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

[polak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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.

Or she sleeps with Kane, regrets it and see's an opportunity. Maybe Kane slighted her in some way? You have no knowledge of the situation. You're just believing the accuser because she's claiming rape and has vagina. That's it. That's all you're going off of.

You can't write off either option here. Just cause someone accuses someone of something does not make it true.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by polak

Or she sleeps with Kane, regrets it and see's an opportunity. Maybe Kane slighted her in some way? You have no knowledge of the situation. You're just believing the accuser because she's claiming rape and has vagina. That's it. That's all you're going off of.

You can't write off either option here. Just cause someone accuses someone of something does not make it true.

If it happens that way, the things I said just start at the second item. She still has to decide to commit the crime of false criminal accusation and lying to the police. She still has to take all the risks I mentioned. She still has to spend money on lawyers herself, all at the risk of not getting a dime after several years of litigation.

Even if she started that process, by now she would have realized what the task entailed and would have backed off.

I'm not believing the woman because she's a woman. I tend to believe that a normal person doesn't accuse someone of a crime falsely. Funny how Kane's defenders cry for "innocent until proven guilty" but argue that the accuser must have committed a crime.

Maybe she's a nutcase, but cold blooded mercenary false accusations? It's not as simple as a bunch of you make out.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

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

Obviously I was talking in extremes. But I don't see how you suspend a guy for essentially nothing.

[polak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If it happens that way, the things I said just start at the second item. She still has to decide to commit the crime of false criminal accusation and lying to the police. She still has to take all the risks I mentioned. She still has to spend money on lawyers herself, all at the risk of not getting a dime after several years of litigation.

Even if she started that process, by now she would have realized what the task entailed and would have backed off.

I'm not believing the woman because she's a woman. I tend to believe that a normal person doesn't accuse someone of a crime falsely. Funny how Kane's defenders cry for "innocent until proven guilty" but argue that the accuser must have committed a crime.

No, Kane might be guilty as #### for all I know. I have no idea. I just respect the foundation of law in western society which is built on the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

I can flip what you're doing too. IF she's telling the truth, Kane must have jeopardized his entire life, and it's freaking A+ life, for sex. He's a multi-millionaire, professional athlete in his twenties. Why would he throw it all away for a lay when he probably has no issue getting laid anyways? Why would he just let her go if he did rape her? Did he think he was going to get away with it?

The only answer would be cause he's ####ed in the head. Just like she would have to be to make all of this up.

One of them is committing a crime. You're just siding with the woman cause she's a women saying she was raped. That's it. That's the only reason and I know that cause that is all you have to go off of.

I'm not siding with either of them. I could totally see Kane being innocent and I could totally see him being guilty but until we see charges at least, I'm going to side with him being an innocent man. The police and the DA seem to agree with me.

[Northendzone]

i thought the clip played on the fan yesterday of kane making a statement was almost as laughable as mcguire or sosa saying they weren't in front of the grand jury to talk about the past.

kane sounded like a robot - it would be interesting to know if the guys in the room see this as a distraction, or if they really don't care as long as kane scores

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by polak

No, Kane might be guilty as #### for all I know. I have no idea. I just respect the foundation of law in western society which is built on the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

I can flip what you're doing too. IF she's telling the truth, Kane must have jeopardized his entire life, and it's freaking A+ life, for sex. He's a multi-millionaire, professional athlete in his twenties. Why would he throw it all away for a lay when he probably has no issue getting laid anyways? Why would he just let her go if he did rape her? Did he think he was going to get away with it?

The only answer would be cause he's ####ed in the head. Just like she would have to be to make all of this up.

One of them is committing a crime. You're just siding with the woman cause she's a women saying she was raped. That's it. That's the only reason and I know that cause that is all you have to go off of.

I'm not siding with either of them. I could totally see Kane being innocent and I could totally see him being guilty but until we see charges at least, I'm going to side with him being an innocent man. The police and the DA seem to agree with me.

You are making a false equivalence. The criminal decision you claim the girl would make is the day after, sober, in a planned money grab. The criminal decision Kane might make is a drunken bro-ski one in the spur of the moment.

But go on assuming you know what I think. You've already demonstrated your attitude on sexual assault before, as I recall, so forgive me if I don't giev your opinion a lot of weight.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Umm Dude, you need to read up on the U.S. rape shield rules, that have been adopted in almost all the states.

