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

[Neo]

I have no knowledge of the situation. I'll use genders to fit this particular matter.

 

Call me crass, but I can see a financial settlement bringing the peace of security and certainty to a victim and her family. It wouldn't be gleeful in my mind's eye. Between Goldigger and a righteous woman financially at risk live millions of other women. Her call, not mine.

 

I wondered the point regarding compelled testimony sympathetic to PA's justice and civil order arguments. Eleven educates me on compelled or subpoenaed testimony.

 

This was ugly the moment it happened. Going outside of my gender construct for this particular case, I say that if the victim's satisfied, I'm satisfied. If, in fact, Kane is the victim, he can find solace in financial resources and Kafka novels. No disrespect intended.

 

We debated the combinations and permutations that might have resulted in these allegations. Nothing's clear to me. Even the righteous can lose in court. Perhaps, given the vagaries of outcome, a settlement's best.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Neo

[3putt]

Neo, as usual you eloquently state the essence of the matter. Perhaps someday we can discuss the erosion of civility in general and whether it is restorable or a byproduct of our times. I'll buy the first round.

[Neo]

 

 

Neo, as usual you eloquently state the essence of the matter. Perhaps someday we can discuss the erosion of civility in general and whether it is restorable or a byproduct of our times. I'll buy the first round.

Screw off.

[That Aud Smell]

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.

That's a finer point you're making. Sorry for missing it. I'm tuning in and out. Mostly out.

 

The wall you're advocating is impractical. The DA needs the accuaer, but can't control the accuser. Dig?

Edited September 8, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[Neo]

Screw off.

I hope my joke translated!! Inter webs!! Id love to have a beer! This place is crazy cool.

[Hoss]

Never having to think about money for you, your family and your children definitely could go a long way towards creating a better life for yourself going forward. It's just not my business how she wants to deal with healing if what she alleged is true.

[Stoner]

I hope my joke translated!! Inter webs!! Id love to have a beer! This place is crazy cool.

You had to go and ruin your finest hour.

[3putt]

LMAO....unfortunately that makes it Medication Time ...ouch.

[bbb]

Absolutely.  I think immediately labeling her a gold digger as some other posters have done is disgusting. 

 

I believe you are referring to me, because you replied to my post earlier in the thread.  My said "She'll always look like a gold digger" - I did not say she IS a gold digger.

 

Kane apologists/Blackhawk fans have been saying this since day one.  Her accepting money in exchange for dropping everything will reinforce those beliefs. 

 

If I were to have to give my opinion, I bet she isn't.  But, in the majority of people's eyes, she will look like one. 

 

[Stoner]

Never having to think about money for you, your family and your children definitely could go a long way towards creating a better life for yourself going forward. It's just not my business how she wants to deal with healing if what she alleged is true.

When did we lose the ability to think in terms of absolutes? There's objectively a right thing to do here. You tell your rapist to ###### off and you testify. It's awful. But you have an obligation to seek real justice and protect other members of society. An individual's coping and healing have to be subjugated to the larger good. (And, anyway, i don't believe money is the balm that many of you think it is.)

 

But I think the default sentiment nowadays is do what's best for yourself, "do what feels right for you," take the money and run. Women who have been raped need to have the support they need to get through the trial process. If the issues that guide women to settlement are the stress of testifying and the need for money, then maybe certain accommodations can be made to ease the stress on the accuser in the courtroom. And maybe certain interest groups, in high profile cases like this, can get to the victim first and say, listen, don't take this dirty money, we will pay your medical, legal and counseling bills, we will pay for your education, etc.

 

Just once, it would be nice to see one of these rich pricks get what they deserve.

Edited September 8, 2015 by PASabreFan

[bbb]

I am struggling to understand how Kane, and not the criminal justice system, is driving this bus. She wants the money? Fine? Charge Kane and haul both their ###### onto the witness stand.

Yeah that trip to Cozumel will be awesome. While you're stirring your beach drink, you can think about the next woman. Bottoms up.

