HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Guy Lafleur accused of perjury.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-31-2008, 07:16 AM
  #101
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven91 View Post
It seems like nearly everyone in this thread is ready to convict Lafluer already. May I remind you that we have the persumtion of innocence in this country. Until either Lafluer or his son are proven guilty they are still considered inocent. I'm not saying that they arn't guilty but they do deserve there day in court before people start assuming they are guilty.

Second of all I've seen reference made to the fact that Heatley didn't get jail time used as an arguement that Lafluer won't get jail time simply because they both have celebrity status. They Heatley case was enterly different. He killed one of his best friends and team mates in a tragic car accident, obviously he never intented to do this and the guilt he has to live with is likely punishment enough. Second the Snyder family didn't want to see Heatley do jail time, they too realized that what happened was a mistake and that their son would not have wanted to see Healtey spent time behind bars.

Here's an artice on the whole Lafluer situation,
http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=228547&hubname=
I was about to edit my earlier post to add a comment like that, but I'll just quote your instead.


__________________
Hey look, it's Duffman; the guy in a costume that creates awareness of Duff!
Darz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 07:18 AM
  #102
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4 View Post
Was that the mix up where he crashed his Porsche in a tunnel and cut his ear? I recall thinking at the time that it was very Van Gogh of the Flower.
The stry, as it was reported years ago, was that he had dinner with Picard at Thurday's. I remember Picard being interviewed at the time about alcohol consumption. Keep in mind how different that was viewed 25 years ago.

The stories then came out about how the police took care of him and some other details became part of the story that probably weren't in the papers.

Different world ehhh. Back then, celebrity gave you a pass, it doesn't anymore, moreso it paints a target on you.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 07:29 AM
  #103
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven91 View Post
It seems like nearly everyone in this thread is ready to convict Lafluer already. May I remind you that we have the persumtion of innocence in this country. Until either Lafluer or his son are proven guilty they are still considered inocent. I'm not saying that they arn't guilty but they do deserve there day in court before people start assuming they are guilty.

Second of all I've seen reference made to the fact that Heatley didn't get jail time used as an arguement that Lafluer won't get jail time simply because they both have celebrity status. They Heatley case was enterly different. He killed one of his best friends and team mates in a tragic car accident, obviously he never intented to do this and the guilt he has to live with is likely punishment enough. Second the Snyder family didn't want to see Heatley do jail time, they too realized that what happened was a mistake and that their son would not have wanted to see Healtey spent time behind bars.

Here's an artice on the whole Lafluer situation,
http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=228547&hubname=

Well said. I believe there are a lot of parents who have gone a lot farther to shield a kid in jeopardy. When it is decided in court you have to believe that it'll be determined whether he broke the law, exercised bad judgement or is being pursued by someone trying to make a name for themselves.

Something about Heatley doesn't sit right with me, I'm not a fan of the guy due to my own vague impressions. I could be way off though as I often say, what the hell do I know ? I don't think Heatley walked away unscathed from this or profited from his minor celebrity [Atlanta] status.

It's just too easy to run at the mouth. When the Ramage case was discussed a few weeks back, I read posts that assumed the Snyder case was alcohol related. I've read some assumptions about Lafleur in this thread.

We make fun of what we read in line at the grocery store but we sure seem to revel in it.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 07:40 AM
  #104
CacaLauncher23
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 311
vCash: 500
I hope it remains a private legal issue and doesn't get blown out of proportion by the media. I don't care about what Guy Lafleur is doing now. It isn't my business.

CacaLauncher23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 07:49 AM
  #105
ThePriceisRight
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CacaLauncher23 View Post
I hope it remains a private legal issue and doesn't get blown out of proportion by the media. I don't care about what Guy Lafleur is doing now. It isn't my business.
Lafleur is a public figure, just hope his lawyer isn't a fourth liner in his law firm!!

ThePriceisRight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 07:52 AM
  #106
Habs10Habs
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Habs10Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CacaLauncher23 View Post
I hope it remains a private legal issue and doesn't get blown out of proportion by the media. I don't care about what Guy Lafleur is doing now. It isn't my business.
Very good point, but sadly you should already know that is not going to happen.

