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

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Great unbiased article.

Your username is indicative of your perspective.

[Hackey]

Sure. Still doesn't change the fact the article was totally biased.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Sure. Still doesn't change the fact the article was totally biased.

Yeah, that horrible 'anti rape' bias. When are we going to get THAT out of the lamestream media?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Yeah, that horrible 'anti rape' bias. When are we going to get THAT out of the lamestream media?

Do you think it's reasonable to use the past history of an individual to portray them in an unfavourable light in current circumstances?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Sure. Still doesn't change the fact the article was totally biased.

It's not an article, it's an opinion piece.

The way I read his opinion, he's saying "let's not give this guy a break because we are hockey fans, let's not blame the victim, immediately suggest she is doing this for money, or believe he couldn't have done something like this because he seems like a nice guy that I've never met on TV and can really stickhandle...".

I can see why you would disagree with him, because you've done all those things in this thread.

The only thing he left out was that some people might be clueless enough to say "he can get all the ##### he wants, so why would he rape someone?".

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yes, but it is clearly slanted. This immediately causes me to wince: "innocent until proven guilty applies to this particular celebrity avoiding jail time. It does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened between them."

That immediately presupposes that he needs exoneration and that "something happened", neither of which we know.

That said, I definitely, 100% agree with the general thrust of the article that the "fan" culture will cause Hawks fans to want to rush to the guy's defense like he's a personal friend of their because they want him to be:

Mike Ribeiro sounds like an awful monster, and he gains further monster status more conveniently because he plays for the rival Nashville Predators. Jokes about Ben Roethlisberger and vitriol toward Floyd Mayweather are all so comfortable because there’s not much connection to those guys from over here. It’s easy to be disgusted at Baltimore Ravens fans defiantly wearing Ray Rice jerseys. They don’t “represent Chicago,” as is comfortable to say when a team wins or an athlete does society some good.

More instances of tribalism! Usually sports-related tribalism doesn't cause harm - here's a counter-example.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Do you think it's reasonable to use the past history of an individual to portray them in an unfavourable light in current circumstances?

Do you think it's reasonable to examine someone's past actions to give context to their current situation?

Prior bad acts don't prove anything. But they certainly provides a reason to not simply take Kane at his word, and even more of a reason to not assume the victim is some gold digging whore.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Do you think it's reasonable to use the past history of an individual to portray them in an unfavourable light in current circumstances?

Exactly. The majority of it was trying to portray Kane in a negative light. Being a bit more neutral wouldn't have hurt.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Do you think it's reasonable to examine someone's past actions to give context to their current situation?

Prior bad acts don't prove anything. But they certainly provides a reason to not simply take Kane at his word, and even more of a reason to not assume the victim is some gold digging whore.

So should we also examine her past actions to give context to the current situation?
Or just his?
Or perhaps neither be better?

[Flash Walken]

Do we know yet if the woman was asking for it?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Do you think it's reasonable to use the past history of an individual to portray them in an unfavourable light in current circumstances?

I think it can be reasonable in certain circumstances. Patrick Kane once allegedly choked a girl for turning him down. Doesn't paint the prettiest picture of a guy who acts reasonable around women who turn him down. Throw in the assault against the taxi cab driver, and you got a guy who doesn't seem to behave the best while drinking. Prove anything about this scenario? No, absolutely not. Does it lend some credence to the other side? I would say at least a bit...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Do we know yet if the woman was asking for it?

What a stupid question. We don't even know what she was wearing yet.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

So should we also examine her past actions to give context to the current situation?
Or just his?
Or perhaps neither be better?

Sure - if she has a history of accusing men of rape. Or filing false police reports. Until those come out, she has more credibility than the guy with a history of violence.

I have no idea what happened. I hope Kane is innocent because that means someone didn't get raped. If I can't have that, I settle for the truth of what happened. My opinions on Kane will form accordingly.

[timbit]

Value added benefit of being a member of CP, recently.
The opportunity to be a bonafide legal authority and perhaps if you really pay attention....an expert.

[justafan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They're both small numbers. But if you have reliable data, I'd welcome seeing it.

I told myself I would not post anymore on this thread! I feel that some people don't believe rape is as common as it is. Sexual assault, by the way, does not have to include 'penetration' and many people are subjected to that also. Famous athletes, poor dears, have many women wanting their money. Only one of these famous women gave money….she was robbed and raped while husband tied up-- Actress Fran Drescher. Madonna was raped at 19, at knifepoint. Fiona Apple, singer, raped by stranger, age 12..Teri Hatcher, actress, raped/abused by uncle starting 5 yrs. old. (uncle later raped a 14 yr. old who commited suicide). Mary J Bligh,raped by family friend as was Ashley Judd. These are but a few of the 'famous' women (and men,) that have come forward to shed light on this. We all have to wait and see how Kane story unfolds, but its tragic either way.

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Do we know yet if the woman was asking for it?

Thanks a lot...now I feel like a jerk for laughing

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Sure - if she has a history of accusing men of rape. Or filing false police reports. Until those come out, she has more credibility than the guy with a history of violence.

I have no idea what happened. I hope Kane is innocent because that means someone didn't get raped. If I can't have that, I settle for the truth of what happened. My opinions on Kane will form accordingly.

Fair enough. I just don't think the history, of any nature, of the victim should not be the subject of any part of this discussion. You feel differently. Which is fine, but the court sides with me, I believe.

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes, but it is clearly slanted. This immediately causes me to wince: "innocent until proven guilty applies to this particular celebrity avoiding jail time. It does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened between them."

That immediately presupposes that he needs exoneration and that "something happened", neither of which we know.

That said, I definitely, 100% agree with the general thrust of the article that the "fan" culture will cause Hawks fans to want to rush to the guy's defense like he's a personal friend of their because they want him to be:

More instances of tribalism! Usually sports-related tribalism doesn't cause harm - here's a counter-example.

As far as that the "fan" culture will cause Hawks fans to want to rush to the guy's defense

on CHI fan boards I've read, it is more an acceptance that, no matter the outcome of this investigation, there will be repercussions due to the team having been embarrassed by Kane's off-ice actions in the past...many would expect Kane to be subject to team sanctions...a Mike Richards like termination due to the violation of standard contract clauses being one extreme, to shopping the, clearly talented, but, personally flawed guy, around.

Sure, there are those that feel that this is an entrapment, much like Kobe Bryant's Colorado legal woes...but this is a minority view, from what I've seen, and as I said, many REAL 'Hawk fans know that, as a Marketing guy, John McDonough, is running this machine, the negative publicity WILL be addressed...and if the ordeal gets to the point of charges being filed, the 'Hawks WILL likely distance themselves (and gain cap space) by termination.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Fair enough. I just don't think the history, of any nature, of the victim should not be the subject of any part of this discussion. You feel differently. Which is fine, but the court sides with me, I believe.

The court should side with you. But I'm not talking about a court room. That's not really the point. Robert Durst, Casey Anthony and OJ all still did it. They really did.

Not that even a guilty Kane is as bad as those examples, obviously

[ricardodw]

I did a search on "Tyson" on the thread and did not come up with anything.

This would be a prime example of an Athletic at the peak of his career being in somewhat the same situation as Kane. Tyson was 25 years old when this "date rape" occurred.

link to NY Times story on Tyson being sentenced

In 1992 Tyson was convicted and sentenced to 6 years... he served 3 years and resumed his career and is still a somewhat major celebrity - Hangover Part 2 in 2011. and numerous cameos in popular TV shows.