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

[3putt]

As 3putt indicates below, this is not SOP. But not unheard of either, I imagine. Your chances of getting an audience are greater when a guy like Cambria is your attorney.

 

 

I don't imagine Kane did much talking -- probably nothing more than some coached/prepared remarks (not reading off of a paper, mind you). 

 

I also imagine that Cambria's presentation focused more on the accuser than on Kane. You can bet your Caz Park wine coolers that Cambria's had his P.I.s out there getting all available dirt on the accuser. I would bet that Cambria wanted to persuade the D.A. that the road forward with the accuser would be a perilous one.

The "dirt" would only factor in to the equation if it had to do with the accusers propensity to make false accusations.  She could be Heidi Fleiss reincarnate and none of that conduct is admissible.  The other factor to consider is at this stage, without formal charges, the prosecution is under no obligation to disclose any of the results of its investigation.  Cambria knows that.  The only value of such a meeting would be to supply an alternative narrative that fit the facts disclosed or discovered to date or to be perceived as cooperating.  

 

My opinion, and it is just that, is there is an issue with the witness, i.e. the woman the accuser allegedly accompanied.  if that testimony doesn't support the facts, or more importantly the accusers story, the DA will have a more difficult case.  if the witness can't or won't corroborate the story, the defense has more avenues to pursue in raising reasonable doubt.  

[That Aud Smell]

The "dirt" would only factor in to the equation if it had to do with the accusers propensity to make false accusations.  She could be Heidi Fleiss reincarnate and none of that conduct is admissible.  The other factor to consider is at this stage, without formal charges, the prosecution is under no obligation to disclose any of the results of its investigation.  Cambria knows that.  The only value of such a meeting would be to supply an alternative narrative that fit the facts disclosed or discovered to date or to be perceived as cooperating.  

 

My opinion, and it is just that, is there is an issue with the witness, i.e. the woman the accuser allegedly accompanied.  if that testimony doesn't support the facts, or more importantly the accusers story, the DA will have a more difficult case.  if the witness can't or won't corroborate the story, the defense has more avenues to pursue in raising reasonable doubt.  

 

QFT on admissibility of general "dirt" and the limited utility of what the defense might be finding. I also mis-typed. I'd meant to include a reference to something like "problems with the accuser's story." 

 

Also, not for nothing, the fact that the "dirt" may not be admissible does not mean that it wouldn't make its way to the media, in an effort to exert pressure. There's a little bit of it out there already -- nothing I've seen in mainstream media, mind you. 

[3putt]

QFT?  I don't know what that means.  

[MattPie]

QFT?  I don't know what that means.  

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=qft

:)

[darksabre]

There are 3 aspects to any crime, no?

1) Severity

2) Victim type (age, race, etc)

3) Motivation (manslaughter/murder)

 

Given a case that isn't statutory rape, the first aspect (Severity) does not come into play in a rape crime, does it? Neither does the Victim Type in terms of race or gender. Hence only motivation is left, and I believe we've well established in this thread the possibilities of different motivations for rape; whether it be mixed signals, booze, date rape, or about imposing your will on another. 

I disagree with pretty much all of this. 

 

Rape is something that does have a sliding scale of severity, and the relationship of the victim to the accused is frequently important to this. Our penal codes are written as such, but logically we can also arrive at these conclusions. 

 

Being that rape is about control/dominance and sex is the tool, the relationship between the individuals involved almost always comes into play, as well as the severity of the actions taken. 

 

We could start at the most benign instances, where, during the course of sexual conduct between two individuals in a close relationship, one individual overplays their dominant role and perhaps accidentally abuses the submissive role of the other. We see this happen in cases of marriage rape, or rape between couples. An act might be performed that the less dominant party might not be okay with, but the confusion of trying to reconcile that objection with the submissive role they are playing all while in the course of something that is fueled by emotion and passion, frequently leads to a lot of what some here have tried to argue as "regret" cases. Those cases are more accurately described as situations where one party, after the fact, feels abused by the other. Sometimes the severity of the actions is low enough that simply talking it through with the other person is enough to reconcile what has taken place. Other times the severity is greater. There's a lot going on during sex, and the balance of power between the players is important to consider. 