__________________
Don Cherry is right...you don't poke the bear..you walk right up to it and punch it in the mouth. - Grant McCagg
Habs10Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 08:20 AM
  #107
CacaLauncher23
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs10Habs View Post
Very good point, but sadly you should already know that is not going to happen.
One can always dream. All we need is a slightly more irrelevant controversy that papers will deem more worthy of printing.

Celine Dion going into rehab would do the trick

CacaLauncher23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 08:23 AM
  #108
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
The stry, as it was reported years ago, was that he had dinner with Picard at Thurday's. I remember Picard being interviewed at the time about alcohol consumption. Keep in mind how different that was viewed 25 years ago.

The stories then came out about how the police took care of him and some other details became part of the story that probably weren't in the papers.

Different world ehhh. Back then, celebrity gave you a pass, it doesn't anymore, moreso it paints a target on you.
Different times indeed, fortunately by the time I reached drinking age (and driving age) there was a heavy stigma attached to getting behind the wheel while drunk. Contrast that with my father (retired now, but a cop for 30+ years) and his stories of racing across the Champlain Bridge while completely blitzed. I don't hold Guy's conduct in the 70's to todays standard at all, the norm has shifted significantly.

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 08:24 AM
  #109
Habs10Habs
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Habs10Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CacaLauncher23 View Post
One can always dream. All we need is a slightly more irrelevant controversy that papers will deem more worthy of printing.

Celine Dion going into rehab would do the trick
Haha...thanks for the laugh, but yes that is so true.

Habs10Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 08:26 AM
  #110
CacaLauncher23
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePriceisRight View Post
Lafleur was a public figure, just hope his lawyer isn't a fourth liner in his law firm!!
Fixed it for you.

He's a public figure in people's memory because he was a hockey hero. Lafleur now writes for a crappy journal every now and then and owns a Mike's restaurant in Berthierville. We're not exactly talking about the Prime Minister here.

I couldn't care less what he happens in his personal life. But voyeurism sells, so be prepared to hear about this for weeks until it makes you nauseous.

CacaLauncher23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 08:28 AM
  #111
CacaLauncher23
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 311
vCash: 500
On a related note, I'd rather read about Alex Kovalev's personal life.

In fact, I want to date him.

CacaLauncher23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 08:43 AM
  #112
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
He'll beat the rap.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 09:42 AM
  #113
Batarnac
Registered User
 
Batarnac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 541
vCash: 1285
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewHabsArea View Post
lol you still have to learn about life.. You know nothing about his son and Guy Lafleur personally, you have no clue about what really happened, you can make all judgements you want, you are not in his shoes.. Guy probably decided to believe in his son and give him another chance..
First, if you want me to take your post seriously, you souldn't use lol in it, especially when you're telling me I have to learn about life.

I don't know any of them personnaly and all I know about the case is what I have read in newspapers. Guy might have decided to believe in his son even though he showed on numerous occasions that he was not a reliable person and that, to my eyes, never express the desire to change or even to aknowledge that what he did was wrong. But he could have invited the underaged girl over instead of driving his son to the motel when he knew it was illegal to do so. In fact, he could have done many things to try to help his son and show him he really cared. He decided to do otherwise, he must face the consequences.

Batarnac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 10:07 AM
  #114
Batarnac
Registered User
 
Batarnac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 541
vCash: 1285
Here's an article by Rejean Tremblay on the subject.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20...1/CPOPINIONS05

I moslty disagree with him because he is trying to minimize what Guy did, but I agree that the way to get to him is close to abuse.

And a comment by Patrick Lagacé, with who I totally agree, especially the part about the picture.

http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/lagace/?p=70720855


Last edited by Batarnac: 01-31-2008 at 10:15 AM.
Batarnac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 10:17 AM
  #115
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven91 View Post
May I remind you that we have the persumtion of innocence in this country. Until either Lafluer or his son are proven guilty they are still considered inocent. I'm not saying that they arn't guilty but they do deserve there day in court before people start assuming they are guilty.
Nothing at all wrong with this post, in fact it's bang on.

However, in my opinion another reminder is also in order. Lafleur's son is facing over 20 criminal charges and they are not trivial. Here's a sample of a few of the charges and the possible punishments.

