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

[White Out 403]

and where are they getting these numbers? their own survey? its a fairly long document that I dont want to read to be quite honest.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

As others have pointed out, what is ridiculous with what's going on in here is the attempt to use stats and probabilities of events occurring to try and determine ones stance on whether he's guilty or not.

Does a crime occur much more often than the false accusation of crime..........likely. Should that matter when talking about an individual incident like this one. People standing behind their decision to decide Kane is guilty unless proven innocent because it's "statistically more probable" are being ridiculous and quite frankly are applying the tool that is statistic in the wrong fashion. IF it was an effective manner to prove one's guilt, court cases would be wrapped up pretty quick......."you've been accused of crime X, and statistically speaking, it's more likely that you'd be accused correctly vs. falsely accused..........so guilty". Same applies to those trying to use stats to prove she might be lying. Not possible to do, wrong application of statistics, just stop it.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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.

Is it possible she didn't think it through or realize this until she was in the situation? Almost zero crimes are executed perfectly and there is always loose ends or angles people didnt think of. As I just said this could have been a spur of the moment decision based out of emotion.

Edit: And I should probably clarify I'm not saying she definitely did this for money but to not acknowledge that possibility is unfair. To not acknowledge any possibility is unfair. Gold diggers exist. Rapists exist. Maybe one of these two are one of these things and maybe they are neither. Because in the same manner that people are saying what if this was your mother or daughter what if this was your father or son and they were facing serious jail time because of a lie?

[justafan]

Good point to think more personally. Maybe everyone commenting or reading can say if any of their male relatives have had this situation? I know many can acknowledge if any female relatives have been sexually assaulted though it's still something people keep private.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Is it possible she didn't think it through or realize this until she was in the situation? Almost zero crimes are executed perfectly and there is always loose ends or angles people didnt think of. As I just said this could have been a spur of the moment decision based out of emotion.

Edit: And I should probably clarify I'm not saying she definitely did this for money but to not acknowledge that possibility is unfair. To not acknowledge any possibility is unfair. Gold diggers exist. Rapists exist. Maybe one of these two are one of these things and maybe they are neither. Because in the same manner that people are saying what if this was your mother or daughter what if this was your father or son and they were facing serious jail time because of a lie?

Show me one example of someone who faked a rape for money. And I didn't say impossible. I said far fetched.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

As others have pointed out, what is ridiculous with what's going on in here is the attempt to use stats and probabilities of events occurring to try and determine ones stance on whether he's guilty or not.

Does a crime occur much more often than the false accusation of crime..........likely. Should that matter when talking about an individual incident like this one. People standing behind their decision to decide Kane is guilty unless proven innocent because it's "statistically more probable" are being ridiculous and quite frankly are applying the tool that is statistic in the wrong fashion. IF it was an effective manner to prove one's guilt, court cases would be wrapped up pretty quick......."you've been accused of crime X, and statistically speaking, it's more likely that you'd be accused correctly vs. falsely accused..........so guilty". Same applies to those trying to use stats to prove she might be lying. Not possible to do, wrong application of statistics, just stop it.

You just completely misstated what people are saying. Not one poster said "guilty unless proven innocent". The point is that a gold digging faker is a very very unlikely scenario. Yet it's touted as something way more probable, without a lot of thought as to how it would play out.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Is it possible she didn't think it through or realize this until she was in the situation? Almost zero crimes are executed perfectly and there is always loose ends or angles people didnt think of. As I just said this could have been a spur of the moment decision based out of emotion.

Edit: And I should probably clarify I'm not saying she definitely did this for money but to not acknowledge that possibility is unfair. To not acknowledge any possibility is unfair. Gold diggers exist. Rapists exist. Maybe one of these two are one of these things and maybe they are neither. Because in the same manner that people are saying what if this was your mother or daughter what if this was your father or son and they were facing serious jail time because of a lie?

What I find objectionable is how you seem to be working VERY hard to find scenarios where the alleged victim is to blame. I get that Kane is innocent until proven guilty, but your entire mindset in this thread is what I find personally find disturbing.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You just completely misstated what people are saying. Not one poster said "guilty unless proven innocent". The point is that a gold digging faker is a very very unlikely scenario. Yet it's touted as something way more probable, without a lot of thought as to how it would play out.

For arguments sake........although I kind of hate that I'm dragging myself into this. Think for a second as to why situations of "faking for gold digging purposes" of any kind are not that common? One of the biggest reasons has to be that size of the population with right combination of wealth and profile that would make making a false accusation (essentially a bribe) worth while, is very very small.

Not only does one have to be extremely wealthy to make it worth while, they also need a public profile that will be damaged by the very public nature of this type of event. So while in society as a whole, the occurances of these events are likely minute, it's partially because the number of people in society that are even possible to target are also a minute.

While I'm not suggesting at all that this is what's happening in this case, to not admit that the law of averages for society on this one aren't really the applicable data points for someone with the wealth and profile of Kane is incredibly ignorant. He's far more likely (ridiculously far more likely) to be falsely accused of something for money sakes than any of us average joe's.

On the flip side, it's also fair to suggest that his wealth also makes it far more likely that he can buy his way out of legitimate trouble he causes himself and that unfortunately he may be able to buy his way out of terrible things he may have done.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by speede5

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.