Basically a victims prior sexual history is viewed as not admissable unless it directly correlates.

Basically she can be the biggest slut in the world, and the court can't allow that to be put in front of the jury, unless her prior history is directly related to the accused.

In other words the accused can be the most promiscuous person in the history of the world, but that past history doesn't matter.

This was bought in because the ability for the defense to personally attack the victim was leading to victims not coming forward.

"in many states" not all states, or even the majority of states, but "many"

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by polak

No, Kane might be guilty as #### for all I know. I have no idea. I just respect the foundation of law in western society which is built on the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

I can flip what you're doing too. IF she's telling the truth, Kane must have jeopardized his entire life, and it's freaking A+ life, for sex. He's a multi-millionaire, professional athlete in his twenties. Why would he throw it all away for a lay when he probably has no issue getting laid anyways? Why would he just let her go if he did rape her? Did he think he was going to get away with it?

The only answer would be cause he's ####ed in the head. Just like she would have to be to make all of this up.

One of them is committing a crime. You're just siding with the woman cause she's a women saying she was raped. That's it. That's the only reason and I know that cause that is all you have to go off of.

I'm not siding with either of them. I could totally see Kane being innocent and I could totally see him being guilty but until we see charges at least, I'm going to side with him being an innocent man. The police and the DA seem to agree with me.

Bill Cosby. It's not about getting sex. It's about control.

[polak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are making a false equivalence. The criminal decision you claim the girl would make is the day after, sober, in a planned money grab. The criminal decision Kane might make is a drunken bro-ski one in the spur of the moment.

But go on assuming you know what I think. You've already demonstrated your attitude on sexual assault before, as I recall, so forgive me if I don't giev your opinion a lot of weight.

Regret usually doesn't creep in until the next day. Opportunity is usually best noticed when sober. You've professed loudly what you think and that is that Kane is guilty, despite any charges or evidence of anything to support that claim.

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Bill Cosby. It's not about getting sex. It's about control.

Yes, so he'd have to be a nut job. Just like the girl would have to be a nut job to fake this.

One of them is a terrible, messed up human being.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by polak

Regret usually doesn't creep in until the next day. Opportunity is usually best noticed when sober. You've professed loudly what you think and that is that Kane is guilty, despite any charges or evidence of anything to support that claim.

You completely missed the point. And badly misread my position, which is not that he's guilty, but rather that a false accusation to get money is farfetched.

You also betray your own bias when you claim that people believe someone who "has a vagina".

Like it or not, it's not like TV. There are rarely cases of plots to frame someone. And you assume that people will get a payday just by making an accusation, which demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of litigation, how long it takes (even to get a settlement) and how difficult it is. If she was making a false accusation and had any rationality, she would have withdrawn it by know to avoid the hassle ahead, which has no guarantee of monetary gain at all.

Is Kane lying when he says there's no settlement talks, BTW?

[polak]

I actually am not assuming that she's lying for money. I'm not assuming anything cause I have no idea what is going on.

I never once said that she is definitively doing this for money. In fact I defended both of them when the settlement talk started and people were posting that this clearly means Kane is guilty/She is lying.

I just hate this utter dismissal of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" cause frankly it's scary as hell that society still acts this way with certain accusations.

If you're not assuming that Kane is guilty than okay, I'll leave it here cause I don't disagree with anything you said besides the fact that one outcome is more likely than the other based on preconceived notions of how this sort of trail has gone in other situations.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by polak

I actually am not assuming that she's lying for money. I'm not assuming anything cause I have no idea what is going on.

I never once said that she is definitively doing this for money. In fact I defended both of them when the settlement talk started and people were posting that this clearly means Kane is guilty/She is lying.

I just hate this utter dismissal of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" cause frankly it's scary as hell that society still acts this way with certain accusations.

If you're not assuming that Kane is guilty than okay, I'll leave it here cause I don't disagree with anything you said besides the fact that one outcome is more likely than the other based on preconceived notions of how this sort of trail has gone in other situations.

First, "innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal law concept designed to make the state prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. It has nothing to do with belief in a victim versus an accused.

