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

[shrader]

 

Tim Graham @ByTimGraham

From @TheBuffaloNews law-enforcement source: Roseanne Johnson, Erie Cnty DA Special Victims Bureau, is prosecutor assigned to Kane case

 

A quick google indicates she handles underage rape cases.

 

 

More subtle hints from the guy who has heard a little more information, eh?

[darksabre]

 

Tim Graham @ByTimGraham

From @TheBuffaloNews law-enforcement source: Roseanne Johnson, Erie Cnty DA Special Victims Bureau, is prosecutor assigned to Kane case

 

A quick google indicates she handles underage rape cases.

 

 

Oh dear. That's not good. 

[musichunch]

I'll add Dante Cunningham to the pile of false accusations. Nearly ruined his career: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11750556/former-minnesota-timberwolves-forward-dante-cunningham-struggles-clear-name

 

The information released so far really doesn't tell me anything yet other than that there is an accusation and the girl may have been underage. 

 

I think the biggest mistakes people make in these kinds of cases is assuming the dynamics are the same for celebrities/athletes as they are for regular people. "Money/Infamy/Desire to Destory" is a factor that must always be considered in these cases, just like anything else, even if there is a <10% chance. But I agree with a previous poster who said it takes a special type of crazy to do something like that. You're bringing a lot on yourself in exchange for money.

 

I touched on this subject in the McCoy discussion in the Bills thread but to summarize, the sex life of a rich athlete/celebrity is far different than anything a normal man is used to. Getting laid is not only easy but expected pretty much every night they go out. They rarely do any approaching since the girls approach them. If they like a girl, they'll ask someone in their entourage to bring them over and they usually agree to come. Bringing them back home is just as easy.

 

A 17 year old that looks 21 can easily sneak through, especially if you met her at a 21+ establishment. It's just not something you think about. I would never judge someone on that unless they suspected it or knew about it. 

 

There is a flip side to this however that should also be considered. Since these athletes/celebrities are so used to getting sex without trying, once they have them in private, they are usually very aggressive and skip the whole seduction thing. I'm talking immediate making out, pulling down underwear, etc. I know this from speaking with girls and friends of girls who have been in these situations (I live in Miami). Many girls are probably surprised by it but go along since that's the reason they came. Others might not want to but don't have the courage to say no to a person of status. Or it's a total rape situation.

 

I believe most of these celebrity rape cases are from my 2nd example: "Others might not want to but don't have the courage to say no to a person of status." Then they file complaints afterwards once they are out of their grasp or convinced by their friends or family. From the athlete's point of view, it may be a total surprise. A true gray area case.

 

But again, this is just my general opinions about these kinds of situations. I don't have enough information to make judgement on Pat Kane. All I know is he is a well known douche, so who knows.

[SDS]

I'll add Dante Cunningham to the pile of false accusations. Nearly ruined his career: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11750556/former-minnesota-timberwolves-forward-dante-cunningham-struggles-clear-name

 

The information released so far really doesn't tell me anything yet other than that there is an accusation and the girl may have been underage. 

 

I think the biggest mistakes people make in these kinds of cases is assuming the dynamics are the same for celebrities/athletes as they are for regular people. "Money/Infamy/Desire to Destory" is a factor that must always be considered in these cases, just like anything else, even if there is a

 

I touched on this subject in the McCoy discussion in the Bills thread but to summarize, the sex life of a rich athlete/celebrity is far different than anything a normal man is used to. Getting laid is not only easy but expected pretty much every night they go out. They rarely do any approaching since the girls approach them. If they like a girl, they'll ask someone in their entourage to bring them over and they usually agree to come. Bringing them back home is just as easy.

 

A 17 year old that looks 21 can easily sneak through, especially if you met her at a 21+ establishment. It's just not something you think about. I would never judge someone on that unless they suspected it or knew about it. 

 

There is a flip side to this however that should also be considered. Since these athletes/celebrities are so used to getting sex without trying, once they have them in private, they are usually very aggressive and skip the whole seduction thing. I'm talking immediate making out, pulling down underwear, etc. I know this from speaking with girls and friends of girls who have been in these situations (I live in Miami). Many girls are probably surprised by it but go along since that's the reason they came. Others might not want to but don't have the courage to say no to a person of status. Or it's a total rape situation.

