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

[deluca67]

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

Legally, she would be consider the "complainant" at this point I believe. 

[...]

 

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.

 

 

What?  I'm making a prediction, not trying to dictate anything.  How can you possibly infer otherwise?

Legally, she would be consider the "complainant" at this point I believe. 

 

Right!  Thank you.

[Eleven]

She is not under oath so perjury does not apply. 

 

If it's a sworn complaint (and I don't know if it is, but that's what Aud is saying), she is under oath and it does apply.

[Johnny DangerFace]

Arguing that a victim is nothing more than a legal construct is absolutely ridiculous. Sorry

 

Hate to break it to you, but if a word does have a legal definition, doesn't mean it can't have non-legal meanings either.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Johnny DangerFace

[That Aud Smell]

She is not under oath so perjury does not apply. 

 

She is. Verification = the taking of an oath.

 

S 100.15 Information, misdemeanor complaint and felony complaint;

               form and content.

  1.  An information, a misdemeanor complaint and a felony complaint

must each specify the name of the court with which it is filed and the

title of the action, and must be subscribed and verified by a person

known as the "complainant."  The complainant may be any person having

knowledge, whether personal or upon information and belief, of the

commission of the offense or offenses charged.  Each instrument must

contain an accusatory part and a factual part.  The complainant`s

verification of the instrument is deemed to apply only to the factual

part thereof and not to the accusatory part.

 

What?  I'm making a prediction, not trying to dictate anything.  How can you possibly infer otherwise?

 

My bad. Sorry. I read you as prescriptive, not predictive.  :oops:

By way of example, here's the form of a misdemeanor complaint in NYS:

 

http://www.cnycentral.com/uploadedFiles/wstm/News/Stories/HeatherLacey3.pdf

(Affirmed under penalty of perjury, etc.)

And here's an exemplar of the felony variety.

 

http://archive.pressconnects.com/assets/pdf/CB159903621.PDF

Edited August 7, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[JJFIVEOH]

You are way over the top with this and you are not as smart as you think you are in this discussion. Everyone here is having a reasonable discussion (except for JJ who is nucking futs and who I can't distance myself far enough from).

 

You should find your desire to psychoanalyze message board posters to be highly ironic given your many protestations. Why do you desire to find scenarios where community members hate women? Why? Is it fun? Is it a challenge? Like doing a crossword?

 

You are correct, there is no need to to run through scenarios in this situation. But there is no need to run through roster building scenarios either. There is no need to run through forming lines or when to rest goalies or really anything else we discuss here. We do a lot of things in life that aren't needed. Community members are just talking and unless I missed it, I haven't seen anyone specifically doubt the accuser here. However, I am reading a lot of generic discussion of a complex issue.  People are talking respectfully here. That's all anyone can ask for.

 

And FWIW, my wife thinks the attempted shout down/shaming or whatever it is a few of you are trying to accomplish here is ridiculous.

 

 No offense taken, you haven't liked me from the first day I got here. There are others that echo my point of view, I'm sorry you feel the need to single me out. 

 

Carry on. 

[Huckleberry]

I feel like in a few pages im going to be able to take a lawyers exam :p

[darksabre]

 No offense taken, you haven't liked me from the first day I got here. There are others that echo my point of view, I'm sorry you feel the need to single me out. 

 

Carry on. 

 

And I would like to say that although I've been coming at you quite aggressively in this thread, you've been a gentleman about it. You may hate me, but I don't think we've reached the point of being nasty. At least I hope not. I'm not trying to be nasty. I'm simply trying to get to the root of a line of thought, which you've cooperated with, and which SDS finds unacceptable for some reason. 

 

I think we were disagreeing just fine. 

[3putt]

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.

Dusting off the cobwebs here but understand that that there are two problems from an administrative point of view in allowing a mistake of age defense.  The first is it creates a slippery slope as to reasonableness vesting courts with more power to create law through stare decisis than was intended by the legislative body enacting the statute.  The second is that criminal codes tend to be ladders so to speak with the "peoples" counsel, i.e. the prosecutor, empowered to bring charges from top to bottom or starting anywhere in between.  As you step down the ladder the elements needed for proof change and the resulting penalties for violation diminish.  A strict liability standard removes that discretion on the part of the prosecutor and with education lets the public know what will not be tolerated at any cost.  The mistake of age defense, is addressed as societal mores evolve or devolve and the legislature, theoretically representing those mores through democratic election, can snap the line, i,e, the age, where there constituency deems appropriate.  I think you make great points that discussion allows for each individual to determine where their personal moral compass points and should exercise their right to make those known to their representatives to effect the change they seek.  I would point out that the slippery slope get's even steeper the lower the age line is snapped and butts up against egregious conduct that society in general, and the overwhelming majority of the posters on this board would deem unconscionable, when it comes to protecting children or the mentally infirm.    

 

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.  

