to commit rape with his kid. It's ridiculous. Guy was convicted and the conviction was later overturned. Judges consulted on it and decided he was not guilty. Mark Lafleur is a messed up spoiled kid who took a bunch of drugs and abused his girlfriend. Guy did not do these things. He didn't take him to meet her the next day. It was three years later. Obviously there is more to the story than was released to the press.

Whether it was the next day or three days later doesn't really matter, its a weak justification because you don't want to admit that someone who was good at hockey is a scumbag off the ice. Your entire post is full of weak justifications. Thats fine, I see USC fans and Buffalo Bills on twitter all the time who still think O.J. didn't do it cause he was found not guilty and there is "more to the story than was released to the press"....

Thats fine though, many people find it hard to admit that their heroes are flawed.

[KoRP]

Funny, the "weak justifications", don't sound any better than the less than sure thing "assumptions and accusations".

Can we drop it already?

[ehjay]

Whether it was the next day or three days later doesn't really matter, its a weak justification because you don't want to admit that someone who was good at hockey is a scumbag off the ice. Your entire post is full of weak justifications. Thats fine, I see USC fans and Buffalo Bills on twitter all the time who still think O.J. didn't do it cause he was found not guilty and there is "more to the story than was released to the press"....

Thats fine though, many people find it hard to admit that their heroes are flawed.

O.J. didn't do it, the glove do fit!

Jonny showed a silly monkey and it all made sence.

here is a reenactment:

[BCHabnut]

Whether it was the next day or three days later doesn't really matter, its a weak justification because you don't want to admit that someone who was good at hockey is a scumbag off the ice. Your entire post is full of weak justifications. Thats fine, I see USC fans and Buffalo Bills on twitter all the time who still think O.J. didn't do it cause he was found not guilty and there is "more to the story than was released to the press"....

Thats fine though, many people find it hard to admit that their heroes are flawed.

Weak justifications? Your words were accessory to rape. There was no rape. I think it does matter that it was three years later. Not from our perspective, but from Guys perspective. Maybe He sees his kid as a messed up kid with maturity issues who is trying to patch things up in a long term relationship. Drawing parallel between premeditated murder and what Guy did is just insane. I won't even respond to that. Lafleur was acquitted by a panel of three judges. The judges reviewed the evidence and overturned it. Not a jury which can be manipulated.

I have no doubt that mark lafleur is a scum bag. I do doubt that guy lafleur was willing to admit it in 2007. Parents want to see the best in their children and many parents do not do their kids any favours by spoiling them. He spoiled his kids and probably wasn't a very good father. His stance from the beginning should have been that he didn't want anything to do with the situation. I have no doubt about any of that. I just don't believe (maybe it's just my tiny little pee brain being starstruck), that the hotel car ride is enough for me to label him a dispicable human being.

[Commandant]

What was his son charged for? Oh yeah, sexual assault ie Rape.

And yes the judges let him off on a technicality; doesn't change the facts

- Here is fact: he helped his son break curfew and meet up with the woman that his son was on trial for sexual assault against.

- In other incidents, He has repeatedly driven his own car while pissed drunk.

doesn't matter what else you want to spin, these are two things that Guy Lafleur has choosen to do.

[DON]

When did #10 get DUIs? 80's?

What did he get convicted of besides driving offenses?

[habs rule]

Tries to help him????

We have a different definition of tries to help him.

Driving him to a hotel so he can meet up with a girl that he is up on charges of statuatory rape for being with her when she was 14, is not my idea of helping a troubled individual.

Enabling? yes

Helping? No

As far as the conviction goes or not... Guy did it, he lied under oath about it, then he got off on a technicality. If you followed the case, it was clear. Guy knew his son was under curfew and under a restraining order from a girl who he was charged with statuatory rape. He drove him to the hotel anyway. He was found guilty, the court of appeal overturned it on a technicality where the police ######ed up gathering evidence.

He's as innocent as O.J. Simpson is innocent of the murder of his wife and Goldman. But sure, lets believe him anyway. (not saying the action is the same as murder; just saying both are guilty and got off on technicalities).

Same with his DUI... he got off on the DUI cause he was the most famous hockey player in the world. He still drove his car drunk and nearly killed himself, and could have killed someone else.

But you want to keep defending him, and say he's not an asshole; go ahead.

Wow you got a lot of hate in you. Hey sorry , you have issues other than this story. I hope that all is well with you. May the great pumpkin anoint you.

[BCHabnut]

No need to get personal. Commandant has a strong argument. It's a tough one to argue. I just question some of the details of the story, so I decided to give Guy the benefit of the doubt. Not Mark. The kid is a mess. But Guys involvement in the mess.

[Commandant]

When did #10 get DUIs? 80's?

What did he get convicted of besides driving offenses?

He got off of an Accessory on a technicality.

He got off of Perjury on a technicality.

This just in: Famous people sometimes get away with crimes they commit and don't always get convicted.

Wow you got a lot of hate in you. Hey sorry , you have issues other than this story. I hope that all is well with you. May the great pumpkin anoint you.

Says the guy who has said far worse... and gone on far longer... about therrien, a man who has never been in any type of off-ice issue.

Sure, but I'm the one with issues, cause i don't worship at the feet of lafleur.

[DON]

He got off of an Accessory on a technicality.

He got off of Perjury on a technicality.

This just in: Famous people sometimes get away with crimes they commit and don't always get convicted.

Says the guy who has said far worse... and gone on far longer... about therrien, a man who has never been in any type of off-ice issue.

Sure, but I'm the one with issues, cause i don't worship at the feet of lafleur.

So he has spent zero time in jail?

And drinking and driving was very common 30years ago, I know many who did it after parties, golf, hockey, ball, etc and were not bad people, in hindsight was poor judgement and for sure ruined many lives...but we also used to use DDT as fly repellant for babies (it worked very well).