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

[Stoner]

Because it's a freakin' internet forum.  That's reason enough.

I hope d4rk/l1ght's existential crisis ends soon. He's become that annoying little four-year-old who won't let his mommy talk to her friend.

I find it increasingly ironic that a number of people here are willing to speculate about the motivations of a possible rape victim, yet I'm the one being criticized for speculating about the motives of the posters here doing the speculating.

 

Y'all can't have it both ways. If you feel a duty to speculate about rape, then I feel a duty to speculate about you. It's only fair. 

Why are you speculating? Did the ice cream truck driver show you his third nipple?

[Eleven]

I hope d4rk/l1ght's existential crisis ends soon. He's become that annoying little four-year-old who won't let his mommy talk to her friend.

Why are you speculating? Did the ice cream truck driver show you his third nipple?

 

Triple nipple ripple.

[darksabre]

I hope d4rk/l1ght's existential crisis ends soon. He's become that annoying little four-year-old who won't let his mommy talk to her friend.

Why are you speculating? Did the ice cream truck driver show you his third nipple?

 

It was Mr. Whipple. 

 

And I'm speculating because I find psychology interesting. I'm fascinated by thought processes. 

Edited August 10, 2015 by l1ghtsabre

[qwksndmonster]

Why are you speculating? Did the ice cream truck driver show you his third nipple?

I got lost looking at my nipple in the mirror the other day.  It was a little chilly and it appeared as though my areola featured 1 large nipple and 8 tiny ones around it in a circle.  It looked like an ancient shield with studs in it.  (This seems like the proper thread for this sort of thought)

[SDS]

I find it increasingly ironic that a number of people here are willing to speculate about the motivations of a possible rape victim, yet I'm the one being criticized for speculating about the motives of the posters here doing the speculating.

 

Y'all can't have it both ways. If you feel a duty to speculate about rape, then I feel a duty to speculate about you. It's only fair. 

 

Do as I say, not as I do. Got it.

 

It was Mr. Whipple. 

 

And I'm speculating because I find psychology interesting. I'm fascinated by thought processes. 

 

What you are describing is intellectual curiosity. Intellectually curious - you are most definitely not. Your "questions" are mere straight-men for your awaiting sophomoric debate tactics to assert your unwavering opinion where confirmation bias is king.

[Stoner]

Triple nipple ripple.

What's wrong with you? Did they ever find out?

Your "questions" are mere straight-men for your awaiting sophomoric debate tactics to assert your unwavering opinion where confirmation bias is king.

You just blew my mind.

[TrueBlueGED]

That's only fair if you've ignored much of what I've said. These are the kind of responses that have really turned this discussion into a free for all. Making these insinuations only makes matters worse, I thought you were better than that.

For someone who rails about accountability, you take precious little for your own words. It's always somebody else's fault for misinterpreting what you say, or for "ignoring" parts of your posts. Maybe you're doing a poor job of expressing your views, or your views themselves are poorly constructed. Hell, Freeman said your posts have been awful and he's about as far from the PC police as you can get.

 

You said a woman shouldn't be surprised when something bad happens if she goes home with a guy she met at a bar. In other words, she should have some reasonable expectation of being raped if she ends up not wanting to get intimate with the individual. If that's not what you're saying, then why shouldn't she be surprised when something bad happens? Society isn't going downhill because of a lack of personal accountability, it going down hill because people like you don't think a woman should be surprised to be raped if she leaves a bar with a guy.

[Eleven]

What's wrong with you? Did they ever find out?

 

There's a team of crack Nobel laureates on it, but not so far.

[darksabre]

Do as I say, not as I do. Got it.

 

 

What you are describing is intellectual curiosity. Intellectually curious - you are most definitely not. Your "questions" are mere straight-men for your awaiting sophomoric debate tactics to assert your unwavering opinion where confirmation bias is king.

 

The irony of your last statement is mind bending. If what others are doing here is intellectual curiosity then so too is what I'm doing. How typically hypocritical of you.  

[JJFIVEOH]

I find it increasingly ironic that a number of people here are willing to speculate about the motivations of a possible rape victim, yet I'm the one being criticized for speculating about the motives of the posters here doing the speculating.

 

Y'all can't have it both ways. If you feel a duty to speculate about rape, then I feel a duty to speculate about you. It's only fair. 

 

When you speculate there isn't enough data to be conclusive. In this case we haven't had enough details so many of us go on motives and past cases.

 

There is no speculating when it comes to individual posters because we're right here to answer any questions you have. And so far, no matter how many times we've said that rape is an atrocious crime and should be handled accordingly, many poster are still taking it upon themselves to tell us what we think.

[LTS]

I find it increasingly ironic that a number of people here are willing to speculate about the motivations of a possible rape victim, yet I'm the one being criticized for speculating about the motives of the posters here doing the speculating.