 

I know there are all kinds of things at play that we don't know, but it does seem like this.  To me, it seems like she can get both criminal and civil (money) justice.  As we know from OJ, he wouldn't even have to be proven guilty in criminal court to still be held liable in civil court.

 

What if it's a DA who's fed up, knows the guy did it and maybe has a wife or daughter who's been a victim of rape? (And doesn't care about getting re-elected.)

Tell Kane to shove the money and start a gofundme. I honestly don't know how a rape victim can possibly spend that money and not be tortured by where it came from.

 

So, the opposite of Sedita?

 

[Weave]

When did we lose the ability to think in terms of absolutes? There's objectively a right thing to do here. You tell your rapist to ###### off and you testify. It's awful. But you have an obligation to seek real justice and protect other members of society. An individual's coping and healing have to be subjugated to the larger good. (And, anyway, i don't believe money is the balm that many of you think it is.)

 

But I think the default sentiment nowadays is do what's best for yourself, "do what feels right for you," take the money and run. Women who have been raped need to have the support they need to get through the trial process. If the issues that guide women to settlement are the stress of testifying and the need for money, then maybe certain accommodations can be made to ease the stress on the accused in the courtroom. And maybe certain interest groups, in high profile cases like this, can get to the victim first and say, listen, don't take this dirty money, we will pay your medical, legal and counseling bills, we will pay for your education, etc.

 

Just once, it would be nice to see one of these rich pricks get what they deserve.

 

I agree, it would be nice to see these rich pricks get what they deserve.  But the odds of successful prosecution come into play.  We've seen right here in this thread how a cross section of society views a woman who enters into a man's home late after a night of partying.  Successful prosecution is no slam dunk here.  You have to think that she is being advised that, while it's not a criminal record, a large sum of money handed over *IS* a punishment, and it will set her up for life.

 

On one side you have Kane's attorney trying to determine likelihood of successful prosecution and AND civil damages and trying to come up with a sum of money that would head it off, and the other side trying to also determine likelihood of successful prosecution and what would be an acceptable alternative to make those odds go away.  

 

You have to figure that somewhere along the line someone is thinking financial punishment might be better than a chance of him walking away with nothing.

Edited September 8, 2015 by We've

[Eleven]

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.

 

Look.  No one is saying it's "right."  Everyone is telling you the way that it is.  If you have an alternative, i.e., an idea to fix the way it is, please, and I am not being condescending, please put it forth, either here, or, maybe more appropriately, in the politics thread.

 

But this is what we have now.  And I don't know that anyone did anything with "one phone call."  I would respectfully ask that if you make factual assertions in this thread--or if anyone does--that it is done with backup.  Thanks.

[Eleven]

I agree, it would be nice to see these rich pricks get what they deserve.  But the odds of successful prosecution come into play.  We've seen right here in this thread how a cross section of society views a woman who enters into a man's home late after a night of partying.  Successful prosecution is no slam dunk here.  You have to think that she is being advised that, while it's not a criminal record, a large sum of money handed over *IS* a punishment, and it will set her up for life.

 

On one side you have Kane's attorney trying to determine likelihood of successful prosecution and AND civil damages and trying to come up with a sum of money that would head it off, and the other side trying to also determine likelihood of successful prosecution and what would be an acceptable alternative to make those odds go away.  

 

You have to figure that somewhere along the line someone is thinking financial punishment might be better than a chance of him walking away with nothing.

 Thank you.

[Stoner]

Look.  No one is saying it's "right."  Everyone is telling you the way that it is.  If you have an alternative, i.e., an idea to fix the way it is, please, and I am not being condescending, please put it forth, either here, or, maybe more appropriately, in the politics thread.

 

But this is what we have now.  And I don't know that anyone did anything with "one phone call."  I would respectfully ask that if you make factual assertions in this thread--or if anyone does--that it is done with backup.  Thanks.

I really don't think throwaway phrases with no literal meaning should have to be sourced. But maybe Scott can work on a footnote system for us. Let's make it like homework.

[Doohicksie]

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?

