[News] Patrick Kane being investigated for rape. UPD: DA announces no charges

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Brando

I think if he is guilty of rape he should go to jail for a very long time. If this truly happened it could have caused her life to spiral out of control to the point she is today. When a girl says no or to stop then stop. My mother and two of her sisters were molested as pre teens by a family friend so that may add to why I feel so strongly.

Uhhh what?

He should have his life ruined for not stopping for three seconds.

What type of child was that woman that that destroyed her whole life.

[Brando]

Lol. Man I don't know what type of child she was but I am sure being raped by someone they trust could be pretty traumatic and cause someone to take meds that could be addicting. Who knows? I have never been raped.

[Hackey]

6 years after it took place she went to the police and told them he went for 3 seconds too long during consensual sex and they were a couple and now he has this entire legal mess?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Brando

Lol. Man I don't know what type of child she was but I am sure being raped by someone they trust could be pretty traumatic and cause someone to take meds that could be addicting. Who knows? I have never been raped.

Jesus, I guess I've raped my girlfriend then. She says owe stop and I do one more thrust in the heat of the moment.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by Hackey

6 years after it took place she went to the police and told them he went for 3 seconds too long during consensual sex and they were a couple and now he has this entire legal mess?

Yeah that sound super flimsy. If that's really the incident she's citing I'd be surprised he even was being investigated, let alone arrested. I'd say there's more to the story than he's told you.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

I'm not well versed in legal procedure. Does the RCMP arrest people soley on allegations? Is that a thing? On the surface that story sounds sketchy and the woman doesn't seem credible but I can't believe they would arrest someone without some compelling evidence...

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I'm not well versed in legal procedure. Does the RCMP arrest people soley on allegations? Is that a thing? On the surface that story sounds sketchy and the woman doesn't seem credible but I can't believe they would arrest someone without some compelling evidence...

Arrest is such a complicated thing in Canada, but I'm nearly 100% sure allegations do not warrant arrest unless there is evidence.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This simply is not true. In Canada, the Crown frequently prosecutes sexual assaults based purely on the statement of a complainant (which, as you correctly note, is the only Crown evidence in the majority of sexual assault cases). Further, courts frequently convict an accused person solely or primarily on the basis of a complainant's evidence so long as, after being subjected to cross-examination etc., the complainant's evidence is credible and the evidence of the accused (if he or she testifies) is not credible enough to raise a reasonable doubt.

This is technically true, but (and I readily admit my own lack of practical experience in this area of the law), seems like it would and very much should be a longshot in real life.

I just cannot conceive of the situation where it's literally a he-said-she-said and there's no reasonable basis for doubt that what the complainant says is true. Even if you think the complainant is extremely convincing and the defendant extremely shifty and unlikable, there still has to be a reasonable possibility that that superficial assessment is wrong, without more.

Honestly, given inherent biological biases (e.g. our predilection for trusting people who are attractive or the same race as we are) this should not really be permitted as a basis for conviction as a matter of public policy, in my view. To some extent we have to allow fact finders to assess credibility but pinning everything on that assessment, especially when done by a lay jury, seems horrifying to me.

Glad I don't do criminal law...

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Organizations that are aggressively trying to expand the definition of rape think they're doing the right thing for women. But when they overstep the bounds of rational sense so far - in this case trying to get sex that leaves one of the participants regretful and unhappy qualified as rape - they're courting a public and legal backlash. In their crusading zeal they seem to have abandoned all sense of proportionality and logic.

As is the case with just about everything that you can stir up a frenzy on social media for, these days.

[Brando]

I do know the whole story. I left out a lot of details that I didn't think were pertinent but now I see one detail I should have shared is that this all happened on their first attempt at anal sex. Lol. I never intended to have a conversation about this I only wanted to tell the poster that I quoted that it is very easy to be charged with rape. Yes the rcmp will arrest based on allegations. That is why I even posted which I rarely do because it was crazy to me how easily she got his life turned upside down even considering all the things she has done.

[jemjey]

Originally Posted by DJones

Jesus, I guess I've raped my girlfriend then. She says owe stop and I do one more thrust in the heat of the moment.

ew

[Brando]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Arrest is such a complicated thing in Canada, but I'm nearly 100% sure allegations do not warrant arrest unless there is evidence.

They most certainly did. He was placed in cuffs and taken to the police station and interrogated for hours based on her narrative. That sounds like arresting on allegations to me.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Brando

I do know the whole story. I left out a lot of details that I didn't think were pertinent but now I see one detail I should have shared is that this all happened on their first attempt at anal sex. Lol. I never intended to have a conversation about this I only wanted to tell the poster that I quoted that it is very easy to be charged with rape. Yes the rcmp will arrest based on allegations. That is why I even posted which I rarely do because it was crazy to me how easily she got his life turned upside down even considering all the things she has done.

I think it's time to stop discussing your buddy now.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I haven't read the actual article where the excerts came from but seems like people just reported what they saw. A woman who was with Kane for a couple hours and was flirty with him. Kane wasn't drunk out of his mind. He was being respectful. He wasn't sure if it was the same girl or not. I mean I guess that could be trying to steer perception a certain way but it could also just be the truth. Doesn't seem like he's insinuating anything.

the article was a lot worse than that

http://www.dailypublic.com/articles/...about-pat-kane

this explains the huge issues with it

[sureLoss]

[Poe969]

I guess that's one way of getting around the curse that comes with being on the cover of the EA NHL game.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I guess that's one way of getting around the curse that comes with being on the cover of the EA NHL game.

Or it's proof of its existence

[Inglewood Jack]

I'd say that's confirmation of the curse...Toews better stay inside his house for the rest of the summer

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I guess that's one way of getting around the curse that comes with being on the cover of the EA NHL game.

I don't think he really got around the curse.

[bax]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Or it's proof of its existence

Toews and Kane have both been on the cover before

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is technically true, but (and I readily admit my own lack of practical experience in this area of the law), seems like it would and very much should be a longshot in real life.

I just cannot conceive of the situation where it's literally a he-said-she-said and there's no reasonable basis for doubt that what the complainant says is true. Even if you think the complainant is extremely convincing and the defendant extremely shifty and unlikable, there still has to be a reasonable possibility that that superficial assessment is wrong, without more.

Honestly, given inherent biological biases (e.g. our predilection for trusting people who are attractive or the same race as we are) this should not really be permitted as a basis for conviction as a matter of public policy, in my view. To some extent we have to allow fact finders to assess credibility but pinning everything on that assessment, especially when done by a lay jury, seems horrifying to me.

Glad I don't do criminal law...

Many criminal charges (for offences other than sexual assault) are laid on the basis of one witness' statement or account. Many convictions (for offences other than sexual assault) are entered solely or primarily on the basis of one witness' statement or account. Our entire legal system depends on trusting judges to apply the rules of evidence and on trusting the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) weigh the admissible evidence and make findings of fact accordingly. Indeed, one of the most oft-cited cases of criminal evidence, R. v. W.D., deals precisely with the classic dilemma of the he said, she said trial.