 

Y'all can't have it both ways. If you feel a duty to speculate about rape, then I feel a duty to speculate about you. It's only fair. 

 

You've nailed it.  Thought process is why people speculate.  It's sure as hell why I speculate.

 

I love thinking.  Period.  I try not constrain myself in what I think, I only constrain myself in how I act (most of the time).  For example, I have often thought what would happen if while walking randomly down the street I just punched someone in the face.  I've never done this mind you because my respect towards others has always won out over the pure speculation of events that would occur should I initiate that action.

 

Likewise, I find fascination in the machinations of people. The act itself could be absolutely despicable but I am curious as to why it happened.  The human brain goes a long way to interfere with the balance that nature has so carefully crafted. The actions of people are fascinating and knowing that there is a chance of some kind of strange sub-plot out there is what draws people in.  Most of the time it's straightforward.  If you think about rape cases, most of them never even enter our minds.  There could have been someone raped in San Antonio last night and we'd not give it a second thought.  Now, this case involves a well known hockey player and happens to have occurred in a city that most of us all have a relationship with (even if it is just being a Sabres fan).  So we take on this added interest, moreover, we want to see who and what in the city are involved. it's like some kind of sick status update "Hey Look, we're capable of superstar athlete rape scenarios as well."  Sure it's a totally twisted status update, but the fact is that Buffalo now belongs to that fraternity.

 

So, I threw out there in my last post that I could speculate that someone could scheme to blackmail Patrick Kane basically by plotting to sleep with him and then claiming rape.  I'm in no way saying the person involved in this case did such a thing.

 

I also look at order of operations and the logical balance between them.

 

If Patrick Kane respected other human beings (I can't say he ONLY disrespects women) then he would not be in this situation.  It starts first with respecting the person you were in a relationship with. He could have thought about wanting to have sex with other women. He may have even speculated what it would be like. However, had his respect for others been stronger he would not have acted on it.  Even then, people slip up and cheat on the people they are in a relationship with.  I would speculate that it's easier to cheat when the sex is consensual.  Which brings me to the next point, he not only didn't respect his existing girlfriend and their relationship, but should he actually be guilty of forcing sex on this other woman he would not only clearly disrespected her but in addition have had so little respect for his GF that he was willing to rape another woman to have sex.  If I sit and speculate about that I find myself wanting to see Patrick Kane removed from the daily lexicon of society.  It's so abhorrently disgusting that I try not to speculate about how a brain could work that way.  I mean, clearly it can and I don't delude myself into thinking people are incapable of the actions.. I just wish they weren't.

 

I did have a couple of other thoughts to share.  Even though we are now reasonably certain (or 100% certain) that this does not involve a person incapable of consent. I had a thought surrounding that.  There is a discussion on how we would not hold that person accountable for their actions because they were under 17.  There were some analogies made and I believe they were all "not as serious" as rape.  However, if a 16 year old murders someone the court system is willing to consider trying them as an adult.  That is to say, assume in a random statutory rape case the underage person was willfully engaging in sex (despite the law not recognizing that).  The law says, that person cannot be treated as an adult and the adult is at fault.  Even if that 16 year old managed to create fake identification that was good enough to fool a staff trained at spotting fake identification (or are presumably actually checking) and enter an establishment and be in a setting that should not contain someone under the age of consent.  But, if that same person was strategic in their planning and carried out a murder the law allows for them to now be considered an adult.  In this entire situation please understand I am not saying that this person agreed to sex (regardless of the legal ability to do so).  Whereas a 16 year old who doesn't agree (regardless of their legal ability to do that as well) but was forced to have sex goes so far beyond just the statutory aspect of things.  (pure food for thought, speculation, and enlightened discussion).

 

Also, does EASports pull Kane from the upcoming NHL16 title?  You'd think they've started the RTM processes, the container printing, etc.  Glad I'm not the product manager on that game right now.

[Johnny DangerFace]

You just made a fool of yourself. Nicely done.

Lol uh huh. Ps I was including you

 

Why people debate with you or JJ is beyond me. It's like arguing rape with someone from 1930. Apart from JJ, this thread was great and intellectual. Now it's a train wreck indeed

Edited August 10, 2015 by Johnny DangerFace

[JJFIVEOH]

For someone who rails about accountability, you take precious little for your own words. It's always somebody else's fault for misinterpreting what you say, or for "ignoring" parts of your posts. Maybe you're doing a poor job of expressing your views, or your views themselves are poorly constructed. Hell, Freeman said your posts have been awful and he's about as far from the PC police as you can get.

