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

[darksabre]

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

 

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

 

You're adorable. I'll keep doing what I'm doing, thank you very much. 

[That Aud Smell]

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

 

How about we move that line back to include women who make sworn statements, subject to penalties of perjury, that they were attacked?

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

 

8% is commonly attributed to the FBI, but the authors out there do a good job of showing the fallacy in that figure. There's no knowing, is my view.

[...]

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...

 

In the context of discussing the law, there has to be a line.  You can devise as many anecdotes as you wish, it doesn't serve the discussion, but, rather, derails it.  In fact, it's this type of utopianism that feeds someone like dark, for whom it seems nothing is good unless it's absolutely perfect.  Let's transport this case to Iran and evaluate which government/society handles the case in a more agreeable manner.

[Johnny DangerFace]

In the context of discussing the law, there has to be a line.  You can devise as many anecdotes as you wish, it doesn't serve the discussion, but, rather, derails it.  In fact, it's this type of utopianism that feeds someone like dark, for whom it seems nothing is good unless it's absolutely perfect.  Let's transport this case to Iran and evaluate which government/society handles the case in a more agreeable manner.

 

:w00t:

 

 

:P

Edited August 7, 2015 by Johnny DangerFace

[...]

How about we move that line back to include women who make sworn statements, subject to penalties of perjury, that they were attacked?

 

 

Do we have that detail?  Do we know if it was a woman or a girl, and do we know who filed the complaint?

 

Oh, and do we know that the complaint is valid?  I think it would need to be verified as a valid complaint before we start assigning the victim label to anyone, right?   Or wrong?

 

Or are we victims just because we have enough brain power to complain about something, regardless of the veracity of the complaint?

Edited August 7, 2015 by SiZzlEmeIsTEr

[Sabres Fan in NS]

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. 

 

Maybe I am reading too much into some of the posts in this thread, but it seems to me that this has already started.

 

I admit that I am not following the news on this matter, other than what I read here.

[...]

Maybe I am reading too much into some of the posts in this thread, but it seems to me that this has already started.

 

 

Who, specifically, is being disparaged?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Who, specifically, is being disparaged?

 

When I read comments concerning the accusations possibly being false, talking about women who tend to look older than they are in part by design ... that is when it starts, at least for me.

[SDS]

8% is commonly attributed to the FBI, but the authors out there do a good job of showing the fallacy in that figure. There's no knowing, is my view.

 

It's not your view, it is a fact. When 5x the cases end with no determination as are cases proven false - the error bars swamp the data. Probably the best you can do is apportion the cases that are undetermined into the solved case bins at their respective rates. Even then, that's making a leap of faith.

[nfreeman]

How about we move that line back to include women who make sworn statements, subject to penalties of perjury, that they were attacked?

 

How about we don't call them "victims" -- since that term presupposes the truth of the accusations -- until the facts are in?

[That Aud Smell]

Do we have that detail?  Do we know if it was a woman or a girl, and do we know who filed the complaint?

 

Oh, and do we know that the complaint is valid?  I think it would need to be verified as a valid complaint before we start assigning the victim label to anyone, right?   Or wrong?

 

Or are we victims just because we have enough brain power to complain about something, regardless of the veracity of the complaint?

 

Police investigations generally required a verified complaint. I think it's safe and fair to presume that the accuser has made a sworn statement.

 

As for whether it's valid, I'm not going there. I've laid out that position upthread. She may not have 100% of the facts "right," she may have a story with a few holes in it, a past with some unflattering incidents, but if she went to the hospital and had a physical exam done and then went to the police station and filed a sworn complaint? She's a victim in my view, unless and until I hear proof to the contrary.

[...]

When I read comments concerning the accusations possibly being false, talking about women who tend to look older than they are in part by design ... that is when it starts, at least for me.

 

Then you're denying a possible reality.

[Taro T]

[quote name="nfreeman" post="719259" timestamp="1438958631"

 

...

 

 

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

Absolutely. Please point out where I stated otherwise.

 

At this point, whatever happened has happened. I truly hope the woman was not raped - forcibly, statutorilly, or in any other manner.

 

The statement I was responding to specifically stated "it would be nice to hear the accusations are false." With that said, in THAT scenario particularly, there was no rape.

 

With THAT as the basis we are left with 3 (for simplicities sake) options for what happened: something close to meeting the formal definition of rape occured (which I would not consider to be particularily nice);

 

something which most people would not consider rape, but which in the heat of the moment was seriously troubling to the young woman occurred which caused her to feel violated enough to go to the police, and something which upon further reflection of time she would agree wasn't rape and more importantly doesn't end up affecting her in the long term (which I expect ALL would agree would be nice);

 

or she is making stuff up - which would be very bad. Horrific was probably a poor choice of words, but that scenario would definitely have a tremendously bad impact on both of their lives for no reasonable reason whatsoever.

 

And, before some can jump on me for stating that she's lying or making stuff up or making up reasons for her to make this up - THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM NOR WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING. I was merely stating that to find out she is/was lying would be extremely bad. Nothing more and nothing less.

[That Aud Smell]

How about we don't call them "victims" -- since that term presupposes the truth of the accusations -- until the facts are in?

 

It presupposes that she did not commit perjury.

[...]

