Patrick Kane: [Updated] D.A. Decides Not to Prosecute; NHL Determines Claims "Unfounded"

[darksabre]

How about we don't treat girls/women like things we can conquer and then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But if I can't craft hypothetical dismissive narratives about them then what are they even for?

[LGR4GM]

To whom are you preaching, son?

Men in general

[musichunch]

Not always. Seem to recall a rather famous (infamous? ) model/actress that fooled a major magazine publisher as to her true age and then had several inappropriate acting roles again convincing those hiring her that she was as old as she appeared to be. In that particular case, pretty sure she turned out to be about 3 years younger than she claimed and at least that many younger than she appeared.

 

Traci Lords, I believe.

[Taro T]

I don't want you to crucify him. 

Guess what, it's your DUTY to trust in the allegation until such a time as it is proven to hold no water. Until that time comes you, as a man, are obligated to act in a manner that becomes you. And that means you don't get to craft whatever plausible stories you want about the situation. If you do not understand this, then I cannot help you.

 

:huh:

 

If this is a forcible rape allegation, there is an obligation to believe that something happened which the girl/woman did not want to have happen and it should be seriously investigated. If it appears there is a reasonable suspicion that a rape did occur, then the accused should be brought to trial. If that trial convinces a jury that a rape took place, that SOB should be in jail for the rest of his life.

 

If this is a statutory rape allegation, then it also should be investigated. From what has been posted in this thread, it doesn't appear that, in NY at least, that the accused's reason for believing the girl was of age will matter if, in fact, she isn't/wasn't.

 

In either case, there is a 'duty' to believe that something that in the grand scheme shouldn't have happen did happen. This is where we trust that the pros that are trained to deal with these matters do their duty properly and justice ends up being served. IMHO, there is no 'duty' to believe the accuser is correct in a rape having occurred NOR is there a reason to believe at this time that her accusation isn't credible. The accusation should be considered credible, but the accused shouldn't be labled a rapist just yet.

[josie]

Traci Lords, I believe.

Beat me to it. Quite the story. 

[woods-racer]

How about we don't treat girls/women like things we can conquer and then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I was talking statutory rape and my knowledge of it in general. I had wondered how a 25ish female teacher would get rape charges filling against them for having consensual sex with a HS student of theirs. It all comes together once someone fully explains statutory rape.

[josie]

Man, I know it's semantics at this point, but there really isn't a magical massive brain development in teenagers from age 16 to age 17. You think dark stuff that happens with romeo or juliet behind closed doors is just for scary stories and movies, it won't happen to you. You're special! The law is an interesting thing. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by Josie914

[WildCard]

But if I can't craft hypothetical dismissive narratives about them then what are they even for?

Sorry, but whom are you referring to here?

 

 

Men in general

Can't really lump 3 billion people together like that

[TrueBlueGED]

Man, I know it's semantics at this point, but there really isn't a magical massive brain development in teenagers from age 16 to age 17. You think dark stuff that happens with romeo or juliet behind closed doors is just for scary stories and movies, it won't happen to you. You're special! The law is an interesting thing.

Agreed. Same can be said for the 17 to 18 transition. I guess it comes down to lines gotta be drawn somewhere, innit?

 

(Hopefully my use of innit there meets with Freeman's approval)

[That Aud Smell]

Can't really lump 3 billion people together like that

Oh, but he just DID. Burn! Tssss.

[TrueBlueGED]

Can't really lump 3 billion people together like that

Sure you can, we're all pretty disgusting :lol:

[WildCard]

Sure you can, we're all pretty disgusting :lol:

Well true, there's 3 billion disgusting people on this planet, but some of the ladies ain't too lady like  ;)

 

Oh, but he just DID. Burn! Tssss.

Snap, crackle, AND pop!

[darksabre]

:huh:

 

If this is a forcible rape allegation, there is an obligation to believe that something happened which the girl/woman did not want to have happen and it should be seriously investigated. If it appears there is a reasonable suspicion that a rape did occur, then the accused should be brought to trial. If that trial convinces a jury that a rape took place, that SOB should be in jail for the rest of his life.

 

If this is a statutory rape allegation, then it also should be investigated. From what has been posted in this thread, it doesn't appear that, in NY at least, that the accused's reason for believing the girl was of age will matter if, in fact, she isn't/wasn't.

 

In either case, there is a 'duty' to believe that something that in the grand scheme shouldn't have happen did happen. This is where we trust that the pros that are trained to deal with these matters do their duty properly and justice ends up being served. IMHO, there is no 'duty' to believe the accuser is correct in a rape having occurred NOR is there a reason to believe at this time that her accusation isn't credible. The accusation should be considered credible, but the accused shouldn't be labled a rapist just yet.

This is exactly what I'm saying.

 

The allegation should be treated as credible.

