Evander Kane arrested on misdemeanor charge for June nightclub incident

[K-9]

The potential to invite any civil proceedings is besides the point that they are baseless claims. If they weren't baseless claims, the city would have pressed more serious charges on their own. If anything, the fact that the city could not support their claims after their investigation says that these people are in it for a civil suit, almost like they knew beforehand that all they have to do is make a claim to file on a police report. 

Not sure how you can argue "baseless claims" and "beside the point" when, regardless of the legal classification of the charges, they have great potential to inflict harm on E Kane in civil proceedings. And we didn't have to be cynical to think that civil courts and/or settlements before those civil court proceedings weren't a real possibility. 

 

I'm not following your argument about the city not supporting their claims after their investigation. The four complainants are pressing charges, regardless. I guess it's to E Kane's benefit that they aren't more serious in nature, but the charges have potential to harm him greatly. That's my only point. 

 

Any talk of them being baseless remains to be seen. 

[JJFIVEOH]

Not sure how you can argue "baseless claims" and "beside the point" when, regardless of the legal classification of the charges, they have great potential to inflict harm on E Kane in civil proceedings. And we didn't have to be cynical to think that civil courts and/or settlements before those civil court proceedings weren't a real possibility. 

 

I'm not following your argument about the city not supporting their claims after their investigation. The four complainants are pressing charges, regardless. I guess it's to E Kane's benefit that they aren't more serious in nature, but the charges have potential to harm him greatly. That's my only point. 

 

Any talk of them being baseless remains to be seen. 

 

Because my point had nothing to do with a civil suit. If the city supported the claims there would be much more serious charges against Kane. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. 

[Eleven]

Because my point had nothing to do with a civil suit. If the city supported the claims there would be much more serious charges against Kane. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. 

 

 

This is correct., IMO.

[K-9]

Because my point had nothing to do with a civil suit. If the city supported the claims there would be much more serious charges against Kane. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. 

In the initial post of yours that I responded to, you suggested the most serious charge against E Kane was misdemeanor trespass. I get that from a legal definition standpoint. 

 

My suggestion was that the other four charges have great potential for harm to E Kane and are very serious from that standpoint alone and I doubt Cambria is pooh-poohing them, either. 

 

What the city investigated, the seriousness of the charges, etc., and whether the city couldn't find evidence to file more serious charges does not change that fact and is immaterial at this point. The simple fact of the matter is, he has been charged with those four counts and will either settle or face a civil suit in court. 

[3putt]

Not sure how you can argue "baseless claims" and "beside the point" when, regardless of the legal classification of the charges, they have great potential to inflict harm on E Kane in civil proceedings. And we didn't have to be cynical to think that civil courts and/or settlements before those civil court proceedings weren't a real possibility. 

 

I'm not following your argument about the city not supporting their claims after their investigation. The four complainants are pressing charges, regardless. I guess it's to E Kane's benefit that they aren't more serious in nature, but the charges have potential to harm him greatly. That's my only point. 

 

Any talk of them being baseless remains to be seen. 

There is a false equivalency here.  Assume ROR owned a home and didnt shovel the sidewalk after a snowstorm. If someone slips and falls he could be liable for civil damages.  He would not face criminal charges unless it rose.to the level of criminal negligence. E Kane may be exposed yo the possibility of civil damages, but absent the gravitas of criminal charges, the jury would have to reach to support a finding of significant damages.  So a misdemeanor and ordinance violations are not the same thing as felony assault charges. I think JJs point that he was  charged with lesser offenses in light of the availability of more evidence including both video and witness testimony indicates the truth lies somewhere in between the alleged conduct in the complaint and total exoneration. The authorities have already, weighed in.

[JJFIVEOH]

In the initial post of yours that I responded to, you suggested the most serious charge against E Kane was misdemeanor trespass. I get that from a legal definition standpoint. 

 

My suggestion was that the other four charges have great potential for harm to E Kane and are very serious from that standpoint alone and I doubt Cambria is pooh-poohing them, either. 

 

What the city investigated, the seriousness of the charges, etc., and whether the city couldn't find evidence to file more serious charges does not change that fact and is immaterial at this point. The simple fact of the matter is, he has been charged with those four counts and will either settle or face a civil suit in court. 