Second, I am speaking solely about the concept of a money grab, which is only one of a number of ways Kane could be not guilty. For some reason people like you have elevated that hypothesis to a far greater possibility that common sense and knowledge of the process dictates.

Third, has it occurred to you that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to your suggestion that she has lied? Since, after all, that would be a crime?

Finally, one outcome is more likely than the other - simply based on the way things have gone before (in fact, not via preconceived notions).

[zamler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You also betray your own bias when you claim that people believe someone who "has a vagina".

This is a fact, law enforcement is taught to accept the woman's side of the story automatically in the case of a claimed rape or for example in domestic abuse calls, then work backwards. If a man claims rape against a woman absolutely nothing will happen. The bias is not from polak at all.

[polak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

First, "innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal law concept designed to make the state prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. It has nothing to do with belief in a victim versus an accused.

Second, I am speaking solely about the concept of a money grab, which is only one of a number of ways Kane could be not guilty. For some reason people like you have elevated that hypothesis to a far greater possibility that common sense and knowledge of the process dictates.

Third, has it occurred to you that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to your suggestion that she has lied? Since, after all, that would be a crime?

Finally, one outcome is more likely than the other - simply based on the way things have gone before (in fact, not via preconceived notions).

First, I understand that but it's one we should apply to our own notions of belief since you're judging someones character based on he said/she said.

No argument with the second point.

Third, yes it has. Hence why I haven't attacked her once in all of this. Just defended Kane.

Finally, that's a poor way of judging someones innocence.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by zamler

This is a fact, law enforcement is taught to accept the woman's side of the story automatically in the case of a claimed rape or for example in domestic abuse calls, then work backwards. If a man claims rape against a woman absolutely nothing will happen. The bias is not from polak at all.

Accept the claimant's version and then work backwards. Wouldn't that be the case for all calls to the police?
Me: "Someone stole my bike".
Police: "Wait a minute, are you sure you didn't give it away? Do you actually own a bike?"

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Accept the claimant's version and then work backwards. Wouldn't that be the case for all calls to the police?

No. As I said in a case of domestic abuse if the man claims abuse the man will likely get arrested anyway regardless of who abused who. The person with the vagina is the default truth teller.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by zamler

No. As I said in a case of domestic abuse if the man claims abuse the man will likely get arrested anyway regardless of who abused who. The person with the vagina is the default truth teller.

Source?

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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.

Your way over complicating this. She could have easily met him at the bar with zero intention of anything other than sleeping with him. They go to his house they have sex and as soon as their done he's like ya leave. She gets offended so as pay back she makes a rape accusation. Money might not even be the motive yet but maybe after some time she sees an opportunity to stick it to this rude guy who thinks hes gods gift to women and at the same time maybe she can get a pay day out of it. I'm not trying to say this was some grand master plan years in the making that was perfectly executed. There are a lot of possible scenarios. People do the most despicable horrific things for money so I just can't understand why you think this is impossible. Not every girl is an angel.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Your way over complicating this. She could have easily met him at the bar with zero intention of anything other than sleeping with him. They go to his house they have sex and as soon as their done he's like ya leave. She gets offended so as pay back she makes a rape accusation. Money might not even be the motive yet but maybe after some time she sees an opportunity to stick it to this rude guy who thinks hes gods gift to women and at the same time maybe she can get a pay day out of it. I'm not trying to say this was some grand master plan years in the making that was perfectly executed. There are a lot of possible scenarios. People do the most despicable horrific things for money so I just can't understand why you think this is impossible. Not every girl is an angel.

You completely missed everything I said. Even if it as a day after decision, it still requires her to essentially commit to years of criminal and civil litigation and great personal and financial expense, all in the hope of maybe getting a payday in six or so years.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by polak

One of them is a terrible, messed up human being.

Or what if neither of them is?

There is a lot of talk of either rape or a false accusation, but there is also the possibility that they were both drunk, had consensual sex, and when she sobered up she felt used and embarrassed, thinking perhaps she wouldn't have done it had she been sober or known it meant nothing to him. It's entirely possible to

In this scenario, he'd be found not guilty (I assume) and I don't think we'd see him as a rapist, but I certainly wouldn't think of her as a terrible person either for reacting that way. It's a loaded issue and I think there are a lot of significantly less simple options than "one of the two is a terrible person".