The concept of innocence until proven guilty is a legal fiction, or a tool to facilitate a judicial system.  It simply is an arbitrary starting point that determines who has the burden of proof, and what the evidentiary criteria are to meet the burden.  When thought of in this way, guilt or innocence sadly becomes a spectator to the mechanics of the process and in particular the rules of evidence that govern the trial of these issues.  I think many people are influenced by the inventory of anecdotal instances where this conflict yields results that do not align with their personal belief system or are just to counter intuitive to accept.  They are not privy to the even greater number of instances when that system works flawlessly and yields the results intended, even though one party may not like it.  

 

Not on a soap box, just an insight.

[tom webster]

I am not interested into getting into the whole discussion on semantics and censoring the masses but I do want to relate a purely anecdotal story for what it is worth. I was on grand jury duty awhile back for about a month. We heard evidence in about 100 cases, about 65 of them drug cases (Wednesday was drug case day), several of them cases of the mundane variety and about 10 sexual abuse cases. Six of those cases were disgusting cases involving children but 4 were sexual abuse case involving adults.

As luck would have it, I was chosen the foreman,  so part of my responsibility was to go before the judge when we decided to indict. I will tell you that in all 4 of those cases it was the female jurors that were the hardest to convince that a rape had occurred. While waiting to go before the Judge, I had a conversation with Judge Penny Wolfgang, who happened to be the in the courtroom and we talked about this. She wasn't surprised at all and told me that she found that to be true as well.

Now I never researched this, have no other data to back it up, just presenting it as my experience.

[That Aud Smell]

I will tell you that in all 4 of those cases it was the female jurors that were the hardest to convince that a rape had occurred. While waiting to go before the Judge, I had a conversation with Judge Penny Wolfgang, who happened to be the in the courtroom and we talked about this. She wasn't surprised at all and told me that she found that to be true as well.

 

well ain't that some stuff.

[wjag]

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.

 

The exact conversation has spun in a never ending circle over 11 pages now..  The needle hasn't moved one way or the other,

[JJFIVEOH]

And I would like to say that although I've been coming at you quite aggressively in this thread, you've been a gentleman about it. You may hate me, but I don't think we've reached the point of being nasty. At least I hope not. I'm not trying to be nasty. I'm simply trying to get to the root of a line of thought, which you've cooperated with, and which SDS finds unacceptable for some reason. 

 

I think we were disagreeing just fine. 

 

Thank you. I don't think you're being nasty. I respect everybody's opinion, I realize that mine is no different. What I don't respect are people that feel the need to make a discussion personal and take it to the point of attacks and disparaging comments. You don't hold a grudge with me, it says a lot when two people can have a heated discussion and come back later or the next day like nothing happened. It's the people that tend to hold a grudge that I try to stay away from.

[darksabre]

I am not interested into getting into the whole discussion on semantics and censoring the masses but I do want to relate a purely anecdotal story for what it is worth. I was on grand jury duty awhile back for about a month. We heard evidence in about 100 cases, about 65 of them drug cases (Wednesday was drug case day), several of them cases of the mundane variety and about 10 sexual abuse cases. Six of those cases were disgusting cases involving children but 4 were sexual abuse case involving adults.

As luck would have it, I was chosen the foreman,  so part of my responsibility was to go before the judge when we decided to indict. I will tell you that in all 4 of those cases it was the female jurors that were the hardest to convince that a rape had occurred. While waiting to go before the Judge, I had a conversation with Judge Penny Wolfgang, who happened to be the in the courtroom and we talked about this. She wasn't surprised at all and told me that she found that to be true as well.

Now I never researched this, have no other data to back it up, just presenting it as my experience.

 

Were there any cases where you felt the defendant was guilty but delivered a not guilty verdict? 

[rickshaw]

I have never met Mr Kane, but I have seen enough said about him online, and seen the ridiculous limo pictures, etc and it while he is an amazing talent on the ice, I have always thought he wasn't a very good role model or mature man for that matter. He's looked like he thinks very highly of himself and that he's above most people. This, again, is my perception from seeing him on TV and listening to him speak. 

 

He seemed to be growing up a little over the years but now he's in this situation and it's not a good one for him or the young lady.

 

Kane seems to me like he's got a wild side to him, I'm assuming while under the influence. He made a terrible decision with the cab incident and it seems to me liquor probably isn't his friend. 

 

Now, I meet many young hockey players at my work and I can tell you that some of these young men that I've met just do NOT come off like Kane does. Tyler Myers wouldn't take a photo at my liquor store if there was any product showing the background. That says a lot to me. Curtis Lazar is one of the most polite young men I've ever spoken to. I could go on, but I can honestly say that these young guys are very careful. I have spoken to them both about the "outside world" and I have used Patrick Kane as an example of how not to behave. They are super careful when out and about because of all the camera phones out there. They just "get it"

 

I am not saying Kane did or didn't rape this girl, but it's not surprising to me to hear that he is under suspicion for this act, and that makes me sad as a Dad and a hockey fan. I hope it's not true and just a misunderstanding but yikes, the kid is in trouble.

