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

[Eleven]

In exchange for the money, the woman signs a statement saying it was all role-playing, just an act for the camera.

 

DA can still try to get a grand jury to indict with the video evidence.  DA has something to go with, rather than nothing.  Moreover, in this increasingly far-fetched fantasy posited by the greatest philosopher of the Holy Roman Empire, the DA might choose to prosecute the women, too.  

 

BTW, I notice that you mentioned that the perpetrator is an industrialist and maybe a bicyclist.

 

What made you include that part?  I ask because in the intervening ten minutes, I learned that there is a bicyclist sexually assaulting women (slapping or grabbing their behinds) in downtown in broad daylight.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Eleven

[Stoner]

DA can still try to get a grand jury to indict with the video evidence.  DA has something to go with, rather than nothing.  Moreover, in this increasingly far-fetched fantasy posited by the greatest philosopher of the Holy Roman Empire, the DA might choose to prosecute the women, too.  

 

BTW, I notice that you mentioned that the perpetrator is an industrialist and maybe a bicyclist.

 

What made you include that part?  I ask because in the intervening ten minutes, I learned that there is a bicyclist sexually assaulting women (slapping or grabbing their behinds) in downtown in broad daylight.

We finally found a DA who would put a rape victim on the stand against her will?

 

Bicyclist was an odd Seinfeld reference. Sorry. I guess I was trying to signal the ludicrousness of the scenario. The principle remains the same. How much are we going to let rich bastards get away with in our society?

[Weave]

How is all this not conspiracy to cover up a crime? Where does the protection of society play into it? A rich guy can be a serial rapist who just pulls out his checkbook and moves on to the next victim? The criminal justice system is powerless to do anything about it?

 

Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine.

[Stoner]

Then what is your hypothetical trying to prove in the normal realistic situation...? You might as well add aliens.

 

I liked your point, but go back to it

Maybe I was thinking of the guy who shot the journalists in Virginia. Technology gives these people brand new ways of being a sociopath. I don't think my scenario is that far fetched, not in a country where you can buy your way out of rape. Talk about a rape culture. That's Exhibit A. (And the victim acts like she just won the Powerball.)

[Johnny DangerFace]

Maybe I was thinking of the guy who shot the journalists in Virginia. Technology gives these people brand new ways of being a sociopath. I don't think my scenario is that far fetched, not in a country where you can buy your way out of rape. Talk about a rape culture. That's Exhibit A. (And the victim acts like she just won the Powerball.)

I hear you, but I also agree it's unfortunate settlements can prevent criminal investigations. No need for a hypo like that to argue that point.

[TrueBlueGED]

Maybe I was thinking of the guy who shot the journalists in Virginia. Technology gives these people brand new ways of being a sociopath. I don't think my scenario is that far fetched, not in a country where you can buy your way out of rape. Talk about a rape culture. That's Exhibit A. (And the victim acts like she just won the Powerball.)

Yes, rape victims act like lottery winners if they opt for a settlement. Good lord man :wallbash:

[That Aud Smell]

Dude, no one gets the reference. Stop.

 

C'mon. You know you like it.

 

###### off.

 

Dude. That wasn't directed to you per se. Just to the idea that that was where the thread was headed. 

[Eleven]

We finally found a DA who would put a rape victim on the stand against her will?

 

Bicyclist was an odd Seinfeld reference. Sorry. I guess I was trying to signal the ludicrousness of the scenario. The principle remains the same. How much are we going to let rich bastards get away with in our society?

 

Nope; that's still not going to happen.  They have 5th Amendment rights once they are defendants, too.

 

What could happen, again, if we're to dive as deeply down the rabbit hole as you appear to want to take us, is that the DA charges all of the women (let's call them all Alice) with conspiracy.  Or perjury (since only a sworn statement would give your main perpetrator any protection at all).  Now your DA in Wonderland can make a deal with one or more of the Alices:  The King of Hearts will not prosecute an Alice if she testifies.  One of the Alices agrees.  Now what do you have?  A willing witness.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Eleven

[woods-racer]

Nope; that's still not going to happen.  They have 5th Amendment rights once they are defendants, too.