 

You said a woman shouldn't be surprised when something bad happens if she goes home with a guy she met at a bar. In other words, she should have some reasonable expectation of being raped if she ends up not wanting to get intimate with the individual. If that's not what you're saying, then why shouldn't she be surprised when something bad happens? Society isn't going downhill because of a lack of personal accountability, it going down hill because people like you don't think a woman should be surprised to be raped if she leaves a bar with a guy.

 

So has SDS but so far neither one of them have questioned my posts in an attempt to clarify what might be a misunderstanding between us. I can't read their minds, I can't explain to them what they might not understand about my posts. Freeman might but SDS won't. He's already thrown in a couple digs at me and then ignored any follow up comments, not to mention he's been on me since the say I got here.

 

I think you need to understand the difference between 'rape' and 'sex'. See, you tell me that there might be misunderstandings and then you go and throw in the "she should have some reasonable expectation of being raped".........Nowhere have I said that and several times I've explained the difference. You're throwing in words in an attempt to discredit anything I've said. You claim I'm doing a poor job of expressing my views, yet you go and throw out something I never even mentioned. Try paying attention to what I've said instead of what you hoped I said.

 

And despite the pushback and criticism of my posts, I think I've been relatively civil with everybody here. If I've said anything awful, I'd certainly love for anybody to refresh my memory and I'll be glad to address it.

Edited August 10, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[SDS]

The irony of your last statement is mind bending. If what others are doing here is intellectual curiosity then so too is what I'm doing. How typically hypocritical of you.  

 

Ah yes, Debate Tactics for Dummies: Page 89, paragraph 3, "...when in doubt, create a straw-man and then hurl accusation."

[nfreeman]

How so? SDS didn't stick around to defend his harsh remarks about me. I'd like to hear why you think so. 

 

Because, just like in the statutory rape discussion, you stubbornly refuse to accept the core principle, while repeatedly flinging a bunch of "she's at fault" crap against the wall.

 

In the statutory rape context, you kept saying "what is he supposed to do if she looks 21 and lies about her age," while refusing to accept the core principle, which is that the law states that if a non-minor has sex with a minor, the non-minor is guilty of statutory rape -- and that's the end of it.  It doesn't matter what she says or what she looks like.

 

Now, in this context, you keep saying "she's got to be accountable" and "she needs to be held responsible" and "why are we giving her a pass" while stubbornly ignoring the core principle, which is that if she doesn't consent to having sex with him, and he forces her to have sex, it's rape.

 

Now -- if she goes home from a bar with him in the middle of the night, has she done something that in the real world is foolish and dangerous, and that I will try like hell to make my daughter understand is foolish and dangerous?  Yes indeed.

 

But the core freaking principle is that in this scenario, he is guilty of rape and she is NOT to blame.  He is to blame. 

 

That's why I have found your posts in this thread to be the worst ones here.

 

 

I really wish certain individuals would just come out and say it, rather than hiding behind "I'm not saying she deserved it, but...". Guess I shouldn't be surprised that those who internally hold such opinions are, at their core, cowards.

 

Despite my criticism of JJ50 above, I do not believe that either he or anyone else in this thread believes that if the accuser was raped, she deserved it.

[shrader]

There's a team of crack Nobel laureates on it, but not so far.

 

They're giving away Nobels for crack use now?  Why am I not surprised?

[darksabre]

Because, just like in the statutory rape discussion, you stubbornly refuse to accept the core principle, while repeatedly flinging a bunch of "she's at fault" crap against the wall.

 

In the statutory rape context, you kept saying "what is he supposed to do if she looks 21 and lies about her age," while refusing to accept the core principle, which is that the law states that if a non-minor has sex with a minor, the non-minor is guilty of statutory rape -- and that's the end of it.  It doesn't matter what she says or what she looks like.

 

Now, in this context, you keep saying "she's got to be accountable" and "she needs to be held responsible" and "why are we giving her a pass" while stubbornly ignoring the core principle, which is that if she doesn't consent to having sex with him, and he forces her to have sex, it's rape.

 

Now -- if she goes home from a bar with him in the middle of the night, has she done something that in the real world is foolish and dangerous, and that I will try like hell to make my daughter understand is foolish and dangerous?  Yes indeed.

 

But the core freaking principle is that in this scenario, he is guilty of rape and she is NOT to blame.  He is to blame. 

 

That's why I have found your posts in this thread to be the worst ones here.

 

 

 

Despite my criticism of JJ50 above, I do not believe that either he or anyone else in this thread believes that if the accuser was raped, she deserved it.

 

I know you weren't trying to help me, but this is the core of what I'm trying to get to. The rationale behind trying to find ways to excuse the accused rapist of things that are logically inexcusable. 

[shrader]

I know you deleted your post asking the question, but I'll give this a shot anyway.

 

I'm beating a dead horse, society is going to hell because people get a pass for not using common sense. So many bad situations can be avoided if people just used it.

