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

[Poe969]

I wonder if the hawks are going to cut ties with Kane regardless of things, and by cut ties I mean trade. It seems like bad news and press just follow him around, winning may make up for it but this is a pretty big issue. I wouldn't be surprised if he's on a different team within a year.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I wonder if the hawks are going to cut ties with Kane regardless of things, and by cut ties I mean trade. It seems like bad news and press just follow him around, winning may make up for it but this is a pretty big issue. I wouldn't be surprised if he's on a different team within a year.

The monster new contract will make trading him a challenge.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I wonder if the hawks are going to cut ties with Kane regardless of things, and by cut ties I mean trade. It seems like bad news and press just follow him around, winning may make up for it but this is a pretty big issue. I wouldn't be surprised if he's on a different team within a year.

No Saad and Sharp is one thing but losing all those guys plus Kane, not sure that's a playoff team.

[Poe969]

They lost Saad and Sharp before this incident. If this would have happened right after the cup, I think things would have happened differently. Kane has a big contract but he's also a huge star. I think a lot of teams would be interested if he became available and the hawks wouldn't do too bad in a deal. I just think that if things go bad (Kane is found guilty), the team may want to distance themselves from him.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by saillias

No Saad and Sharp is one thing but losing all those guys plus Kane, not sure that's a playoff team.

Yea, they're definitely gonna have a hard time making it now. It's hard for me to say a team with Toews, Keith, Seabrook and Hossa isn't a playoff team though. Definitely not cup favourites without Kane, Saad and Sharp, but I think they can still make the playoffs.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Poe969

They lost Saad and Sharp before this incident. If this would have happened right after the cup, I think things would have happened differently. Kane has a big contract but he's also a huge star. I think a lot of teams would be interested if he became available and the hawks wouldn't do too bad in a deal. I just think that if things go bad (Kane is found guilty), the team may want to distance themselves from him.

If the Hawks, who would have the most goodwill towards him, want to distance themselves from him then I doubt too many teams would be lining up to welcome him with open arms.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by zamler

That article is confusing, so Kane could be charged with something other than rape? Like what? The article talks about a 3rd strike but if he's found innocent then how is that a 3rd strike. Sounds like the team wants to dump Kane because he has the word "rape" associated with him doesn't matter if he did it or not.

Depending on the facts, forcible touching, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse all might be possibilities under the New York State penal code.

From what we understand, he bit her at least twice so assault seems likely.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Locke

If the Hawks, who would have the most goodwill towards him, want to distance themselves from him then I doubt too many teams would be lining up to welcome him with open arms.

The LA Kings seem to be pretty scummy. If it weren't for his cap hit, I bet they'd welcome him.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would assume that if the Hawks hit him with a disciplinary suspension, that they will get the same kind of cap relief that an injured player would get you.

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by driveway

Looks like the Blackhawks are going to do the right thing:



http://sportsmockery.com/2015/08/bla...-patrick-kane/

If he is not charged, or charged and found innocent, I hope he's immediately back on the roster. So long as the investigation is ongoing I think it's the right thing to do to keep him off the ice.

Just so everyone knows sportsmockery is an absolute joke of a website and should hold less credibility than Eklund.

[jayswin]

nm

[jayswin]

[QUOTE=Strange Brew;5408804]

Originally Posted by DJones

I don't understand your post. Maybe you don't understand the purpose of a grand jury?

Just be clear that was Djones who said that. You screwed up the quote string the first time you quoted us so now it looks like I'm saying everything Djones is.

It would be nice if Djones would come back and defend his controversial comment, though. Basically suggesting that he doesn't trust the police so Kane should have to face a trial even if the police don't lay a charge.

EDIT: And I don't know how to unscrew up a screwed up quote string, so I guess it will keep going!

[DJones]

[QUOTE=jayswin;5408928]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Just be clear that was Djones who said that. You screwed up the quote string the first time you quoted us so now it looks like I'm saying everything Djones is.

It would be nice if Djones would come back and defend his controversial comment, though. Basically suggesting that he doesn't trust the police so Kane should have to face a trial even if the police don't lay a charge.

EDIT: And I don't know how to unscrew up a screwed up quote string, so I guess it will keep going!

The whole problem with rape charges is the fact that a few police officers can decide that there isn't enough evidence to proceed or that they believe the victim isn't acting in a way that is consistent with a rape victim. This is the whole reason why rape is so under reported. If no charges are laid and no information comes out then the victim will be shamed and yet at the same time Kane will always be thought of as a rapist. Both parties lose.

There needs to be a system in place where all the information is brought to light, not hidden behind some non disclosure agreement or just tossed aside because the woman didn't cry enough or wasn't injured enough for the cops to believe her. The way the process is going seems to be horribly inadequate.

I am strongly against the mockery of justice that is happening in California universities going the opposite direction as this but this seems to be just as bad. And no I don't trust any given cop or detective to be able to judge 100% what happened.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by DJones

The whole problem with rape charges is the fact that a few police officers can decide that there isn't enough evidence to proceed or that they believe the victim isn't acting in a way that is consistent with a rape victim. This is the whole reason why rape is so under reported. If no charges are laid and no information comes out then the victim will be shamed and yet at the same time Kane will always be thought of as a rapist. Both parties lose.