 

What could happen, again, if we're to dive as deeply down the rabbit hole as you appear to want to take us, is that the DA charges all of the women (let's call them all Alice) with conspiracy.  Or perjury (since only a sworn statement would give your main perpetrator any protection at all).  Now your DA in Wonderland can make a deal with one or more of the Alices:  The King of Hearts will not prosecute an Alice if she testifies.  One of the Alices agrees.  Now what do you have?  A willing witness.

 

For the simpleton here, let me see if I can get this straight.

 

If a victim of a crime does not wish to testify against the perpetrator  the DA may/could/ has the power to press charges against the victim to try and force them to testify, but they could still just get up on the witness stand and plead the 5th.

 

So  a DA figures they are just spinning their wheels and creating paperwork/headaches for a lost cause, but in Wonderland there are rabbits and drugs that will make it all better.

 

Not to far off?

[Stoner]

Yes, rape victims act like lottery winners if they opt for a settlement. Good lord man :wallbash:

Don't be so naive. Someone already suggested she take a trip around the world, ya know, to feel better about things.

[MattPie]

I don't see how money=justice.

 

The best revenge is a life well-lived. Money helps.

 

DA can still try to get a grand jury to indict with the video evidence.  DA has something to go with, rather than nothing.  Moreover, in this increasingly far-fetched fantasy posited by the greatest philosopher of the Holy Roman Empire, the DA might choose to prosecute the women, too.  

 

BTW, I notice that you mentioned that the perpetrator is an industrialist and maybe a bicyclist.

 

What made you include that part?  I ask because in the intervening ten minutes, I learned that there is a bicyclist sexually assaulting women (slapping or grabbing their behinds) in downtown in broad daylight.

 

I had a friend that was assaulted while running in Philly. Apparently this guy's MO was some honka-honka to female runners while passing by. they actually caught him and she testified and the whole deal. Dudes are weird.

[Eleven]

For the simpleton here, let me see if I can get this straight.

 

If a victim of a crime does not wish to testify against the perpetrator  the DA may/could/ has the power to press charges against the victim to try and force them to testify, but they could still just get up on the witness stand and plead the 5th.

 

So  a DA figures they are just spinning their wheels and creating paperwork/headaches for a lost cause, but in Wonderland there are rabbits and drugs that will make it all better.

 

Not to far off?

 

 

Let's start with your second sentence, and let's consider that it's a victim of some crime other than rape.  The DA can subpoena the victim.  If the victim refuses to testify, the DA's remedy is contempt of court.  In the contempt proceeding and not in the original proceeding, the victim can refuse to testify based upon the 5th Amendment, but the basic fact, that the victim was subpoenaed and refused, is going to be pretty freaking easy to establish.

 

Now let's proceed to where the discussion is should be:  The DA can still subpoena Kane's accuser, but there is no freaking way he is going to force her to testify or threaten her with contempt if she refuses.  It just is not done in rape cases.  It does not and will not happen.

 

Now let's proceed further to where PA had us, with a possible conspiracy among women to promote rape and with perjury.  The DA would charge the women (the "Alices") with those crimes and they would be exempt from testifying at their own trials.  

Edited September 8, 2015 by Eleven

[Stoner]

Some people have never heard of the logical extreme.

 

The actual scenario, if it's playing out as advertised, is so warped and digusting. Yeah, Aud, we should think about the kids. The young women who might be joking today about, hey, Kane's cute, he can rape me for $3 million dollars. The guy who suddenly thinks, hey, I'm not rich, but maybe I'll finally have my way with that girl who won't have sex with me, she's broke and what would it cost me, $500 tops?

 

A society that allows this has lost its way. I have no idea how to prevent it, however. I should definitely be kinder to victims who take this kind of deal. They must be so traumatized by what happened they are not thinking straight. I am guessing they are also getting terrible advice from people around them. Do the lawyers get a cut? Soon enough, I imagine, a lot of them realize what a bad choice they made.