 

It might have the potential to do harm financially (although I highly doubt it), but that will have no bearing on his criminal record nor will it have any bearing on his status in the NHL in terms of suspensions and/or some kind of disciplinary actions. I highly doubt any civil cases gain any traction when the city couldn't even find the evidence to back them up. 

This is correct., IMO.

 

Thank you. 

There is a false equivalency here.  Assume ROR owned a home and didnt shovel the sidewalk after a snowstorm. If someone slips and falls he could be liable for civil damages.  He would not face criminal charges unless it rose.to the level of criminal negligence. E Kane may be exposed yo the possibility of civil damages, but absent the gravitas of criminal charges, the jury would have to reach to support a finding of significant damages.  So a misdemeanor and ordinance violations are not the same thing as felony assault charges. I think JJs point that he was  charged with lesser offenses in light of the availability of more evidence including both video and witness testimony indicates the truth lies somewhere in between the alleged conduct in the complaint and total exoneration. The authorities have already, weighed in.

 

Yes, that's another way of putting it.  ;)

[K-9]

There is a false equivalency here.  Assume ROR owned a home and didnt shovel the sidewalk after a snowstorm. If someone slips and falls he could be liable for civil damages.  He would not face criminal charges unless it rose.to the level of criminal negligence. E Kane may be exposed yo the possibility of civil damages, but absent the gravitas of criminal charges, the jury would have to reach to support a finding of significant damages.  So a misdemeanor and ordinance violations are not the same thing as felony assault charges. I think JJs point that he was  charged with lesser offenses in light of the availability of more evidence including both video and witness testimony indicates the truth lies somewhere in between the alleged conduct in the complaint and total exoneration. The authorities have already, weighed in.

I don't see the false equivalency nor did I make one. 

 

Nobody has confused misdemeanors with felonies, either. 

 

I understand fully what JJ's point is and I don't disagree. Again, I don't disagree with this point. 

 

There need not be any "gravitas of criminal charges" to pursue a civil case. I'm not sure where that even comes from. Has no bearing on anything whatsoever. 

 

Four charges of non-criminal harassment, adjudicated in a civil proceeding, has GREAT potential to harm E Kane. I disagree with anyone who would say because those charges aren't of the criminal variety, that they don't pose a threat to E Kane. 

 

I doubt Kane and Cambria are whistling past the graveyard, either. 

[That Aud Smell]

I highly doubt any civil cases gain any traction when the city couldn't even find the evidence to back them up. 

 

Don't be so sure. As OJ found out, a civil case would carry a far lighter burden of proof than a criminal one.

 

The way in which the discussion is getting more and more focused on criminal procedure, offences charged, etc. is reminiscent of the Pat Kane thread.

 

My thought remains the same and sort of outside all of that: There is no doubt that the guy was in the midst of a 3:00 a.m. bar fight (or fights) involving several women complainants. At least insofar as this incident goes, that's all I really need to know to feel the way I feel about the guy. There are other factors informing my opinion, of course - but that's all I need to know out of this one.

[JJFIVEOH]

Don't be so sure. As OJ found out, a civil case would carry a far lighter burden of proof than a criminal one.

 

The way in which the discussion is getting more and more focused on criminal procedure, offences charged, etc. is reminiscent of the Pat Kane thread.

 

My thought remains the same and sort of outside all of that: There is no doubt that the guy was in the midst of a 3:00 a.m. bar fight (or fights) involving several women complainants. At least insofar as this incident goes, that's all I really need to know to feel the way I feel about the guy. There are other factors informing my opinion, of course - but that's all I need to know out of this one.

 

True. But I'm pretty sure that was an exception and not the norm. Plus, they had enough evidence to press charges which was helpful in the civil suits regardless of the outcome. 

[K-9]

It might have the potential to do harm financially (although I highly doubt it), but that will have no bearing on his criminal record nor will it have any bearing on his status in the NHL in terms of suspensions and/or some kind of disciplinary actions. I highly doubt any civil cases gain any traction when the city couldn't even find the evidence to back them up. 

I never suggested otherwise. 

 

Harm is harm, financial or otherwise, and Kane stands exposed to the possibility. 