 

From this least severe case we can move the other factors around. Maybe the relationship between the players isn't very established? Maybe it's casual? Maybe it's prostitution? We can also adjust the severity. Was the act particularly egregious or violent? Was it sadistic? 

 

The motivation is almost always going to be related to exertion of control though. The level of desire for that control as well as the intended outcome of that control might vary. But control is always a factor. 

 

This idea of looking into the roles of power in sexual relationships is what something like BDSM is built off of. It's actual a very practical way of exploring the extremes of those power roles. We always laugh at the trope of the high powered businessman who loves being gagged and dominated by a leather-clad woman, but there is actual scientific research that shows that this deliberate role reversal, where the woman takes the dominant role over the man, is something that is frequently experimented with by men in positions of power. And while BDSM is typically an extreme manifestation of the power roles in sex, the basic idea is present in pretty much every relationship where sex takes place.

[WildCard]

A very detailed post, d4rk, but it still doesn't disprove the situation where a one of, or both parties, are inebriated and a rape occurs based on mixed signals or simply being black out. I'm not saying there's no fault in that scenario, just that the motivation isn't to assert dominance, it's simply sex. 

[Johnny DangerFace]

There's many types of rapists out there. Some about psychological control, violence, and some just sex

[WildCard]

Also, how is the instance of date rape about control? 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Also, how is the instance of date rape about control? 

 

Rape is always about control.

 

I agree with d4rk, rape is about violence and control, not about sex.

[darksabre]

A very detailed post, d4rk, but it still doesn't disprove the situation where a one of, or both parties, are inebriated and a rape occurs based on mixed signals or simply being black out. I'm not saying there's no fault in that scenario, just that the motivation isn't to assert dominance, it's simply sex. 

 

There's no sex if one party isn't taking the lead. There is always someone in control. 

Also, how is the instance of date rape about control? 

 

How is it not? 

[3putt]

There are 3 aspects to any crime, no?

1) Severity

2) Victim type (age, race, etc)

3) Motivation (manslaughter/murder)

 

Given a case that isn't statutory rape, the first aspect (Severity) does not come into play in a rape crime, does it? Neither does the Victim Type in terms of race or gender. Hence only motivation is left, and I believe we've well established in this thread the possibilities of different motivations for rape; whether it be mixed signals, booze, date rape, or about imposing your will on another. 

There are only two:

 

An act in contravention of a law or standard; and 

Intent to commit the act.  

 Hypothetical:   You intend to throw a rock at a squirrel in a tree, the rock misses and you hit the neighbor in the head and they die.  That is a battery and a homicide.  That you did not intend to hit the neighbor is irrelevant.  That you intended to throw the rock is. 

[That Aud Smell]

QFT?  I don't know what that means.  

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=qft

:)

 

can't click through at the moment, but as used it meant: you're absolutely right.

[LTS]

FYI, "I can't imagine why there are problems in the world" comes off as awfully judgmental.

 

I also think trying to relate sex for fun with rape culture is one hell of a leap.

 

I see why you think it is judgmental.  However, I am not judging them for doing it.  I am recognizing that if you are going to engage in a culture where you post a picture of yourself, receive a few messages from some unknown person, and from that decide to meet them to hook up that there will be problems that come from that.  Not all the time, but it invites an entire genre of scenarios in which bad things could occur.

 

Sex for fun is not the problem.  It's the means by which it is arranged which I think becomes a problem.  The concept is that you now have people throwing themselves out there looking to hook up.  It might not always be via Tinder or some similar app but it begins to reduce the steps required to ascertain what the intentions of the both parties are when it comes to sex.  

 

When it comes to rape the defining moment is when a person consciously makes the decision to cross the clearly defined line.  Much like owning a gun isn't inherently a problem.  It's the decision to use it against someone else that is the problem.  

