Patrick Kane - Possible rape charge

[MetalRaven]

It was well written and does add some things to the discussion, mainly that jumping to his defense without facts is just as foolish...but people choosing not to side either way because of "Presumption of innocence" aren't suddenly ignoring the victim or stating that shes a liar...simply leaving room for the possibility that this may or may not have happened. Nor are we contributing to the rape culture by not immediately assuming the victim is telling the truth. Most people are doing the sensible thing and waiting for evidence. Anything else is jump[ing to conclusions that could be damaging to either party.

I think that's misrepresenting what was written though. The article doesn't say "immediately come to a certain conclusion" but rather it's directed at the very real and very loud segment of the population who are going to immediately leap to Kane's defense and not because of some sort judicial impartiality but the very sad truth that A) victims of sexual assault are probably given less credence than victims of any other crime B) some people are the kind of idiots who think they "know" Patrick Kane and will defend based on what they think they know of a player on their favourite hockey team and C) some people are such tunnel-visioned morons that they're primarily bummed about what this potentially means for the Blackhawks. All of that does contribute to the culture being referred to.

The presumption of innocence is a legal concept. It doesn't bind our brains or our thoughts. I don't have to wait for a court to convict, say, a famous Comedian of sexual assault when literally dozens of women are accusing him of it before I can think "yeah, that probably happened". If I see someone commit a crime that person still has the presumption of innocence if brought to trial but I'm under no obligation to afford it to them.

I never said he said that. Thats just the impression I took away from the article.
Im aware of presumption of innocence as a legal concept. Basically if im standing before a judge it has an implied bias of guilt...therefore prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am guilty. People can believe whatever they want. But just like he can write a nice article about how we shouldn't jump to defend him, I can also write a paragraph about why we shouldn't rush to condemn either.

    To the point of culture I feel this has more to do with celebrity culture then rape culture.  As he said people believe these celebrities are their friends so they have a harder time condemning them, for anything. Look at OJ Simpson, that became more about race then the actual victim (Nicole Brown Simpson). Also the same morons came out in droves to talk about how great a football player he was, like it has anything to do with the case.  Celebrities as a whole have a much easier time getting away with crimes then we do. People aren't defending Kane because we are all suddenly accepting of rapists. They are defending him on who he is not what he has done. And yes I am very much against that. Celebrities should be held to the same standard as the rest of us. If hes a rapist then hes a rapist and should be treated as any other rapist. If he doesn't its because of our "Love of celebrities" not because we have become accepting of rape. Im just not jumping to the conclusion that he is a rapist because one woman has said so. Im going to wait until we have at least SOME evidence...you know like anything.  Nik your example of the Winston case seems more towards rape culture. The police not taking it seriously, fans attacking the victim after her name was released by the defense lawyer. Yes, celebrity had something to do with it, but I feel apathy towards the crime led to a lot of that, and that apathy minimizes the victim and the crime. I think thats BS, rape is a horrendous crime and should never be minimized. The victim should never be minimized either.

  Saying he is guilty of something (and subsequently stating you will ignore a court ruling, but only if it is in favor of Kane) seems a little premature with...what? 3 facts maybe? Is it really hiding behind the guise of "innocent until proven guilty" to simply wait for something substantial to convict him in the public eye?

Bill Cosby (ill name names I dont care) has multiple victims who have stepped up, so yeah, one could come to a reasonable conclusion that he probably committed the crime as that is more likely then a major conspiracy involving multiple people.

We need a better way to ascertain the truth in cases such as this. Im honestly at a loss for how we could do it. Aside from someone trained to spot a liar it would be nearly impossible (Lie detectors could be useful as an increased interrogation process but aside from forcing a confession they aren't reliable)

Anyone wanna brainstorm?

 

[moon111]

Although I don't know the details, a co-worker had a huge mess of charges against him, and some really twisted testimony from the victim.  I dare say she would truly have to be messed up to make up that kind of stuff up.  Case was dismissed.  Kane, as a public figure, is seeing this news coming out as more punishment then non-celebrities would receive. 

 

[Kin]

  Saying he is guilty of something (and subsequently stating you will ignore a court ruling, but only if it is in favor of Kane) seems a little premature with...what? 3 facts maybe?

