Patrick Kane - Possible rape charge

[TML fan]

Kane's claim is taken as fact because that's what our system of justice teaches us to do.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Kane's claim is taken as fact because that's what our system of justice teaches us to do.

The NHL is our system of justice. Innocent until proven guilty isn't anywhere in the CBA.

 

[TML fan]

Kane's claim is taken as fact because that's what our system of justice teaches us to do.

The NHL is our system of justice. Innocent until proven guilty isn't anywhere in the CBA.

Oh you're talking about the league. I thought you were talking about people in general.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Kane's claim is taken as fact because that's what our system of justice teaches us to do.

The NHL is our system of justice. Innocent until proven guilty isn't anywhere in the CBA.

Oh you're talking about the league. I thought you were talking about people in general.

Well in this case yeah, I'm specifically talking about how the league should absolutely be taking action against Kane right now. There's even language in the CBA that gives them the right to suspend a player under criminal investigation when it could be damaging to the league:

With that said I do think that public opinion shouldn't blindly follow a very flawed and faulty system of justice, but I've been through all that before here.

 

[TML fan]

Kane's claim is taken as fact because that's what our system of justice teaches us to do.

The NHL is our system of justice. Innocent until proven guilty isn't anywhere in the CBA.

Oh you're talking about the league. I thought you were talking about people in general.

Well in this case yeah, I'm specifically talking about how the league should absolutely be taking action against Kane right now. There's even language in the CBA that gives them the right to suspend a player under criminal investigation when it could be damaging to the league:

With that said I do think that public opinion shouldn't blindly follow a very flawed and faulty system of justice, but I've been through all that before here.

Because public opinion is much less flawed and faulty...

 

[bustaheims]

I expanded on my post a tad after posting if you wanted to check that out.

But I mean, yeah that is basically the entire premise of his article. Kane says that he's innocent so there's absolutely no reason for the Blackhawks or the NHL to act like it isn't just status quo here.

Fair enough. I didn't read the article. I'm really just commenting on the snippet posted here.

I know I'm going in circles here from before, but I don't care. Why is the woman's claim of rape "speculation" and Kane's claim of "innocence" taken as fact? We're so far past the point of just an accusation here anyway. There's evidence being prepared in this case. There's been an active investigation on it for 6 weeks. There's a grand jury about to decide whether or not charges are to be laid. And Kane's in the middle of all of this. The NHL has every right to suspend Kane with pay while this plays out. He shouldn't be anywhere near his team or the league at this point. Any business out there would so the same.

Somebody brought this point up on twitter. Let's say that instead of Kane this was all happening to HNIC broadcaster John Doe. Would Rogers take that person off air while the investigation was going on? Absolutely they would.

Well, that there is an accusation is fact, and that there is a claim of innocence is fact. Which of these is truthful is what the whole potential trial is about. What actually happened is, to those of us who weren't involved, speculation right now.

As for the grand jury, did they reconvene? As of last week, their investigation had been cancelled, and I haven't seen anything about it since.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Because public opinion is much less flawed and faulty...

Again, I've been through all this before. If you want to take the word of an accused rapist over the word of an accused rape victim just because a system that is more beneficial towards accused rapists says so, know yourself out.

 

[TML fan]

Because public opinion is much less flawed and faulty...

Again, I've been through all this before. If you want to take the word of an accused rapist over the word of an accused rape victim just because a system that is more beneficial towards accused rapists says so, know yourself out.

I'm not taking anyone's word. I'm admitting that I don't know, which is something the court of public opinion never does.

Also, I just told everyone you raped me, you rapist. You're a rapist. See my point, rapist?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Well, that there is an accusation is fact, and that there is a claim of innocence is fact. Which of these is truthful is what the whole potential trial is about. What actually happened is, to those of us who weren't involved, speculation right now.

Sure, I don't have an issue with anything said here. But let's go back to my hypothetical, or even change it. If anybody that worked at a company was accused of sexually assaulted a person and that investigation crept into that company in any way, that person would be put on a paid suspension pending the results of the investigation. Patrick Kane shouldn't be anywhere near the NHL at this point while this is going on, that's all I'm saying.

As for the grand jury, did they reconvene? As of last week, their investigation had been cancelled, and I haven't seen anything about it since.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacramalla/2015/09/16/patrick-kane-grand-juries-whats-next/

The grand jury is expected to resume, yes. Not sure when. It was never really cancelled, just rescheduled. Kane's lawyer even said that talks of a settlement were untrue.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Because public opinion is much less flawed and faulty...

Again, I've been through all this before. If you want to take the word of an accused rapist over the word of an accused rape victim just because a system that is more beneficial towards accused rapists says so, know yourself out.

I'm not taking anyone's word. I'm admitting that I don't know, which is something the court of public opinion never does.

Also, I just told everyone you raped me, you rapist. You're a rapist. See my point, rapist?