 

But, we talk about an atmosphere where people are commented on for wearing certain clothes or acting a certain way and then you get something like Tinder that enforces those concepts.  You are posting alluring pictures of yourself online, it seems to indicate that you are interested in having people stare at you and make comments.  

[MattPie]

I see why you think it is judgmental.  However, I am not judging them for doing it.  I am recognizing that if you are going to engage in a culture where you post a picture of yourself, receive a few messages from some unknown person, and from that decide to meet them to hook up that there will be problems that come from that.  Not all the time, but it invites an entire genre of scenarios in which bad things could occur.

 

Sex for fun is not the problem.  It's the means by which it is arranged which I think becomes a problem.  The concept is that you now have people throwing themselves out there looking to hook up.  It might not always be via Tinder or some similar app but it begins to reduce the steps required to ascertain what the intentions of the both parties are when it comes to sex.  

 

When it comes to rape the defining moment is when a person consciously makes the decision to cross the clearly defined line.  Much like owning a gun isn't inherently a problem.  It's the decision to use it against someone else that is the problem.  

 

But, we talk about an atmosphere where people are commented on for wearing certain clothes or acting a certain way and then you get something like Tinder that enforces those concepts.  You are posting alluring pictures of yourself online, it seems to indicate that you are interested in having people stare at you and make comments.  

 

First and second para whole post: I'm really not seeing how that's all that different than going out to a bar or club with the intent to hook up. It's probably even a little safer, as there's a "paper" trail if something bad happens and a person can't follow you out of the bar. The safer course is probably to shop at tinder, then meet out at bar or coffee shop for a sanity check and then head to a bed or spacious restroom.

[Hank]

Women enjoy orgasms too.

[LGR4GM]

Women enjoy orgasms too.

Is this a silly post or are you intending to expand upon what the meaning behind this is?

[WildCard]

Got off of work, watched The Hobbit (eh), then decided to research d4rk's and mine debate. Spent about 1.5 hours doing it now, and came to this conclusion: there is no definitive answer for the motive of rape.
 
- Almost every university website has a "Fact and Myths" portion about rape. In which they clearly state 
 

Myth: Rape and sexual assault are about sexual attraction and gratification. 
Fact: Rape and sexual assault are all about control and domination.

https://well.wvu.edu/articles/rape_myths_and_facts
 
My only concern with this is the University's legal and PR bias, as well as some of them don't even cite sources. My evidence for this concern is as follows
 

Myth: Rape is caused by the perpetrator’s uncontrollable sexual urge
Fact: Rape is an act or power and control. Men are fully able to control their sexual urges, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of men do not rape

 https://shs.wustl.edu/SexualViolence/Pages/Rape-myths-and-facts.aspx
 
-As far as scholarly articles are concerned, it's such an incredible debate that this thread hasn't even scratched the surface of a rapist's motivation. There are theories on rape in all of the following fields
 
1) Evolutionary
 

We hypothesize that rape may represent a conditional mating strategy, present in all men, which may result from several qualitatively different ancestral contexts combined with individual difference factors among men. Specifi- cally, we propose five types of rapists (or contexts of rape), (1) disadvantaged men who resort to rape, (2) “specialized” rapists who are sexually aroused by violent sex, (3) men who rape opportunistically, (4) high-mating-effort men who are dominant and often psychopathic, and (5) partner rapists motivated by assessments of increased risk of sperm competition. We next discuss evidence for each type of rapist

https://www.mta.ca/~ogould/FLIPS/Flips5McKibbin.pdf(Page 89)
 
2) Sociology
 

Sociologists, for their part, generally concurred with feminists. As feminists were attempting to shift attention from individuals to sexist practices, sociologists were attempting to refocus rape research from rapist motivations to the contexts in which rape occurs." From the sociological perspectives, rape is typically a product not of individual pathology, but of collective cultural determination42 That is, social conditions, such as cultural norms, rules, and prevailing attitudes about sex, mold and structure the behavior of the rapist within the context of the broader social system, fostering rape-prone environments and, in effect, teaching men to rape.43
As the feminist and sociologist literature has grown, the psychopathology model of rapists as sick people needing psychiatric treatment has suffered a gradual decline.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1551&context=californialawreview(Page 840)