 

Again, what the city did or didn't find evidence for is immaterial at this point. For all anyone knows, they found nothing more serious than non criminal harassment as its defined legally, which is why the complainants felt emboldened to press charges. Just because they didn't find anything more serious, doesn't mean nothing less serious occurred. But again, I fail to see the relevance to a non criminal civil proceeding, anyway. 

[3putt]

Civil cases are predicated on compensation for damages.  It will be a huge hurdle to establish physical damage or emtional harm for actions that amount to ordinace violations.  Can it be done?  Anythings possible.  The plaintiff must also show a causation nexus between the conduct and the damages.  Big lift for plaintiff's counsel. Will Kane's rep take a hit,? Not anymore than it has.  But I can't see a significant financial award stemming from this.

[K-9]

Civil cases are predicated on compensation for damages.  It will be a huge hurdle to establish physical damage or emtional harm for actions that amount to ordinace violations.  Can it be done?  Anythings possible.  The plaintiff must also show a causation nexus between the conduct and the damages.  Big lift for plaintiff's counsel. Will Kane's rep take a hit,? Not anymore than it has.  But I can't see a significant financial award stemming from this.

Huge hurdles in civil cases are speed bumps most of the time. And that nexus you speak of may very well be what's on those videos. The plaintiffs and their attorneys have certainly viewed them and felt compelled to press charges. Now there is no shortage of shyster lawyers (apologies to our in house barristers) willing to take anything to court against a rich defendant, but if those videos are all exculpatory in nature, then why bother? 

 

And significant financial reward means different things to different people. 

[JJFIVEOH]

I never suggested otherwise. 

 

Harm is harm, financial or otherwise, and Kane stands exposed to the possibility. 

 

Again, what the city did or didn't find evidence for is immaterial at this point. For all anyone knows, they found nothing more serious than non criminal harassment as its defined legally, which is why the complainants felt emboldened to press charges. Just because they didn't find anything more serious, doesn't mean nothing less serious occurred. But again, I fail to see the relevance to a non criminal civil proceeding, anyway. 

 

You're arguing points I never made. Not sure what you're trying to prove. 

[That Aud Smell]

Civil cases are predicated on compensation for damages.  It will be a huge hurdle to establish physical damage or emtional harm for actions that amount to ordinace violations.  Can it be done?  Anythings possible.  The plaintiff must also show a causation nexus between the conduct and the damages.  Big lift for plaintiff's counsel. Will Kane's rep take a hit,? Not anymore than it has.  But I can't see a significant financial award stemming from this.

 

Not apt to find a rock star plaintiff in this situation (I mean, we're talking Chippewa bar patrons at 3:00 a.m.), but plaintiff's lawyers are a wily bunch. One of those gals could have some mysterious soft tissue problems in her neck now, and post traumatic stress issues, depression, an inability to accomplish daily tasks. The works. I know it sounds a bit wacky, but, if the plaintiff presents well, that would be a case any plaintiff's lawyer would love to have. Maybe ding the guy for some punitives while you're at it.

[K-9]

You're arguing points I never made. Not sure what you're trying to prove. 

Not out to prove anything. I only disputed your claim that the four non criminal charges aren't serious and tried to show how. 

 

And you certainly did make the point that the city would have pressed more serious charges if they found anything. 

 

Never mind then. 

Edited July 28, 2016 by K-9

[JJFIVEOH]

Not out to prove anything. I only disputed your claim that the four non criminal charges aren't serious and tried to show how. 

 

And you certainly did make the point that the city would have pressed more serious charges if they found anything. 

 

Never mind then. 

 

Sorry, I should have been more specific about 'serious'. At this point it's more important to clear his name, criminally, and move on (and hopefully forward). Civil cases won't be a hindrance in that regard.  

[dudacek]

Among the more intriguing unremarked-upon statements: "Evander always does this."

Implies a pre-existing relationship, or at least a history, no? Not a random encounter?

 

****

 

Separately and without prejudice because I am no way asking this as an avenue of excusing Kane:

Is it possible or even likely that other members of the Sabres or Bills either now, or over the years have gotten belligerent with bouncers, or groped or grabbed women in bars? As Buffalonians, have you witnessed or heard credible stories of other local a--hole athletes?

