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

[deluca67]

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.

How about a debate on whether or not the "benefit of the doubt" is ours to give. We are just spectators in all of this. 

[Huckleberry]

How about a debate on whether or not the "benefit of the doubt" is ours to give. We are just spectators in all of this. 

 

damn it i forgot to grab the popcorn.

[nfreeman]

On Kane, no big surprise. His Dad was the biggest ass I ever dealt with in business. Maybe second biggest.

 

On Hoss, exactly. Its no different  then me talking about the Sabre exec that screamed that Babcock was a liar and ordering the channel changed during his press conference. There were probably four employees in there and no customers within earshot. If I gave details I jeopardize those employees.  You can choose to believe me or not, I am ok with that. If we don't want uncorroborated rumors on this board, I am ok with that as well.

 

I think uncorroborated rumors are A-OK.  It is up to the reader to decide how credible they are.

 

Now Ch 7 is reporting that it is an incident between Kane and a woman that began at a bar in Evans.

 

Sure.  And I've reported over and over that Regier did not stand up to Quinn when Ruff wanted the team to keep Drury and Briere.  I'm not jeopardizing the job of the guy--in hockey operations--who told me that, either.  I have no problem w/ Hoss walking the line here.  Actually, I'm surprised he's gone this far.

 

Neither do I.

 

Due process, presumption of innocence, yadda yadda. Even if he's getting shaken down by a liar (which seems very, very unlikely): Pat Kane is an idiot.

 

Why does it seem unlikely?  This happens to high-profile athletes quite often.

 

 

I forgot about the Duke team, whatever happened with that?

It was so fabricated that the prosecutor did time.

 

He was also fired and disbarred, lost a civil suit and went bankrupt.  And the accuser (a drug-addicted stripper, btw) was eventually convicted for murder in a separate incident.

 

I was right in the other two instances, wasn't I?

 

Frankly, until I see evidence of something, I prefer to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

 

Me too.

 

I think Eleven is fair and right for giving individuals the benefit of the doubt. Obviously guys with past incidents lose some of that, but they still deserve it at least until something more solid than allegations are out there.

 

Personally, I gave Kane the benefit of the doubt when I first heard this. That was yesterday. This is today.

 

As someone else asked:  what has changed?

 

I'm hearing that he's being investigated in connection with a rape charge, possibly a statutory rape charge, and that the incident has ties to a bar in Evans.

 

Based on other information I have about the guy -- including stuff cited upthread and other stuff commonly known -- the guy does not get the benefit of the doubt from me. 

 

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.

 

I understand your inclination, and I'm sure it comes from kindness, but I don't agree with this at all.

 

 

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. 

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

 

Aud -- sorry, I agree with WildCard on this.  I think you are splitting hairs.  If someone accuses someone else of rape, and you believe the accuser, then by definition you believe that the accused has committed rape.

 

Now, if you're saying that you believe the accuser is upset about the sexual encounter and is not faking her state of being upset -- that is understandable.  But if you're saying that you believe that the accuser was forced into a sexual act -- then you are also saying you believe the accused committed rape.

[Eleven]

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

I feel the same way.

[JJFIVEOH]

Innocent until proven guilty. The NFL could learn from those words. 

[WildCard]

Innocent until proven guilty. The NFL could learn from those words. 

If you're referring to Brady it's different when it's an company's internal investigation

[Taro T]

...

 

Aud -- sorry, I agree with WildCard on this.  I think you are splitting hairs.  If someone accuses someone else of rape, and you believe the accuser, then by definition you believe that the accused has committed rape.

 

Now, if you're saying that you believe the accuser is upset about the sexual encounter and is not faking her state of being upset -- that is understandable.  But if you're saying that you believe that the accuser was forced into a sexual act -- then you are also saying you believe the accused committed rape.

Agree w/ the bolded.

[That Aud Smell]

Why does it seem unlikely?  This happens to high-profile athletes quite often.

 

Women often come forward and falsely accuse high profile athletes (or celebs) of rape or sexual assault? 

 

I think we need some sort of sensitivity training up in here.

 

All things being even and if I had to wager (I don't): Something happened here. The woman has one view of it. Kane likely has another. They didn't see the situation the same way, and they don't recall it the same way either. The accuser is no shrinking violet. The party last weekend was not her first rodeo. She is/was terrified and gutted about the prospect of coming forward and accusing one of Buffalo's most prominent sometime citizens of a heinous crime. The accuser feels violated. Kane feels falsely accused. The legal standards are such that no charges might even be laid.

 

Even with all of that: The core truth, the essence, of what the victim is saying is something I will tend to believe. And I'll keep an open mind.

 

Aud -- sorry, I agree with WildCard on this.  I think you are splitting hairs.  If someone accuses someone else of rape, and you believe the accuser, then by definition you believe that the accused has committed rape.

 

Now, if you're saying that you believe the accuser is upset about the sexual encounter and is not faking her state of being upset -- that is understandable.  But if you're saying that you believe that the accuser was forced into a sexual act -- then you are also saying you believe the accused committed rape.

 

I am making a fine distinction, but it's not, in my view, splitting hairs. Maybe it is for others. It's a clear distinction in my mind. I can say "I believe you, I believe what you're saying, I believe 'your truth,' but ... I have absolutely no idea whether a crime was committed." 

 

It's the recovering social worker in me, I guess. I maintain different silos in my brain for extending empathy to someone who says they've been victimized and for sorting through whether a crime's been committed.

[JJFIVEOH]

If you're referring to Brady it's different when it's an company's internal investigation

 

I'm talking about multiple instances over the years. Nothing specific. Everybody will be quick to jump and tarnish the accused just because it's sensationalist, but if by chance it turns out they did no wrong the story will be so long forgotten that it won't do anything to improve their standing. 

