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

[SDS]

Why are you comparing hockey discussion to a discussion of rape accusations? 

 

You are so clever. I just marvel at your verbal judo.

[darksabre]

You are so clever. I just marvel at your verbal judo.

 

I think you need to do some more thinking Scott. Have a cup of coffee. 

[Taro T]

I think to much focus is going on the age of the girl here, the prosecutor involved doing cases mostly about under 17 year old girls is very worrysome.

And the girl lying about her age can help the accused case.

 

But in the end its a rape case, and no matter what the age is, there might be some proof coming from the rape kit if she resisted enough.   Personally i don't think it looks very good for patrick kane.

IF she is/was underage and she presented false evidence of her age, from what has been stated in this thread, that wouldn't mitigate culpability in NY.

 

Makes sense why the law is (apparently) written that way. It removes 1 he said/she said from the equation. (Or perhaps even he & she said / the parents said from the equation.) IF she was a minor AND she passed herself off as being at least 21 to get into the establishment AND she appeared to be 21 AND paased herself off to jim as being 21 AND everything that the 2 parties did was otherwise consensual; it would seem that something that far beyond simply stating "oh of course you're not with a minor" should be mitigating; but I wouldn't expect to see a change of that nature to the law anytime soon and it apparently isn't mitigating in NY.

[shrader]

I clipped that piece above because *my* wife, who's a serious feminist on just about every issue I can imagine, was raised in a neighborhood very much like South Buffalo. Her reaction to the reports? Disappointment in the accused, some skepticism over the allegations, and, to her dismay, a nagging sense of sympathy for Kane. Oh, she was so angry to have to admit to the last piece.

 

Do we even know the allegations?  All we have, last I checked, is that there is a rape investigation going on.  That is incredibly vague.

[darksabre]

Without first reading back through his posts, I'm going to say that he hasn't said anything that can reasonably be interpreted as hurtful to anyone. 

 

He's said stuff with which I disagree. But, hey: Vive le difference. Even on subjects as sensitive as this one.

 

 

Good stuff, Mod #1.

 

I clipped that piece above because *my* wife, who's a serious feminist on just about every issue I can imagine, was raised in a neighborhood very much like South Buffalo. Her reaction to the reports? Disappointment in the accused, some skepticism over the allegations, and, to her dismay, a nagging sense of sympathy for Kane. Oh, she was so angry to have to admit to the last piece.

 

This is complicated stuff.

 

Are you suggesting that newsworthy rape accusations do not admit of healthy and vigorous discussion, and an exchange of differing viewpoints?

 

A discussion based fully on hypotheticals is not a healthy discussion. 

[That Aud Smell]

Do we even know the allegations?  All we have, last I checked, is that there is a rape investigation going on.  That is incredibly vague.

 

Only what was reported in the local paper and on Deadspin. They've reported more than that what you've cited above.

 

A discussion based fully on hypotheticals is not a healthy discussion. 

 

I don't think that is the case here. 

[Johnny DangerFace]

I remember during school, when the course topic was rape, the class could no longer have a meaningful discussion. Because if anyone said anything that could be twisted as offensive, a part of the class would jump on them. For example, regarding statutory rape, how dare anyone bring up the reasonableness of a mistake of age defense.

 

Unfortunately that same phenemenon is at work here by some of you. Please consider that you attacking any reasonable discussion regarding rape that could be perverted as offensive, doesn't mean it should be twisted as offensive. Attacking reasonable discussion points is not defending women just because it is a sensitive topic, it's actually just shutting down an important talk that should be had.

 

The culture and law regarding rape has realllllllllly far to go. It is something that should be talked and fought about. Accept that there will be some offensive people and ignore them. But shutting everyone down actually makes your voice less heard.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Johnny DangerFace

[deluca67]

A discussion based fully on hypotheticals is not a healthy discussion. 

You are talking about 90% of this boards server space. 

[SDS]

I think you need to do some more thinking Scott. Have a cup of coffee. 

 

Ah yes, more lecturing. You've done such a wonderful job so far, you should just keep doing it.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

nFreeman, I am asking you to stop saying things that are hurting people. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that you, like me, were raised in a society with some real under currents of misogyny and sexism. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that you, like me, absorb some of those less lovely parts of our society and they have affected your default thought patterns. I'm asking you to listen to the people you know, like Josie, when they tell you that the default to disbelief that victims of sexual assault experience is real and it is painful. These are the things I am asking you when I am asking you to stop.

 

I am expressing a sincere desire that the discussion change course out of respect for this victim, and all victims of sexual assault and the pile-on pain that our reactions can cause. Obviously, I have no authority to actually silence people. You, on the other hand, do have that authority. So, if you wish, this can be my last post on the subject.

 

I completely agree with all of this.

 

The underlying unsavoury truths of our society leads to rampant re-victimization.  It is shameful.

 

Alas, some can't handle / don't want to look at the truth.