Uttering threats
If it was a death threat or a threat of bodily harm the punishment can be up to 5 years in prison.

Armed assault
Up to 10 years in prison.

Forcible confinement
Either a prison term of up to 10 years (in the case of an indictable offence) or a prison term of up to 18 months (in the case of a summary conviction).

Sexual assault
Either a prison term of up to 10 years (in the case of an indictable offence) or a prison term of up to 18 months (in the case of a summary conviction).

Point being, this is not a trivial matter and those that glibly throw out the "he's only protecting his son" rationale really don't have a grasp on gravity of the situation.

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 10:51 AM
  #116
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4 View Post
Point being, this is not a trivial matter and those that glibly throw out the "he's only protecting his son" rationale really don't have a grasp on gravity of the situation.
I agree, he's innocent until proven guilty.

For the point of discussion though, assuming that Guy is guilty of lying: Its easy for us to sit here and objectively say that he was wrong. After all, he lied in court, obstructed justice and worked towards getting a supsected criminal off. What he did was wrong.

But I think you're being a little unfair here. Its his son. Sometimes its hard to do what you know is right when it affects your kids. Its not an excuse and it doesn't mean that he should be let off the hook, but I can certainly understand it.

Again, assuming he did it... it was the wrong thing to do. Lafleur should be accountable for this and there's no excuse for it. But I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for him and the situation that he was put into.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 10:57 AM
  #117
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I agree, he's innocent until proven guilty.

For the point of discussion though, assuming that Guy is guilty of lying: Its easy for us to sit here and objectively say that he was wrong. After all, he lied in court, obstructed justice and worked towards getting a supsected criminal off. What he did was wrong.

But I think you're being a little unfair here. Its his son. Sometimes its hard to do what you know is right when it affects your kids. Its not an excuse and it doesn't mean that he should be let off the hook, but I can certainly understand it.

Again, assuming he did it... it was the wrong thing to do. Lafleur should be accountable for this and there's no excuse for it. But I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for him and the situation that he was put into.
I do empathize with Guy, however some people seem to be looking past the fact that his son's alleged conduct is not synonymous with getting a speeding ticket.

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 11:00 AM
  #118
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Parent View Post
Hey I don't know. They could make an exemple out of him.

But I don't expect him to be in a hardcore prison if he goes.
I guess Guy won't need his Viagra if he's only going to a "softcore" prison. He can just fake it and not have to worry about the money shot!

Estimated_Prophet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 11:07 AM
  #119
Habnot
 
Habnot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4 View Post
Nothing at all wrong with this post, in fact it's bang on.

However, in my opinion another reminder is also in order. Lafleur's son is facing over 20 criminal charges and they are not trivial. Here's a sample of a few of the charges and the possible punishments.

Uttering threats
If it was a death threat or a threat of bodily harm the punishment can be up to 5 years in prison.

Armed assault
Up to 10 years in prison.

Forcible confinement
Either a prison term of up to 10 years (in the case of an indictable offence) or a prison term of up to 18 months (in the case of a summary conviction).

Sexual assault
Either a prison term of up to 10 years (in the case of an indictable offence) or a prison term of up to 18 months (in the case of a summary conviction).

Point being, this is not a trivial matter and those that glibly throw out the "he's only protecting his son" rationale really don't have a grasp on gravity of the situation.
I have to agree with this. I was listening to CKAC when the story broke and I couldn't find the sympathy in the situation. Anyway you look at it, breaking the law is breaking the law. Not only did he "allegedly" purger himself, but he also "allegedly" facilitated the sexual assault by driving his son to a hotel so that he can have relations with a 16 year old. If you have children, that is despicable.

Furthermore, there is a difference between lying to the prosecutor and not incriminating your son. I'm not a legal expert but can they force you to testify against your own son? It might be that Lafleur deliberately misled to help his son.

Habnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 11:22 AM
  #120
Batarnac
Registered User
 
Batarnac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 541
vCash: 1285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
I have to agree with this. I was listening to CKAC when the story broke and I couldn't find the sympathy in the situation. Anyway you look at it, breaking the law is breaking the law. Not only did he "allegedly" purger himself, but he also "allegedly" facilitated the sexual assault by driving his son to a hotel so that he can have relations with a 16 year old. If you have children, that is despicable.