[Huckleberry]

Hoss makes me feel like he knows more

[MattPie]

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

 

I think there's some leeway there, too. If she was in a bar with a fake ID there's at least grounds that he didn't know she was under-age. I think; I'm no lawyer.

[SDS]

As someone else asked:  what has changed?

 

I think it is clear that video evidence has been obtained...

 The legal standards are such that no charges might even be laid.

 

 

Yikes...

[Eleven]

I think there's some leeway there, too. If she was in a bar with a fake ID there's at least grounds that he didn't know she was under-age. I think; I'm no lawyer.

Nope. She's either 17 or she's not.

 

And it seems to me that the accusation is forcible rape rather than statutory rape, if she went and had a kit done.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Eleven

[JJFIVEOH]

Hoss makes me feel like he knows more

 

He also said Kromer didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt either. 

[That Aud Smell]

I think it is clear that video evidence has been obtained...

 

How so?

 

Nope. She's either 17 or she's not.

 

And it seems to me that the accusation is forcible rape rather than statutory rape, if she went and had a kit done.

 

Could be both.

[Hoss]

He also said Kromer didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt either. 

And Kromer was suspended for six games after the team felt their investigation found enough wrongdoing. The settlement wording was quite obvious as to what happened, as well.

I had no inside info on Kromer. I knew what you guys knew.

[Eleven]

How so?

 

 

 

Could be both.

It certainly could.

[Huckleberry]

I think there's some leeway there, too. If she was in a bar with a fake ID there's at least grounds that he didn't know she was under-age. I think; I'm no lawyer.

 

Rape is rape there is no leeway for me

He also said Kromer didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt either. 

 

Well if hoss knows more, he shouldn't be obligated to tell us because this is a delicate matter. 

[That Aud Smell]

Nope. She's either 17 or she's not.

 

I'm unfamiliar with how the statute works: Is "good faith" belief in a victime's age a mitigating factor in any way in terms of the degree of offence? My sense is it is not. Factors like the difference in ages, role of alcohol/drugs play a role, I think.

[SDS]

How so?

 

When someone implies that have additional information, that their mind has changed over time against the accused and makes a reference to removing home surveillance cameras... Well, you don't have to be Bob Ross to paint that picture.

[Eleven]

I'm unfamiliar with how the statute works: Is "good faith" belief in a victime's age a mitigating factor in any way in terms of the degree of offence? My sense is it is not. Factors like the difference in ages, role of alcohol/drugs play a role, I think.

It might be a mitigating factor at sentencing but I do not believe it is a mitigating factor with respect to the verdict. But i am not a criminal lawyer and the bar exam was a long time ago!

[Hoss]

When someone implies that have additional information, that their mind has changed over time against the accused and makes a reference to removing home surveillance cameras... Well, you don't have to be Bob Ross to paint that picture.

The painting lacks happy little clouds.

[TrueBlueGED]

Why does it seem unlikely? This happens to high-profile athletes quite often.

 

I was with you until this. How would you, or anyone else, have any idea how frequent this is? I'll agree that it happens, but quite often? Surely you're not assuming that every accusation which fails to lead to criminal conviction is trumped up BS, are you?

[nfreeman]

Women often come forward and falsely accuse high profile athletes (or celebs) of rape or sexual assault? 

 

I think we need some sort of sensitivity training up in here.

 

All things being even and if I had to wager (I don't): Something happened here. The woman has one view of it. Kane likely has another. They didn't see the situation the same way, and they don't recall it the same way either. The accuser is no shrinking violet. The party last weekend was not her first rodeo. She is/was terrified and gutted about the prospect of coming forward and accusing one of Buffalo's most prominent sometime citizens of a heinous crime. The accuser feels violated. Kane feels falsely accused. The legal standards are such that no charges might even be laid.

 

Even with all of that: The core truth, the essence, of what the victim is saying is something I will tend to believe. And I'll keep an open mind.

 

 

 

I am making a fine distinction, but it's not, in my view, splitting hairs. Maybe it is for others. It's a clear distinction in my mind. I can say "I believe you, I believe what you're saying, I believe 'your truth,' but ... I have absolutely no idea whether a crime was committed." 

 

It's the recovering social worker in me, I guess. I maintain different silos in my brain for extending empathy to someone who says they've been victimized and for sorting through whether a crime's been committed.

 

 

Re:  false rape accusations against athletes:  In addition to the Duke lacrosse case mentioned upthread, here are a few:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/exonerated-of-rape--brian-banks-realizing-nfl-dream-%E2%80%93-in-different-capacity-005927279-nfl.html

 

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25130241/ncaa-grants-temple-de-sixth-year-of-eligibility-after-false-rape-accusation

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/16/ray-mcdonald-will-sue-the-woman-who-accused-him-of-rape/

 

 

Also relevant:  recent high-profile rape accusations at the U. of Va. and Columbia U. that have turned out to be utter BS.

 

As for "something happened" -- of course.  But that something could simply be that the accuser did something she regrets.  Or that Kane acted like a jerk once he was finished.  Or a bunch of other possibilities.  But I reject the idea that there can simultaneously exist both "his truth" and "her truth."  She either willingly participated in the act, or she didn't.  If she did, then there was no rape.

 

To be clear -- rape is a despicable act.  If he did it, I hope he goes to jail, and I wouldn't be upset if he got a taste of his own medicine while on the inside.

[PromoTheRobot]

Innocent until proven guilty. The NFL could learn from those words. 

Innocent when proven Brady.