 

This is all I will say on this matter.

[inkman]

(except for JJ who is nucking futs and who I can't distance myself far enough from).

 

:)

[That Aud Smell]

Now sounds like they will issue written statement. (Hamburg police.)

[Taro T]

Pat Kane has made his own bed. That being said it would be nice to hear these allegations are false but Pats past history of buffoonery suggests to me that he still has a lot of growing up to do. Some guys never get past it.

 

To learn they are descriptive of something troubling to the young woman but not of the level of "rape," probably I agree it would be nice to hear that (devil's in the details, which is why it's probable I'd agree). To learn the accusation is flat out false would be horrific.

 

We have no reason yet to believe the accusation is false. I hope he did not rape her, but I also hope there is some merit to her accusation now that whatever had transpired has actually transpired. (Which, again, there is no reason at this time to believe there isn't merit and is also NOT saying that her being assaulted is or would be, in and of itself, a good thing.)

Edited August 7, 2015 by Taro T

[That Aud Smell]

Hamburg chief made a brief (brief) statement, which essentially confirmed the investigation of Kane in re an incident that allegedly occurred last weekend.

 

He said he wouldn't take any questions, although he did let slip a few responses (nothing revelatory as far as I could tell) after he started passing out copies of the statement. The one thing I head him say: He had no knowledge of Kane having come into the P.D. (that's different than saying "I am taking no questions," Chief).

Oh. And he also mentioned that they're awaiting forensic results.

[...]

I completely agree with all of this.

 

The underlying unsavoury truths of our society leads to rampant re-victimization.  It is shameful.

 

Alas, some can't handle / don't want to look at the truth.

 

This is all I will say on this matter.

 

Pot, meet kettle.  The TRUTH is, until there is a formal charge, there is no victim.  Therefore, there is no one to disparage.  Hence, all of the discussion you two seem to object to is theoretical.  That's like saying one should merely accept the existence of God, and not contemplate God's existence. 

[nfreeman]

nFreeman, I am asking you to stop saying things that are hurting people. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that you, like me, were raised in a society with some real under currents of misogyny and sexism. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that you, like me, absorb some of those less lovely parts of our society and they have affected your default thought patterns. I'm asking you to listen to the people you know, like Josie, when they tell you that the default to disbelief that victims of sexual assault experience is real and it is painful. These are the things I am asking you when I am asking you to stop.

 

I am expressing a sincere desire that the discussion change course out of respect for this victim, and all victims of sexual assault and the pile-on pain that our reactions can cause. Obviously, I have no authority to actually silence people. You, on the other hand, do have that authority. So, if you wish, this can be my last post on the subject.

 

Oh, FFS.  So we now have to internalize trigger warnings when we discuss the possibility that an accusation could be false?

 

I am not "defaulting to disbelief."  I am defaulting to "This is a serious accusation.  If it's true, a man is going to be imprisoned and known forever as a violent criminal.  Accordingly, we need to examine the situation in a sober and objective manner -- including getting more facts than the zero we have now -- before we accept the accusation as true." 

 

That is not misogynistic.  I don't give a crap what they are teaching in gender studies these days.  It just isn't.

 

Without first reading back through his posts, I'm going to say that he hasn't said anything that can reasonably be interpreted as hurtful to anyone. 

 

He's said stuff with which I disagree. But, hey: Vive le difference. Even on subjects as sensitive as this one.

 

 

Good stuff, Mod #1.

 

I clipped that piece above because *my* wife, who's a serious feminist on just about every issue I can imagine, was raised in a neighborhood very much like South Buffalo. Her reaction to the reports? Disappointment in the accused, some skepticism over the allegations, and, to her dismay, a nagging sense of sympathy for Kane. Oh, she was so angry to have to admit to the last piece.

 

This is complicated stuff.

 

Are you suggesting that newsworthy rape accusations do not admit of healthy and vigorous discussion, and an exchange of differing viewpoints?

 

Muchas gracias.

 

 

To learn they are descriptive of something troubling to the young woman but not of the level of "rape," probably I agree it would be nice to hear that (devil's in the details, which is why it's probable I'd agree). To learn the accusation is flat out false would be horrific.

 

We have no reason yet to believe the accusation is false. I hope he did not rape her, but I also hope there is some merit to her accusation now that whatever had transpired has actually transpired. (Which, again, there is no reason at this time to believe there isn't merit and is also NOT saying that her being assaulted is, in and of itself, a good thing.)

 

Well, wouldn't it be less horrific than learning that a rape had in fact occurred? 

[...]

Can I still accuse people of being a witch?  Because, when the masses believed in witch-craft, once you were accused, the burden of proving you're not a witch was on the accused.  One way to prove the accusation was false was to sink to the bottom of a pond and drown.  You were guilty if you floated or swam.

 

Maybe Kane should jump in the lake and we can find out if he's guilty.  Maybe he should be accused of racism - that's the new witch-craft.