Great. But nobody is saying that so it's a meaningless rebuttal. Especially when the "impression" you get from the article is directly contradicted by the text of the article(which says pretty clearly that Kane might be innocent of any wrongdoing). Pointing out that in these case fans of star athletes will jump to unfair conclusions about the accuser is not advocating for an automatic assumption of guilt or for the opposite.

If someone wants to think that there's fire to this smoke based on what we know about Patrick Kane's history of being a jackass or the relatively tiny amount of these claims that are ever found to simply have been made up they're not denying someone a "fundamental right" and this article wasn't written for the people who want to sit on the sidelines. It's specifically and directly aimed at the people that we know will come down on one side of this. If that's not you, then this isn't about you.

 

[MetalRaven]

  Saying he is guilty of something (and subsequently stating you will ignore a court ruling, but only if it is in favor of Kane) seems a little premature with...what? 3 facts maybe?

Great. But nobody is saying that so it's a meaningless rebuttal. Especially when the "impression" you get from the article is directly contradicted by the text of the article(which says pretty clearly that Kane might be innocent of any wrongdoing). Pointing out that in these case fans of star athletes will jump to unfair conclusions about the accuser is not advocating for an automatic assumption of guilt or for the opposite.

If someone wants to think that there's fire to this smoke based on what we know about Patrick Kane's history of being a jackass or the relatively tiny amount of these claims that are ever found to simply have been made up they're not denying someone a "fundamental right" and this article wasn't written for the people who want to sit on the sidelines. It's specifically and directly aimed at the people that we know will come down on one side of this. If that's not you, then this isn't about you.

Well, this is more then slightly embarrassing. Where the article says "Mike Ribiero sounds like a truly awful monster, " Its blue, and I thought that signaled the start of a new topic. I figured this was a piece where more then one topic is brought up and thought he was moving on to a whole new subject, so I only read to that point. Once you said that I missed the point of the article I went back and checked again...and well, yeah, without the rest of the article the guy just sounded like he wanted us to jump to the conclusion that he was guilty.

Anyway, I guess nothing to see here...almost want to apologize to the guy...but he wont read this.

 

[Bullfrog]

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/patrick-kane-s-day-with-stanley-cup-goes-from-public-to-private-amid-investigation-020838265.html

To little surprise, Kane's day with the cup is spent privately.

This article, linked in the previous one, has more details about the allegations and events of the night.

http://www.buffalonews.com/feed/new-details-emerge-in-allegations-against-nhl-star-patrick-kane-20150809

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This article, linked in the previous one, has more details about the allegations and events of the night.

http://www.buffalonews.com/feed/new-details-emerge-in-allegations-against-nhl-star-patrick-kane-20150809

Took 3 days for the potential rape victim to be painted as a whore in the media. Well done.

 

[bustaheims]

This article, linked in the previous one, has more details about the allegations and events of the night.

http://www.buffalonews.com/feed/new-details-emerge-in-allegations-against-nhl-star-patrick-kane-20150809

Took 3 days for the potential rape victim to be painted as a whore in the media. Well done.

Yeah. That speaks somewhat to what I was saying about the calibre of Buffalo News, and why I was hesitant to trust them. They're tabloid-esque. Just because this girl may have been flirting with Kane and may have been interested in no way excuses what may have happened to her. (And, to be clear, I only use 'may have happened' because none of us know for sure - though, it's definitely starting to feel like something inappropriate took place, it's just the extent that's in question.)

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So what's the alternative here?  You can't take everyone accused of rape and say they're presumptive-ly guilty.  Where's the line?  Presumption of innocence is a basic tenet of most democracies around the world - do you remove that for these cases?  I understand that the public does not have to believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, but if the public is not willing to allow the legal process to determine that then in my opinion there's no real difference.  If the court of public opinion is the final arbiter then the legal process really does not matter or matters less as the person will be vilified regardless.

I understand that there's a HUGE issue in getting convictions in these cases and in reporting these cases, but I honestly don't know what the solution is.  I know countries like Canada, UK, Australia (can't speak on the US) have introduced reforms to their evidence laws regarding what can and cannot be introduced into cases of sexual crimes.  But if you presume guilt...bah, maybe I'm looking at it wrong, I don't know, I can't put myself into the position of a victim but I don't understand the notion that people seem to be saying that if you think an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty that you're saying the accuser is a liar.  I 100% don't think that, it doesn't have to be either or.  It's a crime that is very difficult to prove or disprove because of how personal a situation it is where it is often only the accuser/accused who know what went on.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I don't understand the notion that people seem to be saying that if you think an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty that you're saying the accuser is a liar.  I 100% don't think that, it doesn't have to be either or.  It's a crime that is very difficult to prove or disprove because of how personal a situation it is where it is often only the accuser/accused who know what went on.