 

You don't want to or can't testify? Recant your story and go away. What in the name of God does money have to do with anything? Alternatively, take the money and give it to an appropriate charity.

 

Panfloss out.

[TrueBlueGED]

Don't be so naive. Someone already suggested she take a trip around the world, ya know, to feel better about things.

Somebody putting forth that different people cope/heal differently is quite a bit different than suggesting they are downright celebratory about the financial outcome.

[That Aud Smell]

Some people have never heard of the logical extreme.

 

The actual scenario, if it's playing out as advertised, is so warped and digusting. Yeah, Aud, we should think about the kids. 

 

<> 

 

Panfloss out.

 

You're so cute (and righteous!) when you're angry. (/Ducks at hurled brick)

 

It is a messy and ugly scenario. Things tend to end up that way when human beings are involved.

Edited September 8, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[TrueBlueGED]

Some people have never heard of the logical extreme.

 

The actual scenario, if it's playing out as advertised, is so warped and digusting. Yeah, Aud, we should think about the kids. The young women who might be joking today about, hey, Kane's cute, he can rape me for $3 million dollars. The guy who suddenly thinks, hey, I'm not rich, but maybe I'll finally have my way with that girl who won't have sex with me, she's broke and what would it cost me, $500 tops?

 

A society that allows this has lost its way. I have no idea how to prevent it, however. I should definitely be kinder to victims who take this kind of deal. They must be so traumatized by what happened they are not thinking straight. I am guessing they are also getting terrible advice from people around them. Do the lawyers get a cut? Soon enough, I imagine, a lot of them realize what a bad choice they made.

 

You don't want to or can't testify? Recant your story and go away. What in the name of God does money have to do with anything? Alternatively, take the money and give it to an appropriate charity.

 

Panfloss out.

Sure we have, we simply recognize it for what it is: a generally garbage form of argumentation.

[Stoner]

Somebody putting forth that different people cope/heal differently is quite a bit different than suggesting they are downright celebratory about the financial outcome.

I'll repeat my question. What does money have to do with anything here? How does it make anything better? I can think of only a few places that money can rightfully go. Counseling for the victim. Charities that help victims of sexual assault. Yeah, maybe the parents have worked really hard all their lives and now they can finally have a beautiful home, but it's still the beautiful home that your rapist paid for. I honestly don't get it.

[3putt]

3Putt: Thank you. I remember that Supreme Court decision because of your mention.

I will re-read Scalia's dissent today. No surprise, I enjoy his critical thinking and use of sharp language. Notably, the dissent was joined by Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Now, will you check my conclusion? To wit: Since M v K, it is now the law of the land that law enforcement can compel DNA samples whenever they determine it's important to an investigation OR booking and identification, with respect given to procedure.

Did I over reach with that? Does a suspect/POI have any defense?

Addendum: I'm reading. It seems to me that a compelled or searched for sample, where there's a warrant or probable cause, existed befor M v K. The M v K decision then went further to allow for compelled samples during routine booking following an arrest.

Saturday fun - read Scallia dissents after mowing.

Sorry for not responding sooner. Hit by a car while riding my bike and cracked two ribs. I did not re read King but the salient point as I recall, was that there was enough evidence to support probable cause in the instance where the sample was taken. That it implicated the defendant in another crime was deemed of less import. I think in instances where the investigation has no sample to compare to, an order to compel would be unreasonable because the state would have no interest whatsoever. But I am still a little fuzzy.

[MattPie]

I'll repeat my question. What does money have to do with anything here? How does it make anything better? I can think of only a few places that money can rightfully go. Counseling for the victim. Charities that help victims of sexual assault. Yeah, maybe the parents have worked really hard all their lives and now they can finally have a beautiful home, but it's still the beautiful home that your rapist paid for. I honestly don't get it.

 

Your form of coping may not be the same as someone else's. It's as simple as that.