 

Just my thoughts.

[shrader]

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

 

 

I just searched out there stuff and I didn't really see anything different than what I've already seen in the Buffalo News.  Most of the time they were quoting them.  The only different thing was a report from the Chicago paper that his house was searched.  So if there's anything else out there on their site, I'd be curious to see it.  I still don't see anything more specific than a rape allegation and two possible locations where they met.

[darksabre]

Thank you. I don't think you're being nasty. I respect everybody's opinion, I realize that mine is no different. What I don't respect are people that feel the need to make a discussion personal and take it to the point of attacks and disparaging comments. You don't hold a grudge with me, it says a lot when two people can have a heated discussion and come back later or the next day like nothing happened. It's the people that tend to hold a grudge that I try to stay away from.

 

I have to actively work to not let our past disputes fuel new ones. We disagree a lot. But it challenges me to dig deeper into my thoughts. 

 

I want to take an opportunity to cede my contention a while back about Ryan Miller being elite. I worked really hard to get numbers to work in my favor and I couldn't. You were right. He wasn't. :bag:

[3putt]

I am not interested into getting into the whole discussion on semantics and censoring the masses but I do want to relate a purely anecdotal story for what it is worth. I was on grand jury duty awhile back for about a month. We heard evidence in about 100 cases, about 65 of them drug cases (Wednesday was drug case day), several of them cases of the mundane variety and about 10 sexual abuse cases. Six of those cases were disgusting cases involving children but 4 were sexual abuse case involving adults.

As luck would have it, I was chosen the foreman,  so part of my responsibility was to go before the judge when we decided to indict. I will tell you that in all 4 of those cases it was the female jurors that were the hardest to convince that a rape had occurred. While waiting to go before the Judge, I had a conversation with Judge Penny Wolfgang, who happened to be the in the courtroom and we talked about this. She wasn't surprised at all and told me that she found that to be true as well.

Now I never researched this, have no other data to back it up, just presenting it as my experience.

There are studies from the ABA and Stanford Law that show overwhelmingly that female jurors overwhelming side against female plaintiffs in civil personal injury cases and award significantly less damages when the female plaintiff prevails than what they award in to similarly situated male litigants.  I 

[drnkirishone]

There are studies from the ABA and Stanford Law that show overwhelmingly that female jurors overwhelming side against female plaintiffs in civil personal injury cases and award significantly less damages when the female plaintiff prevails than what they award in to similarly situated male litigants. I

I am not arguing against this. But I don't understand it. I would assume another women would be more sympathetic. did they speculate as to the cause?

[3putt]

I am not arguing against this. But I don't understand it. I would assume another women would be more sympathetic. did they speculate as to the cause?

Many theories but the one most proffered is that women are highly competitive and identify other women as competitors and thus are less sympathetic.  

[That Aud Smell]

Were there any cases where you felt the defendant was guilty but delivered a not guilty verdict? 

 

Not for nothing: He said grand jury - so that'd be a "no-bill" (no indictment, no charge). 

 

I just searched out there stuff and I didn't really see anything different than what I've already seen in the Buffalo News.  Most of the time they were quoting them.  The only different thing was a report from the Chicago paper that his house was searched.  So if there's anything else out there on their site, I'd be curious to see it.  I still don't see anything more specific than a rape allegation and two possible locations where they met.

 

There are additional details in the reports ("young woman" keeps being referenced), that the initial meeting occurred at a bar (Sky Bar, apparently). There's also stuff outside the reports to weigh. Some of it reported about Kane. Some of it just basic facts -- like, he just signed a contract worth $84M and is back in Buffalo, living it up.

 

I want to take an opportunity to cede my contention a while back about Ryan Miller being elite. I worked really hard to get numbers to work in my favor and I couldn't. You were right. He wasn't. :bag:

 

Thankfully, Joe Flacco is.

[tom webster]

Were there any cases where you felt the defendant was guilty but delivered a not guilty verdict? 

Our job was not to determine guilt or innocence but rather if there was sufficient evidence to go to trial. To answer your question, though, there were two cases that I felt strongly should have been sent to trial that weren't.

[JJFIVEOH]

I have to actively work to not let our past disputes fuel new ones. We disagree a lot. But it challenges me to dig deeper into my thoughts. 

 

I want to take an opportunity to cede my contention a while back about Ryan Miller being elite. I worked really hard to get numbers to work in my favor and I couldn't. You were right. He wasn't. :bag:

 

Now I think you're just toying with me. :D

[darksabre]

Our job was not to determine guilt or innocence but rather if there was sufficient evidence to go to trial. To answer your question, though, there were two cases that I felt strongly should have been sent to trial that weren't.

 

Interesting. Thank you. 

Now I think you're just toying with me. :D

 

I'll show you the spreadsheet where nothing works in my favor.  :censored:

[Stoner]

The subject of this thread is due for a refreshing, innit?