Furthermore, there is a difference between lying to the prosecutor and not incriminating your son. I'm not a legal expert but can they force you to testify against your own son? It might be that Lafleur deliberately misled to help his son.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the charge for sexual assault came before, with another girl. However, I think it didn't turn really well with the young girl he went to see at the hotel either.

Batarnac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 11:27 AM
  #121
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4 View Post
I do empathize with Guy, however some people seem to be looking past the fact that his son's alleged conduct is not synonymous with getting a speeding ticket.
Exactly. Look at it from the POV of the girl's family. I'd want the guy in jail as well as anyone who tried to cover for him.

__________________
Yours in Christ,

waffledave
waffledave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 11:28 AM
  #122
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4 View Post
I do empathize with Guy, however some people seem to be looking past the fact that his son's alleged conduct is not synonymous with getting a speeding ticket.
Fair enough.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 11:35 AM
  #123
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eatthatquestion View Post
Here's an article by Rejean Tremblay on the subject.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20...1/CPOPINIONS05

I moslty disagree with him because he is trying to minimize what Guy did, but I agree that the way to get to him is close to abuse.

And a comment by Patrick Lagacé, with who I totally agree, especially the part about the picture.

http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/lagace/?p=70720855

Wow.... two guys, totally at the opposite of each other, one is the epitome of what is wrong with journalism nowadays and the other one is the perfect example of how journalists should do their work, a real example of originality and pure objectivism.

Réjaune should retire already.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 12:02 PM
  #124
ToysInTheAttic
Registered User
 
ToysInTheAttic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Saint John, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot View Post
I have to agree with this. I was listening to CKAC when the story broke and I couldn't find the sympathy in the situation. Anyway you look at it, breaking the law is breaking the law. Not only did he "allegedly" purger himself, but he also "allegedly" facilitated the sexual assault by driving his son to a hotel so that he can have relations with a 16 year old. If you have children, that is despicable.

Furthermore, there is a difference between lying to the prosecutor and not incriminating your son. I'm not a legal expert but can they force you to testify against your own son? It might be that Lafleur deliberately misled to help his son.
What Guy is being charged with is aiding his son to break curfew while awaiting trial.

As for his 23 year old son having relations with a 16 year old girl at a hotel, this may be unethical to a lot of people, but if he met her with her consent this would not be illegal before the law unless the age of consent has been changed. I don't think it has been changed.

ToysInTheAttic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2008, 12:06 PM
  #125
CanadienErrant*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: Cook Islands
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eatthatquestion View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the charge for sexual assault came before, with another girl. However, I think it didn't turn really well with the young girl he went to see at the hotel either.
Yeah. Most people on this thread have their facts all screwed up. First, Mark Lafleur has the Tourette Syndrom - nothing to laugh about. If you add alcohol + drugs to that, it is a dangerous mix that can lead to all kinds of bad behaviour. He did, in fact, kept a girl prisoner and had non consentual sexual acts with her. Which is of course, punishable in Court.

At first, he got some psychatric and desintox treatments and they released him and put him under the custody of his parents (in the wait of the trial) - Guy and his wife. I guess Guy judged that his son was doing better when he allowed him to go to a hotel one night to meet another girlfriend. Maybe, Mark should not had been there. But who are the girl's parents in this chapter ? They knew about Mark's problems. That girl too. Of course, it was going against the release's conditions, and that is where Guy, to protect his son, lied about.

Now, Mark Lafleur is already in jail (or a similar place) because he did not respect the conditions.

Now it is becoming a big media freak show. There was no point treating Guy Lafleur like that. They just had to send him - like they do 90% of the time - the freagin" letter, by special mail and ask him to show up at a certain date in Court to answer some questions. Lafleur is no criminal and they know where he lives. he is nor a criminal on the run. Vincent Lacroix who milked 9000 people of their savings stayed in his home the last two years since he was accused.

Where is the ****ing justice ?


Last edited by CanadienErrant*: 01-31-2008 at 12:12 PM.
CanadienErrant* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.