 
3) Biological (Pretty similar to Evolutionary)
 

Selection, or differential reproductive success among individuals due to trait differences, is the most reasonable ultimate explanation for rape in humans. Presumably, all evolution leading to adaptation [FN26] has been driven by inter-individual selection, and not by intergroup selection. Evidence for this is vast, and is seen in the functional designs of adaptations. Adaptations' benefactors are individuals who bear them and the genes that code for them. There is no example of adaptation that has evolved because it promotes group survival or reproductive success. If group success is promoted by adaptation, it is merely a by-product, and not the reason the adaptation evolved.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/theories_of_rape.html
 
4) Developmental
 

Malamuth and colleagues propose that rape proneness among men is proximately caused not by genetic variation, but by developmental events involving learning. Their analyses indicate that rape-prone men come from harsh developmental backgrounds involving impersonal and short-term social relationships, and backgrounds in which manipulation, coercion, and violence are valid ways of conducting social relationships.[/size][/font]

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/theories_of_rape.html
 
 
5) Psychological 
 

Undetected rapists have repeatedly been found to harbor chronic, underlying feelings of anger and hostility toward women. They typically feel easily slighted by women, and carry grudges against them. This underlying hostility is easily evoked and colors their distorted perceptions of women as “teasers” who either “secretly” want to be coerced into sex, or else “deserve” it. These men have also consistently been shown to have strong needs to dominate and to be in control of women, and to be particularly fearful of being controlled by women. This characteristic leads them to view sexual relations as “conquests,” and all women as potential “targets” of conquests. Consistent with their very stereotyped beliefs about sex roles, undetected rapists have been shown to be more emotionally constricted than nonaggressive men. They are less able to label their own emotional experience, and much less emotionally expressive. As a consequence, they are also less capable of resonating with the emotional experience of other people, and are therefore less empathic than nonaggressive men

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/rapefactsheet-undetectedrapist.pdf (Under "Emotions and Motivations")

 

6) Success

 

“Undetected” rapists have consistently been shown to more sexually active than other men. Apart from their sexually aggressive behavior, they engage in consensual and coercive sex far more often that is typical for men of their age group. Their sexual activity tends to be an important component of their identities. Thus, rather than being a product of greater sex drive, their increased sexual activity appears to be driven by their view that if they are not very active then they are neither “successful” nor adequate as men.

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/rapefactsheet-undetectedrapist.pdf(Under "Sexual Behavior")

 

So, what have we learned? That this type of dichotomous thinking is incorrect. The sweeping generalities of all things into a neat box is also incorrect. Things are not "all or nothing", and to characterize the motivation of a group as being solely one aspect is wrong.

I respect your opinion, d4rk, and genuinely enjoy debating with you. This post isn't meant to be offensive,as I did find plenty of times in which the belief is a rapist's motivation is solely dominance, or taking away something from a woman to own them. All I want to prove here is that is a widely debated topic, with plenty of very researched and substantiated theories proposed, none of which are definitive yet.

Edited August 26, 2015 by WildCard

[darksabre]

Got off of work, watched The Hobbit (eh), then decided to research d4rk's and mine debate. Spent about 1.5 hours doing it now, and came to this conclusion: there is no definitive answer for the motive of rape.