 

If we're not trying to attach some sort of blame to a victim, what exactly are are we giving them a pass for?

[JJFIVEOH]

Because, just like in the statutory rape discussion, you stubbornly refuse to accept the core principle, while repeatedly flinging a bunch of "she's at fault" crap against the wall.

 

In the statutory rape context, you kept saying "what is he supposed to do if she looks 21 and lies about her age," while refusing to accept the core principle, which is that the law states that if a non-minor has sex with a minor, the non-minor is guilty of statutory rape -- and that's the end of it.  It doesn't matter what she says or what she looks like.

 

Now, in this context, you keep saying "she's got to be accountable" and "she needs to be held responsible" and "why are we giving her a pass" while stubbornly ignoring the core principle, which is that if she doesn't consent to having sex with him, and he forces her to have sex, it's rape.

 

Now -- if she goes home from a bar with him in the middle of the night, has she done something that in the real world is foolish and dangerous, and that I will try like hell to make my daughter understand is foolish and dangerous?  Yes indeed.

 

But the core freaking principle is that in this scenario, he is guilty of rape and she is NOT to blame.  He is to blame. 

 

That's why I have found your posts in this thread to be the worst ones here.

 

 

 

Despite my criticism of JJ50 above, I do not believe that either he or anyone else in this thread believes that if the accuser was raped, she deserved it.

 

"She's at fault" and common sense are two entirely different things. I ask you to show me anywhere where I've said she is at fault in a case where she went home with him voluntarily after a flirty night at the bar. There seems to be some confusion over common sense and being at fault. I've used several analogies, I don't know how that can be. You seem to understand my point about being foolish but you don't seem to understand that I'm not equating being foolish to being at fault. 

 

I think this all started because somebody (might have been me) brought up that she might have a motive. Settlement, money, it seems outlandish but it has been done before. In fact it's happened more times than there are athletes in prison for rape. This lead to the speculation that she went home with him with an ulterior motive in mind which would explain why she did someting foolish. It might seem unfair to consider it, but it's something that investigators consider when putting together a case. The logic being, if she did something that most people would consider foolish, why did she do it?

I know you deleted your post asking the question, but I'll give this a shot anyway.

 

 

If we're not trying to attach some sort of blame to a victim, what exactly are are we giving them a pass for?

 

You're giving them a pass for doing something stupid. The second somebody on here says that she shouldn't have gone back to his place, everybody piles on that poster. Go ahead and keep walking out in front of cars in the parking lot, it's OK. It's somebody else's fault when you get hit.

I know you weren't trying to help me, but this is the core of what I'm trying to get to. The rationale behind trying to find ways to excuse the accused rapist of things that are logically inexcusable. 

 

Nobody's excusing the rapist, I've said (going on double digits now) that if Kane raped her he needs to be hanged.

[sicknfla]

Lol uh huh. Ps I was including you

 

Why people debate with you or JJ is beyond me. It's like arguing rape with someone from 1930. Apart from JJ, this thread was great and intellectual. Now it's a train wreck indeed

PS. I knew who you were talking about. Some of your are very predictable. It is a shame that EVERY freaking time a couple guys have to derail threads with name calling. I have never called you a fool. Yet you feel it is OK to call me one from behind your keyboard. The 90% of people on here that can go back and forth in debates and voicing opinions don't need people like you calling anyone fools.

[JJFIVEOH]

PS. I knew who you were talking about. Some of your are very predictable. It is a shame that EVERY freaking time a couple guys have to derail threads with name calling. I have never called you a fool. Yet you feel it is OK to call me one from behind your keyboard. The 90% of people on here that can go back and forth in debates and voicing opinions don't need people like you calling anyone fools.

 

Put him on ignore. I did, it makes life so much more pleasant.

[wjag]

They're giving away Nobels for crack use now?  Why am I not surprised?

:worthy:

[BuffaloBorn]

rape talk and hockey talk clearly do not mix

[shrader]

You're giving them a pass for doing something stupid. The second somebody on here says that she shouldn't have gone back to his place, everybody piles on that poster. Go ahead and keep walking out in front of cars in the parking lot, it's OK. It's somebody else's fault when you get hit.

 

If you're trying to say you're not assigning blame, it's probably best not to throw a comparison out there were you are assigning blame.  These are the kind of inconsistencies that lead people to jump all over you.

[JJFIVEOH]

If you're trying to say you're not assigning blame, it's probably best not to throw a comparison out there were you are assigning blame.  These are the kind of inconsistencies that lead people to jump all over you.

 

That last sentence was sarcasm.

 

I can understand the inconsistencies if people didn't claim things I've never even said. Most of the misunderstandings turned out to be things I didn't even say, I can't do much about that. I can only own what I've actually said.