 

I believe most of these celebrity rape cases are from my 2nd example: "Others might not want to but don't have the courage to say no to a person of status." Then they file complaints afterwards once they are out of their grasp or convinced by their friends or family. From the athlete's point of view, it may be a total surprise. A true gray area case.

 

But again, this is just my general opinions about these kinds of situations. I don't have enough information to make judgement on Pat Kane. All I know is he is a well known douche, so who knows.

 

absolute solid post.

[darksabre]

I'm going to say something. Patrick is 26 years old. He's officially hit the age where he needs to be wary of chasing "girls". A 17 year old girl might be able to pass for 21. But she's not going to pass for 24... or 26... or 28...

So what I'm saying if you're 26...and she looks like she's just 21... maybe consider not pursuing that.

You're 26 Patrick. It's time to stop chasing girls and start chasing women.  

 

[JJFIVEOH]

Maybe a little off topic (but it seems to want to head that way) if the girl is underage and knowingly heads to an adult venue and a grown man has sex with her thinking she is old enough (perhaps she even lied about her age)  at what point are the parents the ones held liable? If she's underage then it's the parents fault she's in that situation. Food for thought. 

[josie]

I'm going to say something. Patrick is 26 years old. He's officially hit the age where he needs to be wary of chasing "girls". A 17 year old girl might be able to pass for 21. But she's not going to pass for 24... or 26... or 28...

 

So what I'm saying if you're 26...and she looks like she's just 21... maybe consider not pursuing that.

 

You're 26 Patrick. It's time to stop chasing girls and start chasing women.  

 

 

Also, didn't he have a lady? saw that somewhere earlier. Maybe it's just my overly ruffly feathers getting ruffled over here, but ugh. 

 

Good post though, musichunch. Paints a more realistic picture. 

[3putt]

The key to remember here on the word rape.

 

Rape in and of itself implies forced sex without consent.

 

Statutory Rape doesn't require forced sex because that would just be rape.  What it says is that the person was unable to give consent because they are under 17.

 

I don't know what happens if a person who is under 17 ends up in a bar that does not allow minors (I have no idea if that bar does) and ends up having sex with someone over 21.  It seems reasonable to me that a person in the bar should be of consenting age.  Even more so, if he "proofed" her and she produces an ID that says she is of consenting age then I think it's even harder to judge what is going on there.

 

Here's what I do know... if you are in a relationship with someone you should not end up in a situation like this with someone else unless you make some seriously questionable choices.

 

In our litigious society, its better to abstain than to partake unless you can obtain consent forms in triplicate and on file in the county courthouse before you engage in sex.

Statutory anything in the law are bright lines.  A determination is made that the conduct, in this case sex with a person under 17 years of age with someone over 21 years of age will not be tolerated.  it is an offense by statute, hence the term.  It eliminates all the "ifs" in your post.  Element 1 did sex occur? element two? what were the ages of the parties at the time it occurred.  Formulaic.  As Eleven indicated, anything else would be held for the sentencing phase but some states even prohibit the introduction of mitigation in these cases.

Edited August 6, 2015 by 3putt

[Hoss]

Maybe a little off topic (but it seems to want to head that way) if the girl is underage and knowingly heads to an adult venue and a grown man has sex with her thinking she is old enough (perhaps she even lied about her age)  at what point are the parents the ones held liable? If she's underage then it's the parents fault she's in that situation. Food for thought. 

This is assuming that she is indeed a minor and that it was consensual sex, right? We don't know either.

 

 

Forced sex is never on anybody but the perpetrator. To attempt to blame anybody else is the work of a rape apologists (not saying you are that, just putting that out there)

[thewookie1]

If I had to guess, Kane met a mature looking 17 year old who snuck into the bar. They fooled around and now Kane's in trouble. If that is the case I doubt he's given more than a fine and probation seeing as he has a high end lawyer and the victim would be guilty of fraud, and likely underage drinking.

 

If it was a legit rape however throw the book at him.