[LastPommerFan]

Oh, FFS.  So we now have to internalize trigger warnings when we discuss the possibility that an accusation could be false?

 

I am not "defaulting to disbelief."  I am defaulting to "This is a serious accusation.  If it's true, a man is going to be imprisoned and known forever as a violent criminal.  Accordingly, we need to examine the situation in a sober and objective manner -- including getting more facts than the zero we have now -- before we accept the accusation as true." 

 

That is not misogynistic.  I don't give a crap what they are teaching in gender studies these days.  It just isn't.

 

 

Sir, you don't have to do anything. I'm making you aware of the affects the discussion is having. You are choosing to dismiss me. I get it. You should also look into the rarity of false sexual assault accusations. I think the information will affect your position, but I think that if the sources are brought to you by me, they will be discounted, and reasonably so.

 

(the bolded section is an hilarious juxtaposition) 

[That Aud Smell]

Pot, meet kettle.  The TRUTH is, until there is a formal charge, there is no victim.  Therefore, there is no one to disparage.  Hence, all of the discussion you two seem to object to is theoretical.  That's like saying one should merely accept the existence of God, and not contemplate God's existence. 

 

[Johnny DangerFace]

Two more things.

 

1) I'v seen some people talk about the balance between innocence until proven guilty, and not doubting the accuser.  The thought seems to be they are mutually exclusive, and you can't strongly believe both.  This isn't true at all, and I think its worth talking about.  The reason you think these are dependent on each other, and one takes from another, is because you are thinking of them on the same spectrum.  However, when you think of these on two different spectrum, it makes much more sense.  There is the court of law, where there is innocence until proven guilty.  You can strongly believe that Kane gets that, and rightfully so.  However, there is also the court of public opinion.  And with factors such as sexual assault victim's rights, the sensitivity of the subject, and kane's maturity issues, it is perfectly okay to say "until i know more, i weigh more on the accuser's side than the accused side."  It is fine to believe in both things, because there are two completely independent thoughts.  Even if you are an investigator (accept that you have the burden of proof and kane is presumed innocent, but at the same time take the accuser's words as truth and fully investigate it).  

 

 

2)  For those wanting to shut down discussion of rape.  Please understand you fall in the camp of people you cannot discuss rape with.  This is because we cannot have a reasonable discussion with those who think any discussion is unreasonable.  This is a big shame as it sounds like your intentions are really good and you heart is at the right place, so you are the exact type of people that should be at the discussion table.  Rethink your position.  

[That Aud Smell]

You should also look into the rarity of false sexual assault accusations.

 

A simple Googling will yield fairly good overviews of the matter. The upshot? It's very difficult to ascertain a rate with any accuracy. For starters: Define "false" in this context.

 

p.s. the wingnuts on either side of the issue peg the rate as 2% and 40%, respectively.

1) I'v seen some people talk about the balance between innocence until proven guilty, and not doubting the accuser.  The thought seems to be they are mutually exclusive, and you can't strongly believe both.  This isn't true at all, and I think its worth talking about.  The reason you think these are dependent on each other, and one takes from another, is because you are thinking of them on the same spectrum.  However, when you think of these on two different spectrum, it makes much more sense.  There is the court of law, where there is innocence until proven guilty.  You can strongly believe that Kane gets that, and rightfully so.  However, there is also the court of public opinion.  And with factors such as sexual assault victim's rights, the sensitivity of the subject, and kane's maturity issues, it is perfectly okay to say "until i know more, i weigh more on the accuser's side than the accused side."  It is fine to believe in both things, because there are two completely independent thoughts.  Even if you are an investigator (accept that you have the burden of proof and kane is presumed innocent, but at the same time take the accuser's words as truth and fully investigate it).  

 

This isn't far off from what I'd been saying.

[...]

 

There has to be line drawn somewhere, otherwise we're all victims of something.

[darksabre]

Ah yes, more lecturing. You've done such a wonderful job so far, you should just keep doing it.

 

I'm not the one making stupid points. You love to talk some talk. Maybe support what you're saying. Come on. I dare you. 

[Johnny DangerFace]

There has to be line drawn somewhere, otherwise we're all victims of something.

 

Yea but your line is so far off that for those who were murdered in unsolved crimes aren't victims.  Or those brutally raped.  Or those robbed...

Edited August 7, 2015 by Johnny DangerFace

[SDS]

A simple Googling will yield fairly good overviews of the matter. The upshot? It's very difficult to ascertain a rate with any accuracy. For starters: Define "false" in this context.

 

p.s. the wingnuts on either side of the issue peg the rate as 2% and 40%, respectively.

 

Boogers, I was going to make him give numbers on what is pretty much an unidentifiable quantity...

I'm not the one making stupid points. You love to talk some talk. Maybe support what you're saying. Come on. I dare you. 

 

I wait for the triple dog-dare before I begin adult discussions. (I also wait for another adult to join...)