There needs to be a system in place where all the information is brought to light, not hidden behind some non disclosure agreement or just tossed aside because the woman didn't cry enough or wasn't injured enough for the cops to believe her. The way the process is going seems to be horribly inadequate.

But that's crazy, man. I know what you're getting at, but what you're suggesting is taking one crime in the whole justice system, rape, and giving it a whole different standard that operates outside of the regular justice system.

I think you're also severely underestimating what a rape investigation entails. It's not just the police looking at a victim and going "Well, maybe she got raped, but she doesn't seem upset enough, and looks physically alright, so I don't know if I really believe her".

Justice is and needs to be blind, and as much as I understand the emotional aspect of rape, you simply can't factor that in and be unfair to those accused of rape and say "Well, you may be innocent, but just imagine how tough this is on the girl if she is indeed telling the truth, so we're going to charge you and make you go through a trial and eventually have your fate decided by regular citizens on a jury because rape is just too serious and damaging to victims to believe a police investigation".

I don't mean any offense but what you're suggesting is straight up crazy and has no place in any free country. It would be emotional justice, which is insane.

[jayswin]

Last time I checked murder is also quite damaging on the victims and their families, but we go with police investigations before proceeding to trial on those as well.

Or do you not believe/trust the police there as well, and therefore accused should also have to face a trial with no charge there, too? It seems you think our society should move to a system where a victim or witnesses point to a person and that person automatically has to defend allegations in a court of law? And if you only feel that way for rape, why only rape?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Last time I checked murder is also quite damaging on the victims and their families, but we go with police investigations before proceeding to trial on those as well.

Or do you not believe/trust the police there as well, and therefore accused should also have to face a trial with no charge there, too? It seems you think our society should move to a system where a victim or witnesses point to a person and that person automatically has to defend allegations in a court of law? And if you only feel that way for rape, why only rape?

It's quite obvious that a murder or theft took place. The loss of something is the crime itself. If you mug someone or murder someone and there is a witness that is considered a huge piece of evidence. For whatever reason that logic doesn't carry forward with rape. She would probably have had an easier time claiming he stole her purse than that she changed her mind about sleeping with him and it turned into non-consensual sex. In almost any other crime if you have a witness pointing at someone saying they did it, that's huge. But in this case they can't even determine if a crime even occurred.

Police are not trained in this area and have shown repeatably to be border line incompetent in these instances. I said right in my last post that I am strongly against the Yes means Yes nonsense consent laws but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for a moderate approach.

[DJones]

I can't even think of another crime that is as subjective as rape.

Maybe identity theft? The justice system is hilariously ill prepared to deal with that as well.

I had my car vandalized a few months ago, I think I know who did it but the cop almost laughed at me when I reported it. That was frustrating as hell for me. Can't imagine the frustration if it was actually to my person.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by DJones

It's quite obvious that a murder or theft took place. The loss of something is the crime itself. If you mug someone or murder someone and there is a witness that is considered a huge piece of evidence. For whatever reason that logic doesn't carry forward with rape. She would probably have had an easier time claiming he stole her purse than that she changed her mind about sleeping with him and it turned into non-consensual sex. In almost any other crime if you have a witness pointing at someone saying they did it, that's huge. But in this case they can't even determine if a crime even occurred.

Police are not trained in this area and have shown repeatably to be border line incompetent in these instances. I said right in my last post that I am strongly against the Yes means Yes nonsense consent laws but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for a moderate approach.

I think you need to explain yourself a little better. From what I gather you are saying that once someone claims they were raped it should go straight to trial with no investigation? I am confused.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by DJones

It's quite obvious that a murder or theft took place. The loss of something is the crime itself. If you mug someone or murder someone and there is a witness that is considered a huge piece of evidence. For whatever reason that logic doesn't carry forward with rape. She would probably have had an easier time claiming he stole her purse than that she changed her mind about sleeping with him and it turned into non-consensual sex. In almost any other crime if you have a witness pointing at someone saying they did it, that's huge. But in this case they can't even determine if a crime even occurred.

Police are not trained in this area and have shown repeatably to be border line incompetent in these instances. I said right in my last post that I am strongly against the Yes means Yes nonsense consent laws but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for a moderate approach.

Fair points I guess, but what's your actual suggestion? Do you actually want to see the police investigation part of the justice process cut out for rape allegations?

And if so, do you understand the implications of that and what it means for due process and fair justice? You're thinking very biasedly and emotionally of cases where a woman is raped and doesn't get justice, but how in the world can a guy have to face trial based on allegations? Again, what you're suggesting has no basis in reality in the US or Canada.

There's certainly countries where your idea might have legs, but they're third world.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by saillias

No Saad and Sharp is one thing but losing all those guys plus Kane, not sure that's a playoff team.

yeah but in this scenario they are trading him and getting something back in return