 

If the answer is yes, why the firestorm of attention on Kane?

 

These questions are actual, not rhetorical.

[3putt]

Not apt to find a rock star plaintiff in this situation (I mean, we're talking Chippewa bar patrons at 3:00 a.m.), but plaintiff's lawyers are a wily bunch. One of those gals could have some mysterious soft tissue problems in her neck now, and post traumatic stress issues, depression, an inability to accomplish daily tasks. The works. I know it sounds a bit wacky, but, if the plaintiff presents well, that would be a case any plaintiff's lawyer would love to have. Maybe ding the guy for some punitives while you're at it.

Ah the punitives....was betting I would hear that.lol.  Without aggravating circumstances punitive damages are a longshot.  Thus the importance of criminal charges.  They are also used when no criminal option to deter behavior is available (think Ford Pinto case).  The standard for proving damages is harder than most think and the ability of defense attorneys is being sold short and the generosity of juries is being overestimated. Well other than those in certain counties in Texas. :P  Not a personal retort, rather a professional observation. 

[Weave]

 

Among the more intriguing unremarked-upon statements: "Evander always does this."

Implies a pre-existing relationship, or at least a history, no? Not a random encounter?

 

****

 

Separately and without prejudice because I am no way asking this as an avenue of excusing Kane:

Is it possible or even likely that other members of the Sabres or Bills either now, or over the years have gotten belligerent with bouncers, or groped or grabbed women in bars? As Buffalonians, have you witnessed or heard credible stories of other local a--hole athletes?

 

If the answer is yes, why the firestorm of attention on Kane?

 

These questions are actual, not rhetorical.

 

I seem to recall Jim Kelly being a king sized shithead early in his career.  complete with plaintiffs if I recall correctly.

Edited July 28, 2016 by We've

[3putt]

I seem to recall Jim Kelly being a king sized shithead early in his career.  complete with plaintiffs if I recall correctly.

To the point where he built a bar in his basement so the team could have a place to party after games without running into John Q.  A waiver and NDA was required for all guests of players.  Attended twice.  Helluva set up, but really strange vibe.

[Weave]

To the point where he built a bar in his basement so the team could have a place to party after games without running into John Q.  A waiver and NDA was required for all guests of players.  Attended twice.  Helluva set up, but really strange vibe.

 

Honestly, the hero worship towards him always bothered me.  Still does.  I haven't forgotten how big a dookie he was.

[TheAud]

Honestly, the hero worship towards him always bothered me.  Still does.  I haven't forgotten how big a dookie he was.

I guess it's just the whole "turn your life around, save your marriage, your son tragically dies so you create an organization that changes laws and drives research literally saving hundreds of children's lives and then beat cancer twice" thing. 

But you're right. He was a dookie back in his 20's. 

[That Aud Smell]

Ah the punitives....was betting I would hear that.lol. Without aggravating circumstances punitive damages are a longshot. Thus the importance of criminal charges. They are also used when no criminal option to deter behavior is available (think Ford Pinto case). The standard for proving damages is harder than most think and the ability of defense attorneys is being sold short and the generosity of juries is being overestimated. Well other than those in certain counties in Texas. :P Not a personal retort, rather a professional observation.

I hear all of that.

 

But if I have a sympathetic plaintiff who can legitimately claim to be banged up, shaken up, ttraumatized from being thrown around by a millionaire DB hockey player? I like my chances of ringing the bell for a substantial recovery.

[3putt]

I hear all of that.

But if I have a sympathetic plaintiff who can legitimately claim to be banged up, shaken up, ttraumatized from being thrown around by a millionaire DB hockey player? I like my chances of ringing the bell for a substantial recovery.

A big if. All plaintiffs look great in the office but most lose their luster on the stand. You are correct that a sympathetic plaintiff is a great starting point. However, if she was banged up, shaken up due to being "thrown around" by millionaire DB hockey player, said DB hockey player would be facing felony not misdemeanor charges. We have come full circle. ;)

[dudacek]

Did you lawyers read the complainants/supporters posts that night on social media?

Methinks she/they won't exactly come across too well on the stand.