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

[Meers]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Are you a lawyer?

You just can't do a settlement conference, make an offer and then withdraw it and then leak it to the press, that would probably lead to a mistrial and if I've read right, a disciplinary investigation of the lawyer, in other words its not ethical to do that.

Evidence rule 408 which when I looked it up applied to civil actions.

http://adrr.com/law1/rule408.htm

Unless she goes into the settlement conference and basically compromises herself or admits she lied, anything in the settlement conference can't be bought in front of the jury and can have nothing to do with the juries judgement.

If a judge sees this in the press that a settlement was reached and then withdrawn, and Kane's lawyers went to the press, he would probably instruct the jury to disregard and then go after Kane's attorneys for an ethical breech.

A mistrial is exactly what Kane wants. And instructions to the jury can never overcome the prejudice of a properly planted story.

I don't think you understand the true purpose of legal ethics or rules of evidence. They aren't designed to prevent misconduct. Quite the contrary. Legal ethics are tools specifically and carefully designed by unethical lawyers themselves to whitewash their own misconduct.

It would be like letting the Hell's Angels write the Criminal Code.

The leak is always untraceable. The lawyers will always protest that the legal process prevents them discussing the matter while it is before the courts. Nothing will ever be proved.

Most people don't grasp just how utterly ruthless and amoral the best criminal defence lawyers are. That's why there are so few white collar or organized crime convictions. Poor black kids, sure they get convicted all the time. But the real criminals, the ones who are white and with access to millions, will pretty much always walk.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If I was suspended because I was being investigated and nothing came of it I would be sueing somebody.

You don't have the right to work though, as long as they pay you they can tell you to stay home. What damages would you have suffered? The reputation damage was caused by the investigation that occurred not from your employers actions.

The pursumption of innocence really only applies in the court room.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You'd spend a bunch of money and lose. The standards are completely different in criminal and contract law (and tort - look at OJ who won his criminal case and lost the civil case).

That was my very uninformed opinion haha.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Meers

I don't think you understand the true purpose of legal ethics or rules of evidence. They aren't designed to prevent misconduct. Quite the contrary. Legal ethics are tools specifically and carefully designed by unethical lawyers themselves to whitewash their own misconduct.

You are absolutely incorrect for Alberta, or any Canadian jurisdiction for that matter.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's possible but completely farfetched when you think of what has to be planned and what has to actually occur

I'd say its rare but not farfetched. I'm sure a lot of celebrities sleep with hundreds of women. All it takes is one of those women to see an opportunity. Add those numbers up and all it takes is 1 in hundreds of thousands. There are women willing to murder for money. There are women who marry and divorce for money. Both of these require a lot more effort and planning and happen with a degree of regularity. Not sure why a chance for a big pay in this manner would be completely farfetched.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Meers

A mistrial is exactly what Kane wants. And instructions to the jury can never overcome the prejudice of a properly planted story.

I don't think you understand the true purpose of legal ethics or rules of evidence. They aren't designed to prevent misconduct. Quite the contrary. Legal ethics are tools specifically and carefully designed by unethical lawyers themselves to whitewash their own misconduct.

It would be like letting the Hell's Angels write the Criminal Code.

The leak is always untraceable. The lawyers will always protest that the legal process prevents them discussing the matter while it is before the courts. Nothing will ever be proved.

Most people don't grasp just how utterly ruthless and amoral the best criminal defence lawyers are. That's why there are so few white collar or organized crime convictions. Poor black kids, sure they get convicted all the time. But the real criminals, the ones who are white and with access to millions, will pretty much always walk.

Please stop. You are talking out of your ass. What exactly is your legal background? Did you stay at a Holiday Inn?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Please stop. You are talking out of your ass. What exactly is your legal background? Did you stay at a Holiday Inn?

[FireGilbert]

So I downloaded NHL 16 from the PlayStation Store the other day and guess who shows up on the cover holding the cup with Toews!

I though Kane had been removed from the cover, has this decision been reversed or is this an oversight from EA forgetting to change the digital cover?

[Daradon]

Probably an oversight. All the physical copies I've seen just have Toews.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

So I downloaded NHL 16 from the PlayStation Store the other day and guess who shows up on the cover holding the cup with Toews!

I though Kane had been removed from the cover, has this decision been reversed or is this an oversight from EA forgetting to change the digital cover?

Me too

[Kiran403]

Originally Posted by polak

How can the NHL suspend him for something that isn't actually real yet?

"Were suspending you because you might end up being charged with a crime" let alone convicted of it.

Absolutely insane.

Using that logic let's just start accusing McDavid of random crimes, regardless of validity and the NHL will have to suspend him.

Agreed. If he's not considered guilty in a court of law and hasn't even gone to trial or been charged, I think it's a bit hasty to suspend him. What if he turns out to be innocent? Do you then publicly apologize for doubting his character? What kind of message does that send to players as employees where their employer won't even hear their side of the story before taking action?

[Nammer403]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

So I downloaded NHL 16 from the PlayStation Store the other day and guess who shows up on the cover holding the cup with Toews!