 

- Almost every university website has a "Fact and Myths" portion about rape. In which they clearly state 

 

https://well.wvu.edu/articles/rape_myths_and_facts

 

My only concern with this is the University's legal and PR bias, as well as some of them don't even cite sources. My evidence for this concern is as follows

 

 https://shs.wustl.edu/SexualViolence/Pages/Rape-myths-and-facts.aspx

 

-As far as scholarly articles are concerned, it's such an incredible debate that this thread hasn't even scratched the surface of a rapist's motivation. There are theories on rape in all of the following fields

 

1) Evolutionary

 

https://www.mta.ca/~ogould/FLIPS/Flips5McKibbin.pdf(Page 89)

 

2) Sociology

 

 

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1551&context=californialawreview(Page 840)

 

 

3) Biological (Pretty similar to Evolutionary)

 

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/theories_of_rape.html

 

4) Developmental

 

 

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/theories_of_rape.html

 

 

5) Psychological 

 

 

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/rapefactsheet-undetectedrapist.pdf (Under "Emotions and Motivations")

 

6) Success

 

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/rapefactsheet-undetectedrapist.pdf(Under "Sexual Behavior")

 

So, what have we learned? That this type of dichotomous thinking is incorrect. The sweeping generalities of all things into a neat box is also incorrect. Things are not "all or nothing", and to characterize the motivation of a group as being solely one aspect is wrong.

 

I respect your opinion, d4rk, and genuinely enjoy debating with you. This post isn't meant to be offensive,as I did find plenty of times in which the belief is a rapist's motivation is solely dominance, or taking away something from a woman to own them. All I want to prove here is that is a widely debated topic, with plenty of very researched and substantiated theories proposed, none of which are definitive yet.

 

I'll have to dig through this stuff later when I have some time, but I want to thank you for taking the time. This is what I was hoping this thread could do. Generate a desire to seek information. You're setting a good example. 

[Stoner]

Most men don't rape! is my takeaway.

[That Aud Smell]

this thread hasn't even scratched the surface of a rapist's motivation.

 

For a non-academic (message board) setting, we've done far (far) more than scratch the surface. As I said upthread, I'm good with the extent to which the matter's been discussed (and debated) here.

[bunomatic]

Most men don't rape! is my takeaway.

Yeah. I've never had the desire to force myself on anyone. Never had the fantasy of rape. If a female isn't interested in me that way I can't think of a bigger turn off. Why force things. Never had the desire to control someone or assert my dominance in any way over them. I have briefly dated women with rape fantasies. Imagine that ? Never took part in that. I'm not sure. Does this make me unmanly ? I believe more men think the way I do than some here would have others believe. It almost sounds when reading some of these posts that the majority of men just can't help themselves. Strange take. I'm not sure. Maybe its me.

[TrueBlueGED]

Most men don't rape! is my takeaway.

See, my takeaway is that being a man in this country is really hard and unfair ;)

[Hank]

I believe more men think the way I do than some here would have others believe. It almost sounds when reading some of these posts that the majority of men just can't help themselves. Strange take. I'm not sure. Maybe its me.

No, it's not just you. But it's not as bad as it seems, it's just a couple posters beating their agenda driven drums. The problem is they have a lot of good points that are worth discussing but they are so over the top with their agenda driven rhetoric that it's hard to take them seriously. At least that's my view.

[LTS]

First and second para whole post: I'm really not seeing how that's all that different than going out to a bar or club with the intent to hook up. It's probably even a little safer, as there's a "paper" trail if something bad happens and a person can't follow you out of the bar. The safer course is probably to shop at tinder, then meet out at bar or coffee shop for a sanity check and then head to a bed or spacious restroom.

 

The thing you don't seem to be considering in your viewpoint is that when you meet someone face to face there is more than just words that provide information about the person you are talking with.  Their body language will say quite a bit as well.  Granted, I would say that if you head out to some random bar and just start looking for sex the risks are greater than normal but this is not anywhere near as when interacting with someone online.

 

There's plenty of evidence that people pretend to be someone else when they are online.  It's harder to pull off in person.  Law enforcement has pretended to be an underage child plenty of times with the hopes of trapping potential sexual predators. It's unlikely the predator will be as easily caught if they are engaging in the encounter face to face.

[Hank]

So, there were two guys and two girls in Kane's house, right?

 

Did the alleged victims friend disappear into another room with Kane's friend to have sex?

 

If so, does that in any way impact the alleged rape investigation?