Police investigations generally required a verified complaint. I think it's safe and fair to presume that the accuser has made a sworn statement.

 

As for whether it's valid, I'm not going there. I've laid out that position upthread. She may not have 100% of the facts "right," she may have a story with a few holes in it, a past with some unflattering incidents, but if she went to the hospital and had a physical exam done and then went to the police station and filed a sworn complaint? She's a victim in my view, unless and until I hear proof to the contrary.

 

Color me shocked at the lack of reason here.  A "verified complaint" is nothing more than that - the police have a piece of paper with words on it that read as an accusation against someone.  The investigation is about verifying whether the complaint has merit and whether there are grounds for charges.  Even at that point, the "victim" is technically an "alleged victim" until the court determines whether the accused is guilty of the charges or not.  Then, and only then, does the "alleged victim" become a "victim" in a technical sense.  There is a long and sordid history of why the legal system is set up this way.

Edited August 7, 2015 by SiZzlEmeIsTEr

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Then you're denying a possible reality.

 

The reality is that she is being re-victimized in the media, well at least by many on this board, even if she ends up not being a "victim" in terms of the law.

[Hoss]

To be fair I don't believe that the media has re-victimized her from what I've seen. Very few have discussed the potential illegitimacy of her claims.

The only way I could see that argument is if you're talking about the way they show highlights of him winning the Stanley Cup while discussing the case. I find that distasteful as it positions Kane as a man of power and control of a large image a random girl at a bar could never compare to.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Hoss

[Johnny DangerFace]

Why is there an insistence to use legal terms outside of a legal context?  It makes no sense to me.  

[That Aud Smell]

Color me shocked at the lack of reason here.  A "verified complaint" is nothing more than that - the police have a piece of paper with words on it that read as an accusation against someone.  The investigation is about verifying whether the complaint has merit and whether there are grounds for charges.  Even at that point, the "victim" is technically an "alleged victim" until the court determines whether the accused is guilty of the charges or not.  Then, and only then, does the "alleged victim" become a "victim" in a technical sense.  There is a long a sordid history of why the legal system is set up this way.

 

I operate within the legal system plenty.

 

That's not where I am on this, right now.

 

A verified complaint is much more than you make of it. She swears under penalties of perjury that something awful happened to her. The criminal justice system may not be able to validate her claims. That doesn't mean she wasn't a victim of something.

[...]

The reality is that she is being re-victimized in the media, well at least by many on this board, even if she ends up not being a "victim" in terms of the law.

 

WHO? 

[Eleven]

I have returned after an absence of many hours.

 

I have no idea what happened to this thread.

 

About an hour ago, Hamburg PD issued a statement that the investigation is ongoing.  I'm sure that if there is enough evidence to charge, the DA will charge.

[...]

I operate within the legal system plenty.

 

That's not where I am on this, right now.

 

A verified complaint is much more than you make of it. She swears under penalties of perjury that something awful happened to her. The criminal justice system may not be able to validate her claims. That doesn't mean she wasn't a victim of something.

 

It doesn't mean that "she" was, either.  And, again, what is that something?  Frankly, I have a scenario in my head that would cause this thread to explode, maybe, but is perfectly reasonable and logical - as much as logic can be applied to a narrative along these lines.  But I don't wish to cause the thread to explode.

 

When there are details, when (or if) the police, or whatever official body, confirm that the complaint has merit, that there is enough evidence to charge the accused, then the tenor of this thread will change.  But for now we have a story made up of small fragments some of which we can not even reasonably accept as true, yet.  The so-called victim is nothing right now but a construct of this thread.  All of that may change, but, for now it's conjecture; the person you have empathy for may not exist.

Edited August 7, 2015 by SiZzlEmeIsTEr

[That Aud Smell]

When there are details, when (or if) the police, or whatever official body, confirm that the complaint has merit, that there is enough evidence to charge the accused, then the tenor of this thread will change.  . . . The so-called victim is nothing right now but a construct of this thread.  All of that may change, but, for now it's conjecture; the person you have empathy for may not exist.

 

You're saying that the police have confirmed an ongoing investigation based on a sworn complaint from a non-existent person? 

 

Also, be assured that you're not in position to dictate the tenor of this thread. You're in charge of your view of the matter. Which differs from mine.

 

The community must await all of the machinations of the criminal justice system before learning whether a crime was committed. That's the system we have. God bless it.

 

I don't need that system to finish that process before I infer, based on what I currently know, that there's a woman out there who was likely a victim in an incident that occurred last weekend at Pat Kane's house.

 

Because I'm not a cop. I'm not a juror. I'm not a prosecutor. I'm not a criminal defense attorney. I'm not a judge. I'm just a person hearing of these events, and thinking, to myself (and those to whom I speak or type), "Man. Something bad happened to that lady."

[deluca67]

It presupposes that she did not commit perjury.

She is not under oath so perjury does not apply. 

[Huckleberry]

Do we have that detail?  Do we know if it was a woman or a girl, and do we know who filed the complaint?

 

Oh, and do we know that the complaint is valid?  I think it would need to be verified as a valid complaint before we start assigning the victim label to anyone, right?   Or wrong?

 

Or are we victims just because we have enough brain power to complain about something, regardless of the veracity of the complaint?

 

We actually don't know any details, hell might be a man or a 16 yr old boy to.