 

It's presented to Kane that it's 50-50 whether he will be convicted and is lawyer suggests a settlement that has strings attached that he admits no guilt and the woman doesn't press charges.  It's presented to her in a similar way - it's 50-50 whether she will get a conviction and to get one she will have to press charges and probably face his lawyers in court.  Or she can take a sure thing.

 

Again, nothing will take her back to before that night, but given the choice of a chance of a conviction versus a sure deal settlement... I could see where her lawyer would advise her to take a settlement, even if there are strings attached.

 

Also consider that if they don't get a conviction, it will greatly reduce her chance of winning a civil suit.

 

If she gets enough money she can pay a good therapist.

[bbb]

It's presented to Kane that it's 50-50 whether he will be convicted and is lawyer suggests a settlement that has strings attached that he admits no guilt and the woman doesn't press charges.  It's presented to her in a similar way - it's 50-50 whether she will get a conviction and to get one she will have to press charges and probably face his lawyers in court.  Or she can take a sure thing.

 

Again, nothing will take her back to before that night, but given the choice of a chance of a conviction versus a sure deal settlement... I could see where her lawyer would advise her to take a settlement, even if there are strings attached.

 

Also consider that if they don't get a conviction, it will greatly reduce her chance of winning a civil suit.

 

If she gets enough money she can pay a good therapist.

 

Is that true?  I really only know of the OJ case, where that wasn't true. 

 

I think maybe Corasanti ended up settling halfway through his civil case, too. 

[Doohicksie]

I didn't say it was a guarantee, but yeah, if there is a criminal conviction it increases the chance of getting a civil judgment in the victim's favor.

[That Aud Smell]

Former DA, Frank Clark (Sedita's former boss), quoted in the paper expressing surprise at the delay in proceedings. To hear Clark tell it, there are only three reasons for this sort of delay: Kane is looking for a plea (unlikely), the accuser says she needs time/isn't ready to go forward (this could be what's going on, with the end game being a settlement), or witnesses are unavailable (also seems unlikely).

Edited September 9, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[Eleven]

Former DA, Frank Clark (Sedita's former boss), quoted in the paper expressing surprise at the delay in proceedings. To hear Clark tell it, there are only three reasons for this sort of delay: Kane is looking for a plea (unlikely), the accuser says she needs time/isn't ready to go forward (this could be what's going on, with the end game being a settlement), or witnesses are unavailable (also seems unlikely).

 

 

Don't knock that the first day after a holiday weekend.  I don't think that's the MOST likely case, but it's a possibility.

I really don't think throwaway phrases with no literal meaning should have to be sourced. But maybe Scott can work on a footnote system for us. Let's make it like homework.

 

 

Fair enough.  There's been a lot of crap speculation in this thread; very little (if any) has been from you.  Sorry to paint you with that broad brush.

[LabattBlue]

I haven't read the whole thread and maybe this is a stupid question, but couldn't they have a criminal trial and then also a civil trial($$$).  That way Kane pays in more than one way.

[Doohicksie]

Of course, but neither would guarantee results.  If Kane offers a cash settlement with the condition that the woman doesn't press charges, it's a certain outcome that both sides (maybe) can agree to.

She gets a huge settlement and he avoids criminal prosecution.

[That Aud Smell]

Don't knock that the first day after a holiday weekend. I don't think that's the MOST likely case, but it's a possibility.

True. The sources spoke of the desire to pursue a civil settlement. That seemed like a fit with Clark's second scenario.

[TrueBlueGED]

I haven't read the whole thread and maybe this is a stupid question, but couldn't they have a criminal trial and then also a civil trial($$$). That way Kane pays in more than one way.

It also forces the victim to re-live the rape twice, which as had been thoroughly discussed, is a less than ideal experience.

[LabattBlue]

It also forces the victim to re-live the rape twice, which as had been thoroughly discussed, is a less than ideal experience.

So the alternative is that Kane just writes a check with a lot of zeros, is convicted of no crime, claims that it was consensual sex, and just goes on with his frat boy life?

 

Sounds like a good deal for him.