This is exactly where I fall on this.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

as far as i know none of us here are the judge on this case...so none of us are really beholden to innocent until proven guilty ...for better or for worse

 

[rdowdall]

So how much of this time taken in the investigation is because Kane is rich, and the cops have to make sure that all of the i's are dotted and t's crossed because he can afford a top notch lawyer that will find loopholes if they exist?

 

[Bullfrog]

I suspect the amount of time difference is negligible aside from the extra work of dealing with increased media scrutiny/queries.

 

[rdowdall]

I suspect the amount of time difference is negligible aside from the extra work of dealing with increased media scrutiny/queries.

I just think if it were you or I, we would be in jail by now, awaiting trial.

 

[bustaheims]

I just think if it were you or I, we would be in jail by now, awaiting trial.

Without a charge being laid, even a rookie lawyer would be able to get you out pretty quickly. Even with charges laid, there'd be a fairly reasonable bail set provided you didn't have a history of being a flight risk. Most of us would likely be released on our own recognizance.

 

[Kin]

I understand that the public does not have to believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, but if the public is not willing to allow the legal process to determine that then in my opinion there's no real difference.  If the court of public opinion is the final arbiter then the legal process really does not matter or matters less as the person will be vilified regardless.

But how is that different than anything else? I'm sure there were lots of times where OJ Simpson thought it was unfair that people thought he was guilty despite not being convicted. Nevertheless the legal process still mattered quite a bit as he, you know, didn't get sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison.

To put the sort of faith in the legal system you're advocating for here you have to fundamentally believe that it's a fair system that treats everyone equally and does right by victims and I think a lot of people don't believe that for pretty good reason especially in cases of sexual assault. 

But if you presume guilt...bah, maybe I'm looking at it wrong, I don't know, I can't put myself into the position of a victim but I don't understand the notion that people seem to be saying that if you think an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty that you're saying the accuser is a liar.

But nobody's saying that. The earlier article CtB posted didn't say that. No posts here have said you have to assume guilt.

All that's being said is that just like your first response to hearing that someone's business was burned down probably wouldn't be "Well, I'll wait and see if they're just in it for the insurance money" that our reaction to allegations of sexual assault shouldn't be "Well, maybe she's just in it for the civil case" which I'm not accusing anyone here of but it absolutely exists to a troubling degree, especially in cases regarding famous athletes.

 

[moon111]

If one of my daughters went to a bar, then took off to a hockey player's house, then went to a part of the house alone.... I might not come across as very sympathetic to her.  Then I'd gut said hockey player like a fish.

 

[rdowdall]

If one of my daughters went to a bar, then took off to a hockey player's house, then went to a part of the house alone.... I might not come across as very sympathetic to her.  Then I'd gut said hockey player like a fish.

I'm pretty sure they would get you with the retaliatory penalty.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

If one of my daughters went to a bar, then took off to a hockey player's house, then went to a part of the house alone.... I might not come across as very sympathetic to her.  Then I'd gut said hockey player like a fish.

If my 20 something year old daughter went to any guys house and came out saying she'd been raped I'd definitely have sympathy for her...hockey player or not.

 

[bustaheims]

If my 20 something year old daughter went to any guys house and came out saying she'd been raped I'd definitely have sympathy for her...hockey player or not.

Exactly. This is not like someone getting drunk and wrecking their car. Getting raped is never the victim's fault. There's no reason not to be sympathetic. While I might not be too happy about my daughter going home from the bar with a stranger, I'd easily put that aside in light of the larger issue.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

If my 20 something year old daughter went to any guys house and came out saying she'd been raped I'd definitely have sympathy for her...hockey player or not.

Exactly. This is not like someone getting drunk and wrecking their car. Getting raped is never the victim's fault. There's no reason not to be sympathetic. While I might not be too happy about my daughter going home from the bar with a stranger, I'd easily put that aside in light of the larger issue.

Bingo.

I can't for the life of me imagine telling my daughter how stupid she was for getting raped.