I though Kane had been removed from the cover, has this decision been reversed or is this an oversight from EA forgetting to change the digital cover?

The update should change that.

[craigwd]

Kane should have just decided to sit out on his own. Then let everything play out.
That would have been the professional, smart move.

[polak]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Actually that is pretty common in the workplace.

The standard procedure for a lot of companies whose employees are under investigation for a serious crime is to suspend them with pay until more details come out.

True, but the NHL is different from most companies in that it's in the public eye and certain employees (i.e. players) have a massive, massive impact on a franchises (i.e. who the NHL is operating for) health and operations.

But you're right. I guess the company would have the right to suspend with pay.

Originally Posted by craigwd

Kane should have just decided to sit out on his own. Then let everything play out.
That would have been the professional, smart move.

No way. The best move is to act as it's business as usual. You're an innocent man that hasn't even been charged with anything. That's what everyone seems to be forgetting, regardless of how many times it's been repeated. Why should he act any differently? Nothing has changed in Kanes life besides an accusation that as of now, has yet to be substantiated by anything.

[Weitz]

Playing Pittsburgh in the playoffs?

Accuse Crosby of something, NHL would be forced to suspend him.

At least that's my thinking if you are going to suspend Kane without being charged with a crime, let alone convicted.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by SebC

This comment is strange in itself. People have spent decades in jail for rapes that they've later been exonerated of.

Those are mistaken identity cases, where DNA has proven it was someone else. This is he said she said, no one is disputing they were together.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Playing Pittsburgh in the playoffs?

Accuse Crosby of something, NHL would be forced to suspend him.

At least that's my thinking if you are going to suspend Kane without being charged with a crime, let alone convicted.

Come on. Lets give the police a little credit here.

If the accuser is not credible the investigation does not take long.

Case in point the woman who accused Doughty of raping her. IIRC the police stopped investigating a few days after the initial complaint. when they determined her story was not credible.

But sure lets use hyperbole... lets assume it will be open season on NHL stars as opposing team fans accuse players of serious crimes because it will help their team win

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Meers

A mistrial is exactly what Kane wants. And instructions to the jury can never overcome the prejudice of a properly planted story.

I don't think you understand the true purpose of legal ethics or rules of evidence. They aren't designed to prevent misconduct. Quite the contrary. Legal ethics are tools specifically and carefully designed by unethical lawyers themselves to whitewash their own misconduct.

It would be like letting the Hell's Angels write the Criminal Code.

The leak is always untraceable. The lawyers will always protest that the legal process prevents them discussing the matter while it is before the courts. Nothing will ever be proved.

Most people don't grasp just how utterly ruthless and amoral the best criminal defence lawyers are. That's why there are so few white collar or organized crime convictions. Poor black kids, sure they get convicted all the time. But the real criminals, the ones who are white and with access to millions, will pretty much always walk.

I am a lawyer. I am not this_post_is_terrible, but I wish I was right now, because this_post_is_terrible.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I'd say its rare but not farfetched. I'm sure a lot of celebrities sleep with hundreds of women. All it takes is one of those women to see an opportunity. Add those numbers up and all it takes is 1 in hundreds of thousands. There are women willing to murder for money. There are women who marry and divorce for money. Both of these require a lot more effort and planning and happen with a degree of regularity. Not sure why a chance for a big pay in this manner would be completely farfetched.

This isn't like killing someone for money. They way you describe it it's a planned decision to sleep with Kane and then blackmail him with a phony rape allegation.

She has to first manage to sleep with Kane.

Then, to pull off a money grab, which she can't assume will just be settled over night, she has to decide to lie about it; make sure it's a he said she said situation; tell no one of her plan, before or after; decide to risk lying to the police (a criminal offence); put herself in the public eye and risk being trashed; expose herself to questioning by the cops, the prosecutor and ultimately cross-examination by a top defence lawyer; go hire a civil litigator herself and sue in civil court for money, all under the public eye, and subject to even greater cross-examination than in a criminal case (since the scope will be greater). Then she might lose.

Unless she's nuts (the only actual false rape case against a celebrity I know of was because of psychosis, not money), that's a lot of work and criminal risk for a very uncertain payday. Hence, far fetched.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Kane should have just decided to sit out on his own. Then let everything play out.
That would have been the professional, smart move.

Why? Operating under the assumption that Kane himself feels he's innocent, why is that the right or professional thing to do? The only valid reason for him to do that would be if his team mates or coaching staff came to him and said that they'd prefer to not have the circus that is currently following him around as a distraction until things die down.

If that request hasn't been made, then why is the professional thing for him to do? Can't really expect or ask the guy to not show up for work or do his job, that would be un-professional. We all have opinions on what MAY be the most likely truth in this very un-fortunate and upsetting situation, but as of right now that's all they are, opinions. It's very easy to see that many of the opinions on here in regards to what Kane should do, what the Hawks should do and what the league should do are all based around an assumption that Kane is guilty. I don't think any of us have close to the right amount of info to even come close to making that leap.