:

 

[Bullfrog]

CtB, there's another scenario which you're not discussing: not taking the word of either. You're positing that we're either on the side of the accused (but possibly innocent) rapist or on the side of the possible victim.

Some of us are saying that we're not on either side because we're nothing but people reading snippets of media reports.

Anyone with a right mind would suggest that we err on the side of caution and give the accuser the benefit of the doubt, especially in sexual assault cases.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Anyone with a right mind would suggest that we err on the side of caution and give the accuser the benefit of the doubt, especially in sexual assault cases.

I completely disagree. I think that anybody with knowledge about how rape accusations usually play out would be giving the victim the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Bullfrog]

Anyone with a right mind would suggest that we err on the side of caution and give the accuser the benefit of the doubt, especially in sexual assault cases.

I completely disagree. I think that anybody with knowledge about how rape accusations usually play out would be giving the victim the benefit of the doubt.

I think you misread. I stated we should give the accuser (aka the victim) the benefit of the doubt.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Anyone with a right mind would suggest that we err on the side of caution and give the accuser the benefit of the doubt, especially in sexual assault cases.

I completely disagree. I think that anybody with knowledge about how rape accusations usually play out would be giving the victim the benefit of the doubt.

I think you misread. I stated we should give the accuser (aka the victim) the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sorry, yes, of course I did.

But you don't think in the world of public opinion the vast majority of people are giving Kane the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the victim?

 

[Bullfrog]

And for the record, I agree, I have no idea why Patrick Kane would be doing any press conferences right now.

I'm less sold on the idea that he needs to be suspended or avoid the organization, but he certainly doesn't need to be going out of his way to speak publicly. Absent a suspension, couldn't the team at least state: "due to the on-going investigation, Mr Kane will not be participating in media events."

 

[TML fan]

Anyone with a right mind would suggest that we err on the side of caution and give the accuser the benefit of the doubt, especially in sexual assault cases.

I completely disagree. I think that anybody with knowledge about how rape accusations usually play out would be giving the victim the benefit of the doubt.

What if she's lying? Doesn't that make Kane the victim?

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm sorry, yes, of course I did.

But you don't think in the world of public opinion the vast majority of people are giving Kane the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the victim?

I really don't know. I honestly haven't been reading anything about this case other than what's in this thread. If the majority of people are giving Kane the benefit of the doubt, I suspect it's because as he's a major star people are mostly hoping that it's not true. I'm with tmlfan on this one; I just really have no way of making any judgement. Due to the nature of the accusations, the alleged victim needs the benefit. At the same time, I'm leery of passing judgement without any real knowledge of the situation.

I've seen first-hand a situation where someone has pretended to be a victim solely out of vindictive reasons (full disclosure: the event was a faked pregnancy and not an assault). This doesn't cloud my understanding that most sexual assault victims are denied justice, but it does remind me that not all accusations have merit.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I really don't know. I honestly haven't been reading anything about this case other than what's in this thread. If the majority of people are giving Kane the benefit of the doubt, I suspect it's because as he's a major star people are mostly hoping that it's not true. I'm with tmlfan on this one; I just really have no way of making any judgement. Due to the nature of the accusations, the alleged victim needs the benefit. At the same time, I'm leery of passing judgement without any real knowledge of the situation.

I think both here and elsewhere on social media the most common reaction has been "Kane's innocent until proven guilty". Which basically by definition is giving Kane the benefit of the doubt.

I've seen first-hand a situation where someone has pretended to be a victim solely out of vindictive reasons (full disclosure: the event was a faked pregnancy and not an assault). This doesn't cloud my understanding that most sexual assault victims are denied justice, but it does remind me that not all accusations have merit.

Hey, I was jokingly accused of rape earlier today by someone whose opinions I no longer care about regarding this topic. I know it happens. Did the situation you're talking about result in a 6-week criminal investigation that led to the prosecution feeling it had enough evidence to move forward with a grand jury? I feel like we're way past the point where one could suggest the victim is just in this for the money.

 

[TML fan]

If you knew it was a joke why so hostile? I think it's more likely that you thought about my accusation in a real life context and thought about the kind of damage it could do to your life. I think you saw the point I was making but are too proud to back down from your asinine viewpoint.

It's ok to be sympathetic towards the accuser but it's not ok to judge a man without any proof. The problem with taking sides without information is pretty self explanatory and sums up my feelings on public opinion quite nicely.

 

[Kin]

Uhhh...did Damien Cox just infer that the definition of consent doesn't matter?

Like Frog says, it's not very well written but the way I read that paragraph isn't that the definition of consent doesn't matter but that we don't know if Patrick Kane really understands what constitutes informed and affirmative consent(and therefore whether his confidence in being cleared of any wrong doing is based on the fact that he thinks he didn't do anything wrong) but that ultimately that question(Kane's understanding of consent) might be rendered moot by Kane genuinely not having done anything wrong.