[darksabre]

If I had to guess, Kane met a mature looking 17 year old who snuck into the bar. They fooled around and now Kane's in trouble. If that is the case I doubt he's given more than a fine and probation seeing as he has a high end lawyer and the victim would be guilty of fraud, and likely underage drinking.

 

If it was a legit rape however throw the book at him.

 

So in your first sentence you try to dismiss the situation as probably not being rape.

 

And then you say if it is rape they should punish him. 

 

Why do you need to even make the point you're making in the first sentence? "It's probably not rape, BUT IF IT IS...." 

[JJFIVEOH]

If I had to guess, Kane met a mature looking 17 year old who snuck into the bar. They fooled around and now Kane's in trouble. If that is the case I doubt he's given more than a fine and probation seeing as he has a high end lawyer and the victim would be guilty of fraud, and likely underage drinking.

 

If it was a legit rape however throw the book at him.

Absolutely. If he really did rape her, hang him. But if she knowingly sought him out and lied about her age, her parents need the book thrown at them.

[darksabre]

Absolutely. If he really did rape her, hang him. But if she knowingly sought him out and lied about her age, her parents need the book thrown at them.

 

Punishing the parents doesn't accomplish anything. 

[JJFIVEOH]

So in your first sentence you try to dismiss the situation as probably not being rape.

 

And then you say if it is rape they should punish him. 

 

Why do you need to even make the point you're making in the first sentence? "It's probably not rape, BUT IF IT IS...." 

 

Because it's all speculation at this point. He wasn't dismissing anything, it was a hypothetical.

[darksabre]

Because it's all speculation at this point. He wasn't dismissing anything, it was a hypothetical.

 

A dismissive hypothetical. 

[JJFIVEOH]

Punishing the parents doesn't accomplish anything. 

 

Sure it does. If she's underage purposely looking for grown men at adult venues, that's not Kane's fault. It's the parents fault for her being in that situation.

[That Aud Smell]

The painting lacks happy little clouds.

Oh, man. I needed that.

 

I reject the idea that there can simultaneously exist both "his truth" and "her truth."  She either willingly participated in the act, or she didn't.  

 

Well that explains why we see the matter so differently. The (capital "T") Truth in these situations is (*ahem*) quite often at the bottom of a bottomless pit. There are two or more truths held, and clung to firmly. It's often left to a grand jury and later a jury to sort out whether those (little "t") truths should yield an indictment or conviction.

 

The conventional wisdom approach that Aud espouses above is what is generally applied at most colleges, and has resulted in a lot of falsely accused young men getting totally screwed.

 

To say nothing of the 1000s (10s of 1000s? 100s of 1000s?) of women whose lives have been turned upside down and/or ruined by a strong historical bias running the other way.

 

I long for the days of a good old Kassian vs. Hodgson debate. 

 

Hear, hear.

 

Or something about damage to a Tim Hortons store.

 

Gotta be careful where you hide your nuts these days. :doh:

 

Wilbur!

 

I'm not trying to blame the victim here, and I'm not defending rape, it's a terrible and despicable crime that monsters commit, but there is a difference between forcible rape and a girl lying to you about her age. I'm not saying the latter is what happened here, nor am I condoning the latter, and by all accounts thus far it sounds like it may have been forcible, but there are different sentences for a reason

 

And I think those differences are reflected in the applicable laws.

 

 

Tim Graham @ByTimGraham

From @TheBuffaloNews law-enforcement source: Roseanne Johnson, Erie Cnty DA Special Victims Bureau, is prosecutor assigned to Kane case

 

A quick google indicates she handles underage rape cases.

 

 

It's Rosanne (no "e" after the "s"), and she heads up the Special Victims Bureau. She is a tough, smart, and fearless lady.

 

Here's how her Bureau is described on the website:

 

The Special Victims Bureau is responsible for the prosecution of all cases involving sexual assault, child abuse, Internet crimes against children, and sex offender registration violations. Its mission is to aggressively pursue justice on behalf of our most vulnerable victims while also being sensitive to the unique issues and dynamics associated sexual assaults and child abuse. All those assigned to the Special Victims Bureau receive specialized training and prosecute cases by means of a multi-disciplinary team approach designed, in part, to minimize the trauma suffered by the victim. In addition to appearing in all city, town and village courts, the Special Victims Bureau staffs Felony Sex Offender Court (another OCA specialty court). 

