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

[justafan]

So DNA from her scratching and being bitten on shoulder. A condom being used wouldn't be unheard of as not only DNA but disease and unwanted pregnacy can result. Interesting but not sure how it affects the investigation. Guess we will see.

[Hackey]

If it's extremely rare as the former DA says in the article then I can only see it helping Kane. I'd be curious to know if the cases where it did happen if concealing the persons identity was the motivating factor or not.

[justafan]

Other attorneys said it does happen, the wearing of condoms. If Kane, or others, are in the habit of not wearing condoms with random sex partners then they must like the idea of children. Thats gonna cost alot of $$ too. If it was consentual sex you would think a big shot athlete would know to protect himself. If assault, well, more so you would think. Interesting development but not exactly unheard of.

[combustiblefuel]

Could be a case of it got to the point of lets have sex then her changing her mind. I'm all infavor for rough sex but leaving a bite mark and scratching hard enough to leave enough dna under finger nails is what has me on the fence. It leaves me thinking that sex was being performed but after the biting it may have been over the edge for her and she said no more but Kane didn't stop. Which is why I beleive both parties feel they have such a strong case on either side

That is still rape. If you don't stop when your partner says no then anything after that is rape. It's the only scenario to me that fits right now. It started as consensual and got to violent for her .

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by justafan

Other attorneys said it does happen, the wearing of condoms. If Kane, or others, are in the habit of not wearing condoms with random sex partners then they must like the idea of children. Thats gonna cost alot of $$ too. If it was consentual sex you would think a big shot athlete would know to protect himself. If assault, well, more so you would think. Interesting development but not exactly unheard of.

Ot but....

NSFW!

New study as shown pull out method works just as effective as condoms in the children department as their is only the week of ovulation where woman can get pregnant. Condoms are still the best way to prevent sti's
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/artic...-using-condoms

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by 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.

All it means is that he didn't ejaculate in her.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by 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.

What? Is this a full on rape or just a partial rape in your mind?

Huge development my ass, he either attacked the chick or he didn't, who cares if he was carefull about making a baby?

[combustiblefuel]

Wrong thread

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

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.

the DOJ would take the stance that if it's not reported it didn't happen and it only happened if they are found guilty. So it is an extremely skewed statistic. So their numbers would be better described as rape convictions per 1000 people. And that would backup the findings that it is less common at a college because it's widely known that rapes by College students are far less likely to be reported.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Could be a case of it got to the point of lets have sex then her changing her mind. I'm all infavor for rough sex but leaving a bite mark and scratching hard enough to leave enough dna under finger nails is what has me on the fence. It leaves me thinking that sex was being performed but after the biting it may have been over the edge for her and she said no more but Kane didn't stop. Which is why I beleive both parties feel they have such a strong case on either side

That is still rape. If you don't stop when your partner says no then anything after that is rape. It's the only scenario to me that fits right now. It started as consensual and got to violent for her .

I'm not an expert but getting DNA under your fingernails is probably pretty easy. Rubbing nails across someones back or body during sex seems pretty normal. Bite marks I think you'd have to know more specifics to judge. There could be a wide spectrum of what that means. Kane could have been out of control and bit her. She could have told him to do it. I think in the end though they should be able to match up the evidence with each's story. If all the evidence matches with one persons story of events and doesn't with the others then thats probably a good indication of whos telling the truth and whos lieing. With the public we have partial evidence so were likely going to view it how we want depending on who we believe more.

[powderjunkie]

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.

Men's awful behaviour is more likely to negatively impact other people (both in possible violence, but also the power men tend to have in society). ####ty women certainly can harm others, but not as frequently or to the same extent as men IMO.

It's a silly question to even pose, but which transgression is more egregious? Raping someone, or falsely accusing someone of rape? Both things suck, but there is no doubt in my mind that an actual action is worse than a false accusation.

[Hackey]

That's kind of a strange stance. If Kane went to jail for 3 years, lost his contract and endorsements, never played in the NHL again, had a a rape conviction on his criminal record, and was viewed as a rapist for the rest of his life by his friends, family, and the general public for a crime he didn't commit I'd say that would be pretty bad. Its tough to not take sides but thats a dangerous thing. This is something you want to make sure you get right and its easy to have biases.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Both things suck, but there is no doubt in my mind that an actual action is worse than a false accusation.

