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

[SebC]

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.

While not a perfect fit, the Brian Banks case comes pretty close. Which you'd know, if you had bothered to look yourself. Which in turn tells me that you're less interested in the answer than in trying to make other people look bad.

Is argument from my opponents' laziness a new logical fallacy?

[Strange Brew]

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?

I'm not sure you realize how your continued "scenario generator" arguments make you look. At best, seems you have a profound (and hopefully subconscious) gender bias.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I'm not sure you realize how your continued "scenario generator" arguments make you look. At best, seems you have a profound (and hopefully subconscious) gender bias.

Disagree, I'm on the innocent until proven guilty side, but he was only talking of possibilities. Saying something is possible can't possibly show bias because it's a logical stance to take.

Insisting something is true is much different than recognizing a possibility.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Disagree, I'm on the innocent until proven guilty side, but he was only talking of possibilities. Saying something is possible can't possibly show bias because it's a logical stance to take.



Insisting something is true is much different than recognizing a possibility.

Unless every possibility you present skews to one side

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by SebC

While not a perfect fit, the Brian Banks case comes pretty close. Which you'd know, if you had bothered to look yourself. Which in turn tells me that you're less interested in the answer than in trying to make other people look bad.

Is argument from my opponents' laziness a new logical fallacy?

I had never heard of this guy until I googled him. I don't think one, obscure, imperfect example hardly makes him lazy or invalidates his argument. Probably bolsters his argument, if you ask me.

[GioforPM]

I did find one other example, involving a sheiks sin, a German woman and two lawyer accomplices. It was elaborate and not the same at all.

[GioforPM]

The Banks case is close, though it's unclear whether the money motive came before or after the false accusation. But it is very close, I agree.

Like I said, not impossible, but highly unlikely based on the past. Who knows, this might be the one case in a million that is an exception. I am just saying that the hypothesis seems to have much more traction than the actual history of cases would suggest.

[CliffFletcher]

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.

Indeed. But what I find troubling about these conversations is the implication that men are far more likely to be horrible persons than women are. That's clearly a sexist attitude. Men's awfulness tends to manifest in different ways than women's awfulness (men are more likely to be violent), but I see no reason to believe awfulness isn't evenly distributed between the genders.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I'm not sure you realize how your continued "scenario generator" arguments make you look. At best, seems you have a profound (and hopefully subconscious) gender bias.

Maybe you have the gender bias. The point I've been trying to make with GioforPM is not that she IS lieing and money is her motive but rather that it COULD be. Why should she be given the benefit of the doubt any more than him when this is a he said she said issue? To think that a women couldn't be lieing for a multitude of reasons in my opinion would be a gender bias.

[Strange Brew]

Of course she could be lying. Anything is possible. But don't you see how your continued focus on that possibility makes you look? And if the public debate in general focused solely on that aspect of the issue (the way you are doing) the devastating consequences there would be for future rape victims? I'm just suggesting you let it go for a while.

You might be a very balanced person but that is not what is coming out on here.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Indeed. But what I find troubling about these conversations is the implication that men are far more likely to be horrible persons than women are. That's clearly a sexist attitude. Men's awfulness tends to manifest in different ways than women's awfulness (men are more likely to be violent), but I see no reason to believe awfulness isn't evenly distributed between the genders.

I really want to agree with this.
I just have a hard time doing so.
Sometimes it's not profiling, stereotyping or bias - it's simply the truth.
This is not specific to this incident - the pendulum has swung way too far, imo.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Maybe you have the gender bias. The point I've been trying to make with GioforPM is not that she IS lieing and money is her motive but rather that it COULD be. Why should she be given the benefit of the doubt any more than him when this is a he said she said issue? To think that a women couldn't be lieing for a multitude of reasons in my opinion would be a gender bias.

One possible reason would be how likely two things are. He said/she said does not mean both have the same "chance" of telling the truth. If one of their stories is more likely to occur you can give that person more benefit of the doubt, right?

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by the2bears

One possible reason would be how likely two things are. He said/she said does not mean both have the same "chance" of telling the truth. If one of their stories is more likely to occur you can give that person more benefit of the doubt, right?

What is that based on though? I think every situation is unique. To assume one is more likely isn't exactly fair because it might be incorrect. If a wife is murdered statistically the husband is probably the most likely person but is it right to assume that? It's a slippery slope. Just because something is more likely I don't think giving them the benefit of the doubt is the right thing to do. The evidece should do the talking but in these situations there is limited evidence so its tough. If we actually knew all the evidence we could probably make a more informed conclusion but really its a lot of speculation with minimal evidence right now.

