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

[Huckleberry]

Now you guys have a name. The charges won't be too far off.

 

If it's true Kane is dead to me.

 

Can't see any team wanting to keep him around then either.   Hope he gets some serious jailtime to if its true.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Heimdall

[WildCard]

No need to be sorry. What did I type that is complete B.S.?

That your default setting is to presume someone is guilty

[deluca67]

This, unless the victim walks to he police and has an examination done right after, wich is mentally probably very difficult, rape is just to hard to prove.

Then its him VS her without evidence and no prosecutor will touch that.

Even then it might not be enough. A rape kit can't always prove a lack of consent. It can prove sex has taken place. 

[shrader]

Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt until the facts are out. There's a lot of scenarios that fit what we know right now.

 

Is it possible to give someone the benefit of doubt when you don't even know what you're giving it for?  This whole thing feels like dividing by zero.

[That Aud Smell]

More generally, my default setting is to believe people who accuse others of rape and sexual assault (at least, to believe the substance of their complaint), not to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

 

That default belief is that much stronger when the victim is accusing a high-profile person -- it's a rare, rare breed of lunatic gold digger who would willingly subject themselves to that sort of scrutiny in order to secure a settlement.

That your default setting is to presume someone is guilty

 

That is plainly not what I said. 

 

My default is to believe the person who is saying they were raped, assaulted, etc. To believe the substance of what they're saying -- someone made me do something or did something to me, and I didn't want it to happen, and I told them as much (or was incompetent to tell them as much because I was underage or passed out), but it happened anyway.

 

I'm not saying I presumptively believe that a crime was committed. That is a far more tangled ball of yarn.

 

My tendency is to believe someone who's brave enough to come forward and make this sort of allegation. 

[MattPie]

That is plainly not what I said. 

 

My default is to believe the person who is saying they were raped, assaulted, etc. To believe the substance of what they're saying -- someone made me do something or did something to me, and I didn't want it to happen, and I told them as much (or was incompetent to tell them as much because I was underage or passed out), but it happened anyway.

 

I'm not saying I presumptively believe that a crime was committed. That is a far more tangled ball of yarn.

 

My tendency is to believe someone who's brave enough to come forward and make this sort of allegation. 

 

In this case, there are some other factors in play. Many people wake up and think, "man that was stupid", but not as many have the option of crying foul and standing to get a lot of cash out of the deal. Or if the alleged victim is underage and her parents go all "where were you last night, who were you with, etc.". Until there's facts siding either way is illogical, unless you figure past performance guarantees future results. Even more so when a celebrity and money are involved.

[Hoss]

I'd be interested in a debate about whether giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused is simultaneously failing to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt. "Innocent until proven guilty" seems to also indicate "lying until proven otherwise" at times.

[WildCard]

I hardly see the distinction in that Smell. By presuming the accuser has a valid claim you presume guilt on another party

[josie]

That is plainly not what I said. 

 

My default is to believe the person who is saying they were raped, assaulted, etc. To believe the substance of what they're saying -- someone made me do something or did something to me, and I didn't want it to happen, and I told them as much (or was incompetent to tell them as much because I was underage or passed out), but it happened anyway.

 

I'm not saying I presumptively believe that a crime was committed. That is a far more tangled ball of yarn.

 

My tendency is to believe someone who's brave enough to come forward and make this sort of allegation. 

Most of them aren't brave enough. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by Josie914

[spndnchz]

This, unless the victim walks to he police and has an examination done right after, wich is mentally probably very difficult, rape is just to hard to prove.

Then its him VS her without evidence and no prosecutor will touch that.

 

She did.

[Weave]

Cheese and rice!

[That Aud Smell]

I hardly see the distinction in that Smell. By presuming the accuser has a valid claim you presume guilt on another party

 

I don't have the time or energy to make it any more clear than this: There is a huge difference in saying to another human being: "I believe you. You're saying you're hurt, that someone hurt you, and I believe you." and saying "Someone's been accused of a crime; I presume him guilty."

 

She did.

 

Um.

[josie]

She did.

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sources-kane-target-of-rape-investigation-20150806

[That Aud Smell]

Most of them aren't brave enough. 

Including a dear friend of mine from my college days. She was one of the brightest and most intelligent women I've ever known. She's now married to a guy I lived with for three years while in college, they have several children together, and, from all appearances, she leads a happy life.

 

But those were dark, dark days for her. I'm sure she still thinks about it.

 

Oh, and when she came to me and related the essence of her story (as near as she could recall it): I believed her. And I said so. 

[TrueBlueGED]

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sources-kane-target-of-rape-investigation-20150806

Welp. Still a lot of ways this can go in either direction, but that means something. I don't know what, but something.

[spndnchz]

Jeez Aud gimme a sec. That's 91 posts to move!

[WildCard]

I don't have the time or energy to make it any more clear than this: There is a huge difference in saying to another human being: "I believe you. You're saying you're hurt, that someone hurt you, and I believe you." and saying "Someone's been accused of a crime; I presume him guilty."

So in a victimless crime, you don't presume the accused is guilty. But if someon says "someone hurt me", you believe them; that consequentially implies that someone is guilty of a crime

Edited August 6, 2015 by WildCard

[That Aud Smell]

Jeez Aud gimme a sec. That's 91 posts to move!

 

I deleted it - sorry. I have no idea how merging works. Just wanted to provide a quick waymarker.

[josie]

Including a dear friend of mine from my college days. She was one of the brightest and most intelligent women I've ever known. She's now married to a guy I lived with for three years while in college, they have several children together, and, from all appearances, she leads a happy life.

 

But those were dark, dark days for her. I'm sure she still thinks about it.

 

Oh, and when she came to me and related the essence of her story (as near as she could recall it): I believed her. And I said so. 

Let me tell ya, from personal experience, no one ever believes the teenage girl. I have never been raped, but assault and harassment get the same go around disbelief.

 

Good on you, and sorry about your friend. 

 

I just hope the general media/population can remember that this is about people, not hockey and large organizations. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by Josie914

[That Aud Smell]

if a victim says "someone hurt me", you believe them; that consequentially implies that someone is guilty of a crime

 

"Someone hurt me" is supportive of there having been a crime committed, sure. But it's hardly dispositive of it. And I keep an open mind. 

 

Again, you said my default is to think the accused is guilty. Not so.

[WildCard]

"Someone hurt me" is supportive of there having been a crime committed, sure. But it's hardly dispositive of it. And I keep an open mind. 

 

Again, you said my default is to think the accused is guilty. Not so.

I'm sorry I just don't see the distinction.

 

Maybe someone else can explain it for me?

[darksabre]

You don't need to believe someone to take them seriously. Taking the allegations seriously is the only thing that we need to worry ourselves with. 

[That Aud Smell]

You don't need to believe someone to take them seriously. Taking the allegations seriously is the only thing that we need to worry ourselves with. 

 

Quite fair.

[Huckleberry]

She did.

 

Then he is pretty screwed, certainly seeing she is underage ?

[That Aud Smell]

she is underage ?

Is she?

 

I read that as a rumour.