Sorry for not responding sooner. Hit by a car while riding my bike and cracked two ribs. I did not re read King but the salient point as I recall, was that there was enough evidence to support probable cause in the instance where the sample was taken. That it implicated the defendant in another crime was deemed of less import. I think in instances where the investigation has no sample to compare to, an order to compel would be unreasonable because the state would have no interest whatsoever. But I am still a little fuzzy.

 

You know, I was going to pose something like this hypothetical, but here's living proof. Assuming the person that hit you was at fault, what would make you feel better: the guy goes to jail for a month or you settle out of court for 2 months of your salary so you could do whatever you wanted for 2 months?

[That Aud Smell]

Your form of coping may not be the same as someone else's. It's as simple as that.

 

 

You know, I was going to pose something like this hypothetical, but here's living proof. Assuming the person that hit you was at fault, what would make you feel better: the guy goes to jail for a month or you settle out of court for 2 months of your salary so you could do whatever you wanted for 2 months?

Good points.

 

To PA's point: You're essentially advocating a complete tear down of the civil compensatory system for personal injuries resulting from the negligence or malfeasance of others.

 

A noble goal, mayhaps. But it ain't happening.

[TrueBlueGED]

I'll repeat my question. What does money have to do with anything here? How does it make anything better? I can think of only a few places that money can rightfully go. Counseling for the victim. Charities that help victims of sexual assault. Yeah, maybe the parents have worked really hard all their lives and now they can finally have a beautiful home, but it's still the beautiful home that your rapist paid for. I honestly don't get it.

It's what MattPie said: different people handle tragedy in their life differently. Nobody is asking you to understand it, but you should at least respect that not everybody is you, and refrain from borderline condemning somebody's moral character for coping/healing differently.

[Neo]

Sorry for not responding sooner. Hit by a car while riding my bike and cracked two ribs. I did not re read King but the salient point as I recall, was that there was enough evidence to support probable cause in the instance where the sample was taken. That it implicated the defendant in another crime was deemed of less import. I think in instances where the investigation has no sample to compare to, an order to compel would be unreasonable because the state would have no interest whatsoever. But I am still a little fuzzy.

Grateful ... and heal! Had I been hit, the settlement would be for auto body work!

[3putt]

Or Kane is guilty and there is strong evidence to imprison him, so he is trying to pay her off because his lawyer doesn't like their chances in court.

 

This is equally plausible as the opinion that the prosecution's case is weak.

[Stoner]

Good points.

 

To PA's point: You're essentially advocating a complete tear down of the civil compensatory system for personal injuries resulting from the negligence or malfeasance of others.

 

A noble goal, mayhaps. But it ain't happening.

I don't think I'm arguing for that. I think I'm arguing for a wall to separate the criminal and civil system. What set me off today was that Kane's lawyer could somehow stop the wheels of justice from grinding with just one phone call. It's so sleazy and unfair. And then you realize the victim might be complicit in it.

[3putt]

Your form of coping may not be the same as someone else's. It's as simple as that.

 

You know, I was going to pose something like this hypothetical, but here's living proof. Assuming the person that hit you was at fault, what would make you feel better: the guy goes to jail for a month or you settle out of court for 2 months of your salary so you could do whatever you wanted for 2 months?

first, if you can find the bas$&rd I would like to "talk" to him or her privately for a bit. They never stopped. But my case is one of negligence, unless it was a botched hit of some sort. They should be prosecuted for the traffic infraction, failing to stop at a stop sign and leaving the scene, as well as bear the financial responsibility for my medical bills. That is the way the system works. Now the person may have been rushing to the aid of someone else, and while I'm still angry, I might be a bit more forgiving. I think this is different than if this person deliberately tried to hurt me. That is the difference in the Kane situation and I will not speak ill of whatever the accuser decides.

 

If you find the person who hit me, I would really like to "talk" to them, alone.

Grateful ... and heal! Had I been hit, the settlement would be for auto body work!

lol...ouch that hurts!