 

Patrick is not guilty and not assumed to be.

 

Why does anything need to be theorized that tries to paint the allegation as not credible? Why? What purpose does that serve?

[woods-racer]

Agreed. Same can be said for the 17 to 18 transition. I guess it comes down to lines gotta be drawn somewhere, innit?

 

(Hopefully my use of innit there meets with Freeman's approval)

Freeman's the politically correct word police.

 

Robin's Egg is the spell/grammar police.

 

I believe innit is a spelling violation.

 

You may be pulled over by the Egg.

[3putt]

 

 

 

I think 17 is old enough to figure it out on their own. Less than 17 is not. Statutory rape is for less than 17. If she/he is 16 years old or younger it is statutory rape as long as there was consent.

 

That's what I'm getting...

If she is one day under 17 and there was sex, pk goes directly to jail, do not pass go do not collect $200. There cannot be consent under the law.

[Taro T]

This is exactly what I'm saying.

The allegation should be treated as credible.

Patrick is not guilty and not assumed to be.

Why does anything need to be theorized that tries to paint the allegation as not credible? Why? What purpose does that serve?

OK. I take back the :huh: as it was reading as if you were stating something else. :doh:

[musichunch]

Why does anything need to be theorized that tries to paint the allegation as not credible? Why? What purpose does that serve?

 

To push back against the wave of "guilty until proven innocent" that is prevalent on every form of media on the planet. 

[darksabre]

To push back against the wave of "guilty until proven innocent" that is prevalent on every form of media on the planet.

That's not a sufficient excuse. Yes, assumed guilt is a problem in the media. It's a product of gossip exploitation. But fighting back with theories that dismiss rape allegations is not the way to combat that problem. It's just more fuel on the burning corpse of reason and moderation.

[Hoss]

I mentioned it just before the merge so I think it got lost:

 

Does shouting that the accused deserves benefit of the simultaneously mean that the accuser does not?

[Johnny DangerFace]

I will say this.  Traditionally states do not allow a mistake of fact defense regarding the victim's age in statutory rape situations.  However, there is a "movement" to allow reasonable mistake of fact defenses in statutory rape cases.  It is a minority of states (in the low 20s i believe).  The majority of states still impose strict liability in statutory rape cases.  

 

So I wouldn't be so dismissive of JJ's hypothetical.  I think it is more reasonable to allow a mistake of fact/age defense than not. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by Johnny DangerFace

[darksabre]

I will say this. Traditionally states do not allow a mistake of fact defense regarding the victim's age in statutory rape situations. However, there is a "movement" to allow reasonable mistake of fact defenses in statutory rape cases. It is a minority of states (in the low 20s i believe). The majority of states still impose strict liability in statutory rape cases.

 

So I wouldn't be so dismissive of JJ's hypothetical. I think it is more reasonable to allow a mistake of fact/age defense than not.

What purpose does posing the hypothetical serve?

[Johnny DangerFace]

What purpose does posing the hypothetical serve?

 

I think it was just food for thought.  I can see how it can be taken as dismissive though.  But I too could imagine a scenario if it was a statutory rape situation with patty kane and we all say "yeaaaaa but she looks 22 and lied about her age."  That's all.  I tend to not believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to the meaningless court of opinion, and I generally give victim's the benefit of the doubt in sexual crimes.  

[Hoss]

I don't know if it has been pointed out, but the Hockey Hall of Fame said they still plan to allow Kane his day with the Cup on Saturday. They are deferring to the Blackhawks on the matter.

Imperial Pizza, who hosts him often, said they are now unlikely to host him on Saturday after originally expressing excitement about his private lunch that was planned there Saturday afternoon.

[darksabre]

I think it was just food for thought. I can see how it can be taken as dismissive though. But I too could imagine a scenario if it was a statutory rape situation with patty kane and we all say "yeaaaaa but she looks 22 and lied about her age." That's all. I tend to not believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to the meaningless court of opinion, and I generally give victim's the benefit of the doubt in sexual crimes.

The trick here is that we don't know any facts. We know nothing about the case beyond that it exists. But even if those hypotheticals were based on facts, and they may never be if this case involves a minor where records might be kept sealed, it's bad form to postulate on all the ways in which a potential rape victim might be lying. Is it possible? Yes. Does it matter at all right now? No.

[LastPommerFan]

There is nothing.... NOTHING... about this allegation to indicate that it is fabricated.

There is nothing about this allegation to indicate that it is fabricated.

 

NOTHING.

 

Every single piece of speculation that the allegation is not credible does a disservice to the accuser and adds nothing to society, nor this discussion. NOTHING.

 

Every piece of speculation that the allegation is not credible is an insensitive, unnecessary and inappropriate additional attack on a woman who may have just been raped, and adds nothing to society or this discussion. 

PLEASE STOP.