[justafan]

In the Kane case there is actually someone accusing him of a crime. They are not looking for other perpetrators so they will examine the evidence to see if it supports her claim so would imagine she does get the benefit of the doubt at first.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Hackey

What is that based on though? I think every situation is unique. To assume one is more likely isn't exactly fair because it might be incorrect. If a wife is murdered statistically the husband is probably the most likely person but is it right to assume that? It's a slippery slope. Just because something is more likely I don't think giving them the benefit of the doubt is the right thing to do. The evidece should do the talking but in these situations there is limited evidence so its tough. If we actually knew all the evidence we could probably make a more informed conclusion but really its a lot of speculation with minimal evidence right now.

You asked how you might give more benefit of the doubt, I showed situations in which I think it would be justified.

"Right to assume that"? We were discussing "benefit of the doubt", which I take to mean "I am more likely to believe whom?" rather than an assumption one way or the other.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Of course she could be lying. Anything is possible. But don't you see how your continued focus on that possibility makes you look? And if the public debate in general focused solely on that aspect of the issue (the way you are doing) the devastating consequences there would be for future rape victims? I'm just suggesting you let it go for a while.

You might be a very balanced person but that is not what is coming out on here.

It's kind of ironic that you would say if the general public is focused on "my side" of the issue there would be devastating consequences yet completely forget that there are devastating consequences to both individuals in this situation. Yes I understand that there is potential for a rapist to walk free. I absolutely do not want that. I also realize there is a possibility for an innocent man to go to jail or have his name tarnished or have to unfairly pay a large sum of money. I also do not want this. If you have further issue with that just PM me because were starting to get more personal here than actually talking about the case.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by the2bears

You asked how you might give more benefit of the doubt, I showed situations in which I think it would be justified.

"Right to assume that"? We were discussing "benefit of the doubt", which I take to mean "I am more likely to believe whom?" rather than an assumption one way or the other.

Ya I see what your saying and I think its only natural that people are going to give the benefit of the doubt to one or the other. I still have a difficult time saying that one is more likely than the other or that one is more right. Do I think its more likely Kane did it? I honestly can't say that. Do I think its more likely she is lieing? I honestly can't say that either.

If this was a case of two strangers in college I would probably be more inclined to believe the women. If it was a couple and they had a long history of fighting I would think it would entirely be possible she did it as revenge which I have seen before in real life. The fact that it is a celebrity adds a new element to it. I definitely think Kane could feel entitled and acted like a POS and did it but I also think she could have lied either because she felt used or slighted in some way or she wanted money. Its a tough call and probably keeping an open mind is the best path to take as difficult as it might be because emotions get involved and everyone views things differently.

[justafan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Indeed. But what I find troubling about these conversations is the implication that men are far more likely to be horrible persons than women are. That's clearly a sexist attitude. Men's awfulness tends to manifest in different ways than women's awfulness (men are more likely to be violent), but I see no reason to believe awfulness isn't evenly distributed between the genders.

I think women can be awful too. However you can't gloss over the "men are more likely to be violent" part. Thats the part that doesnt make it equal but pretty terrifying.

[sureLoss]

Buffalo news reporting that DNA test did not find any traces of Kane's DNA on the woman genitals or under garments
http://sabres.buffalonews.com/2015/0...-in-kane-case/

“The absence of DNA and semen, in itself, does not prove that there was no rape,” said Florina Altshiler, a Buffalo attorney who worked as a sex-crimes prosecutor in Alaska. “It proves that there was no ejaculation, or possibly, that the perpetrator wore a condom.”

Altshiler said she is aware of cases in which rapists did wear condoms.

Frank J. Clark, the county’s former DA, offered a different opinion.

If none of Kane’s DNA was found on the woman’s genital area or in her undergarments, that information “could be a game-changer” in Kane’s favor, he told The News.

“If the vaginal swabs taken at the hospital show no sign of his DNA, that could very well exonerate him of rape,” Clark said.

The occasion of a rapist using a condom is “extremely rare” in his experience. Clark said.

Like Altshiler, Clark said he has been following the case closely but has no direct knowledge of the DNA results.

Still, Kane’s DNA was found beneath the woman’s fingernails and on her shoulders, according to two of the sources, one of them a member of law enforcement.

[jayswin]

Wow, huge development. As they stated, it's not the end of the investigation, but at the very least a full on rape charge seems quite unlikely at this point.