 

I'll add Dante Cunningham to the pile of false accusations.  <>

absolute solid post.

 

I'll say -- man oh man.

 

Also, didn't he have a lady?

 

Yeah. Amanda. At least as of February 2015. I posted a link upthread.

[JJFIVEOH]

A dismissive hypothetical. 

 

So?

[Sabel79]

If I had to guess, Kane met a mature looking 17 year old who snuck into the bar. They fooled around and now Kane's in trouble. If that is the case I doubt he's given more than a fine and probation seeing as he has a high end lawyer and the victim would be guilty of fraud, and likely underage drinking.

 

If it was a legit rape however throw the book at him.

Wait, what?  "Legitimate Rape" rears it's head again.

 

Sex - Consent = Rape.  It's called "The age of Consent" for a reason.  Below it, there is and can be (legally) no consent to sex with someone over 21.  It's a strict liability offense.  It doesn't matter what she did or didn't do.  And she'd have to be 16 at most in any event since the statute as repruduced above clearly states LESS THAN 17.   Legalistic, I know, but words have meanings and all.  A 16 year old girl is by definition (in NY) a rape victim if one engages in sex with her.

 

Now, all things must be taken into context and if were a case of PK diddling a completely willing underage girl that would be one thing. The way this is brewing makes me think there's a bunch more to the story.  And not knowing any facts at all, I'm merely surmising that it's gonna be bad.  

Edited August 6, 2015 by Sabres79

[3putt]

Sure it does. If she's underage purposely looking for grown men at adult venues, that's not Kane's fault. It's the parents fault for her being in that situation.

You are missing the crucial element here.  The 17 yo demarcation is based on the premise that someone under 17 yo does not have the maturity to consent to adult activity and should be protected.  individuals over 21 are assumed to have that maturity and therefore are liable for their actions.  The parents are irrelevant.

[darksabre]

So?

 

I'll say it again. Whether you believe the accuser or not, you have to take the accusation seriously. Crafting hypotheticals that dismiss the seriousness of the accusation is tasteless and pointless. 

[That Aud Smell]

As for the description of the Special Victims Bureau: It indicates that they prosecute sex assault and rape cases involving only adults, but if you Google Ms. Johnson, she seems most frequently tied to cases involving victims who are not yet 17 years old.

Edited August 6, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[darksabre]

Sure it does. If she's underage purposely looking for grown men at adult venues, that's not Kane's fault. It's the parents fault for her being in that situation.

 

Not it's not. If you make something like this the parents fault then what you're saying is that anyone under the age of 18 should not have any autonomy. If a kid on a bike gets hit by a car it's the parents fault. If a kid gets kidnapped walking home from school it's the parents fault. You cannot create that kind of legal precedent. Unless a minor is deliberately TAKEN to the bar by their parents, the parents are not at fault. 

[JJFIVEOH]

You are missing the crucial element here.  The 17 yo demarcation is based on the premise that someone under 17 yo does not have the maturity to consent to adult activity and should be protected.  individuals over 21 are assumed to have that maturity and therefore are liable for their actions.  The parents are irrelevant.

 

And the hypothetical I was referring to was that she lied about her age and/or given the impression she was old enough, not to mention  attending an adult venue. You can't do the right thing when you're out in a situation where you don't think you're doing anything wrong. If this is the case, emphasis on the word 'if' then the parents need to be held accountable. If she's not old enough to consent then she is under the control of her parents.

[nfreeman]

And the hypothetical I was referring to was that she lied about her age and/or given the impression she was old enough, not to mention  attending an adult venue. You can't do the right thing when you're out in a situation where you don't think you're doing anything wrong. If this is the case, emphasis on the word 'if' then the parents need to be held accountable. If she's not old enough to consent then she is under the control of her parents.

 

The point of statutory rape laws is that it is up to the non-minor to make absolutely GD sure that the sex partner is not a minor.  It doesn't matter if she looks 25 or if she's lying about her age.  The onus is on the non-minor -- full stop. 

 

Now, you can believe that the law is wrong -- but there is no doubt about what the law says.