That doesn't invalidate my point that not raping people is not complete protection for rape accusations, or even convictions. Based on what I've heard from the lawyers here it's entirely possible to get a conviction in "he said, she said" cases, which means it's entirely possible to get a wrongful conviction in those cases too.

The US, at least, has more non-DNA exonerations than DNA exonerations, though I haven't found a breakdown by crime and method. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...n-by-Year.aspx

You can also see that people have been exonerated of sexual assaults who were convicted well after the advent of DNA testing.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...CrimeType.aspx

[GioforPM]

False accusations for other reasons are far more common. And make a lot more sense. One of those is a far greater possibility.

There's all this talk of rich athletes like Kane being a target, but not one established example of it happening. You'd think if it was a real possibility like some say, there'd be an example of someone admitting it or a successful lawsuit for slander or a successful false accusation conviction on that basis. Yet no one can show me one.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Show me one example of someone who faked a rape for money.

Depends. Was Kobe innocent or guilty?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

False accusations for other reasons are far more common. And make a lot more sense. One of those is a far greater possibility.

There's all this talk of rich athletes like Kane being a target, but not one established example of it happening. You'd think if it was a real possibility like some say, there'd be an example of someone admitting it or a successful lawsuit for slander or a successful false accusation conviction on that basis. Yet no one can show me one.

What do you mean when you say false accusations for other reasons are far more coming, and make a lot more sense? Honestly asking, not sure I understand what you are getting at.

Why would there ever be examples of someone admitting it? Do that, all of a sudden you go from being a potential victim of a crime to committing a crime. Best case scenario you get from false accusations is likely a dropping of the charges, but that can happen even when the charges were legit, so know one every really knows.

Anyway, point being, you are asking for stats to "prove" something that you know there won't be stats for. The very nature of false accusations and the intent behind them means they go away and don't get checked into any column that would allow us to go back in retrospect with a definitive answer, they go into the "I wonder what truth was there bucket". I do kind of think you know that, and are simply arguing semantics to try and win your debate and fair enough, but I have to believe you don't actually think there would readily available stats and examples of 100% for sure false accusations. People don't tend to admit when they tried to falsely accuse people of crimes due the jail time associated with it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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".

If that was the complaint that she made to police (I consented to the sexual activity but now I regret it), this investigation would be over already and Kane would be focusing solely on training camp. There is plenty of unclarity and complexity in the law of sexual assault in Canada (and I presume New York State), but "morning regret" isn't really a source of such.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Makarov

If that was the complaint that she made to police (I consented to the sexual activity but now I regret it), this investigation would be over already and Kane would be focusing solely on training camp. There is plenty of unclarity and complexity in the law of sexual assault in Canada (and I presume New York State), but "morning regret" isn't really a source of such.

I'm talking about the mindset, not the complaint.

Theorising based on the current situation given what we already know. The complaint was rape, doesn't change my example of possible current scenarios where neither is a horrible person.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm talking about the mindset, not the complaint.

Theorising based on the current situation given what we already know. The complaint was rape, doesn't change my example of possible current scenarios where neither is a horrible person.

Personally, if she knows that she consented to the sexual activity but lied to police and complained that she was not consenting (because she now regrets doing so), she is very much a horrible person.

It's just an (unlikely) hypothetical, but in that hypothetical, she would clearly be immoral and wrong.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

What do you mean when you say false accusations for other reasons are far more coming, and make a lot more sense? Honestly asking, not sure I understand what you are getting at.

Why would there ever be examples of someone admitting it? Do that, all of a sudden you go from being a potential victim of a crime to committing a crime. Best case scenario you get from false accusations is likely a dropping of the charges, but that can happen even when the charges were legit, so know one every really knows.

Anyway, point being, you are asking for stats to "prove" something that you know there won't be stats for. The very nature of false accusations and the intent behind them means they go away and don't get checked into any column that would allow us to go back in retrospect with a definitive answer, they go into the "I wonder what truth was there bucket". I do kind of think you know that, and are simply arguing semantics to try and win your debate and fair enough, but I have to believe you don't actually think there would readily available stats and examples of 100% for sure false accusations. People don't tend to admit when they tried to falsely accuse people of crimes due the jail time associated with it.

There have indeed been established false accusations, and also conclusions by police that accusers were lying. Those are in the studies. There have been admissions of false accusations made by accusers. In those cases the reasons were varied - revenge, attention seeking, delusions. None of them involved trying to extort money.

If you think there's no stats about false accusations you are very much mistaken. The numbers in the studies vary but are usually from 2-5%.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Personally, if she knows that she consented to the sexual activity but lied to police and complained that she was not consenting (because she now regrets doing so), she is very much a horrible person.

It's just an (unlikely) hypothetical, but in that hypothetical, she would clearly be immoral and wrong.

There is a possibility that she didn't consent but he thought she did. The law is more stringent now but that defence still exists.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There is a possibility that she didn't consent but he thought she did. The law is more stringent now but that defence still exists.

I'm well aware of that, but (a) the defence of honest but mistaken belief only really arises in rare circumstances (I've discussed this earlier in this thread); and (b) it doesn't arise in the hypothetical situation that Pepsi Free described.

[PepsiFree]

Morality is subjective but I get it. Just saying that there are scenarios where both he is not a rapist, and she is not a gold digger

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Just saying that there are scenarios where both he is not a rapist, and she is not a gold digger

Oh, I absolutely agree (although they are rare.) It's just that the scenario you described isn't one of them.