Agreed. What it comes to is we have no problem at all believing many men capable of doing something that's a 9 out of 10 on the awfulness scale, but if you suggest some women are capable of doing something that is a 7 out of 10 on the awfulness scale, you must be some kind of misogynist.

[justafan]

I think he's referring to the violence and damage that rape causes. Also it was about how men can cause more damage, in a physical way, than women can.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Hackey

That's kind of a strange stance. If Kane went to jail for 3 years, lost his contract and endorsements, never played in the NHL again, had a a rape conviction on his criminal record, and was viewed as a rapist for the rest of his life by his friends, family, and the general public for a crime he didn't commit I'd say that would be pretty bad. Its tough to not take sides but thats a dangerous thing. This is something you want to make sure you get right and its easy to have biases.

Ya, that would suck. That is exactly why the legal process is so rigid and convictions are difficult to achieve. It is highly, highly, highly unlikely (i.e. nearly impossible) that your scenario would happen if Kane had really done absolutely nothing wrong. These kinds of cases tend to live in the grey area, where multiple things can be true and levels of guilt, innocence, intent and misunderstanding are variable (and as such the resulting judgments tend to take this into account).

I'm sad to say that I believe there are far, far more very guilty people walking free compared to completely innocent folks in jail.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm sad to say that I believe there are far, far more very guilty people walking free compared to completely innocent folks in jail.

This may be true but it is not confined to only rape. BTW I watched a vid the other day about a guy that was in prison for 10 years for molesting his kids, it never happened. The wife made the entire thing up (and was having an affair with one of the prosecutors) so it is not unheard of for convictions to be made even with no physical evidence. The kids sadly were coerced and now feel guilty even though they did nothing wrong.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Ya, that would suck. That is exactly why the legal process is so rigid and convictions are difficult to achieve. It is highly, highly, highly unlikely (i.e. nearly impossible) that your scenario would happen if Kane had really done absolutely nothing wrong. These kinds of cases tend to live in the grey area, where multiple things can be true and levels of guilt, innocence, intent and misunderstanding are variable (and as such the resulting judgments tend to take this into account).

I'm sad to say that I believe there are far, far more very guilty people walking free compared to completely innocent folks in jail.

Happened to Brian Banks. Might have happened to Tyson. I'm sure there are plenty of examples if you actually look into it. DNA testing has exonerated a lot of men who were convicted when the science didn't exist. Even the United States Department of Justice says almost 1 in 10 accusations are false. As you say the evidence should do the talking but in these cases the evidence is usually minimal and difficult to decipher. At the end of the day I think we just need to keep an open mind in order to be fair to everyone.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm sad to say that I believe there are far, far more very guilty people walking free compared to completely innocent folks in jail.

There's nothing sad about that.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Happened to Brian Banks. Might have happened to Tyson. I'm sure there are plenty of examples if you actually look into it. DNA testing has exonerated a lot of men who were convicted when the science didn't exist. Even the United States Department of Justice says almost 1 in 10 accusations are false. As you say the evidence should do the talking but in these cases the evidence is usually minimal and difficult to decipher. At the end of the day I think we just need to keep an open mind in order to be fair to everyone.

Fair to everyone?

Does being "fair and open-minded" extend to the alleged victim as well? Because it sure seems like you're not applying the same standard to her.

You're only granting the benefit of the doubt to one person in this situation.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Happened to Brian Banks. Might have happened to Tyson. I'm sure there are plenty of examples if you actually look into it. DNA testing has exonerated a lot of men who were convicted when the science didn't exist. Even the United States Department of Justice says almost 1 in 10 accusations are false. As you say the evidence should do the talking but in these cases the evidence is usually minimal and difficult to decipher. At the end of the day I think we just need to keep an open mind in order to be fair to everyone.

The law isn't perfect but I would bet for every wrongful rape conviction there's at least a 1000 that get away with it.