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

[WildCard]

Kane avoids the bigger penalty for sure, but he's also lost all of his endorsements, respect from his teammates and around the league, and any prestige awarded to him for his American status/play in hockey is thrown out the window. He doesn't just write a check and nobody remembers this.

 

As far as the victim goes, if she wants to settle out of court and avoid having her name slandered by the media, go through the actual court proceedings where top lawyers from Kane's side will try their best to break her, and avoid constant public difficulties, then that's her choice. It's easy to say we should objectively look at this, we should objectively look at a lot of things, but it's not that easy. 

[Weave]

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.

 

it's good to be the king.

[Eleven]

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.

 

He will always be painted as guilty, but it sure beats prison.  

[That Aud Smell]

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.

 

In terms of what "they" can do, one the thing to keep in mind is that the accuser plays a substantial, possibly a controlling, role in whether there's a criminal prosecution and/or a civil lawsuit. If she is not on board with a criminal prosecution, there's not too much the DA can do.

[spndnchz]

In terms of what "they" can do, one the thing to keep in mind is that the accuser plays a substantial, possibly a controlling, role in whether there's a criminal prosecution and/or a civil lawsuit. If she is not on board with a criminal prosecution, there's not too much the DA can do.

 You think she's not on board with a criminal prosecution or not on board with being dragged through the mud for something SHE didn't do? Big difference.

[LTS]

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.

 

 Are you insinuating that people are to be controlled and forced to act?  Where do you draw the line? Do people now have to intervene and try to stop a shooter? They are supposed to protect other members of society?

 

If the victim is forced to testify and decides that the pain is unbearable and commits suicide rather than testify or even after the fact then who pays the price for that? Is the criminal justice system then sued by the relatives of the person? Do the taxpayers now have to pay for those damages?

 

You aren't thinking clearly.  Focus your anger on those who will continue to make him rich and employ him after this.  After all, without that he's nothing.

 

A few questions..

 

She accepts a deal. Then her name is going to be made public correct?

 

Is she a victim, by the letter of the law?  There was no crime, there can be no victim of a crime.

 

When her information is put out there publicly not only will she have to deal with the potential backlash of public ignorance, but so will her family.

[That Aud Smell]

 You think she's not on board with a criminal prosecution or not on board with being dragged through the mud for something SHE didn't do? Big difference.

 

I don't think anything about that distinction, tbh. It's a valid distinction. I was just referring to Blue's use of what "they" can do in terms of a criminal prosecution and civil lawsuit. I don't think "they" is the way to look at it, since the accuser is a free agent (not in the sports sense, but in the metaphysical sense) who can cooperate with or essentially withdraw from the DA's prosecution efforts.

[Stoner]

I don't think anything about that distinction, tbh. It's a valid distinction. I was just referring to Blue's use of what "they" can do in terms of a criminal prosecution and civil lawsuit. I don't think "they" is the way to look at it, since the accuser is a free agent (not in the sports sense, but in the metaphysical sense) who can cooperate with or essentially withdraw from the DA's prosecution efforts.

Maybe there oughta be a law. If you go to the police and say so and so raped you, you are compelled to testify. You then have no option of being bought. What's the problem? Why are you making such an allegation if not to see the rapist go to prison?

 

This law could serve to discourage those who falsely accuse with the intent of going to settlement.

 

Supporting and protecting the victim who has been compelled to testify becomes paramount.

[LGR4GM]

Maybe there oughta be a law. If you go to the police and say so and so raped you, you are compelled to testify. You then have no option of being bought. What's the problem? Why are you making such an allegation if not to see the rapist go to prison?

 

This law could serve to discourage those who falsely accuse with the intent of going to settlement.

 

Supporting and protecting the victim who has been compelled to testify becomes paramount.

Let's enact a law to make the number of unreported rapes go up, brilliant.

 

You are boarder line victim blame here.  "If she was raped, she would see her rapist in jail, if she won't go that far, maybe she wasn't raped."  That's a rephrase of how I read your post.  That's a very absolutist view and I disagree.

 

"Supporting and protecting the victim who has been compelled to testify becomes paramount."  Your law does the exact opposite of protecting or supporting a victim. It immediately marginalizes them and makes them scared to come forward. So let's add stress and trauma to what was already stress and trauma.

Edited September 9, 2015 by LGR4GM

[That Aud Smell]

Maybe there oughta be a law. If you go to the police and say so and so raped you, you are compelled to testify. You then have no option of being bought. What's the problem? Why are you making such an allegation if not to see the rapist go to prison?

 

This law could serve to discourage those who falsely accuse with the intent of going to settlement.

 

Supporting and protecting the victim who has been compelled to testify becomes paramount.

 

I understand why you find this scenario potentially odious, and I understand what you're trying to get after here. But that's just an untenable concept, and bad policy to boot.

 

Would there be such a law for just criminal reports of sexual assault? Yikes, if so.

[spndnchz]

Channel 4 reporting they have sat down for settlement talks but aren't close.

[Stoner]

Let's enact a law to make the number of unreported rapes go up, brilliant.

 

You are boarder line victim blame here.  "If she was raped, she would see her rapist in jail, if she won't go that far, maybe she wasn't raped."  That's a rephrase of how I read your post.  That's a very absolutist view and I disagree.

 

"Supporting and protecting the victim who has been compelled to testify becomes paramount."  Your law does the exact opposite of protecting or supporting a victim. It immediately marginalizes them and makes them scared to come forward. So let's add stress and trauma to what was already stress and trauma.

If you're not going to testify, why come forward? Anyway, I don't envision that the mere reporting of a crime would kick in the requirement to testify.

 

Another thing to think about is the wasted tax dollars and precious law enforcement resources that are put into these cases, only to have the investigators find out -- whoops -- we don't have a victim anymore.

Channel 4 reporting they have sat down for settlement talks but aren't close.

I might vomit. All I can do is make a Darcy joke. The market isn't set.

[shrader]

Let's enact a law to make the number of unreported rapes go up, brilliant.

 

You are boarder line victim blame here.  "If she was raped, she would see her rapist in jail, if she won't go that far, maybe she wasn't raped."  That's a rephrase of how I read your post.  That's a very absolutist view and I disagree.

 

"Supporting and protecting the victim who has been compelled to testify becomes paramount."  Your law does the exact opposite of protecting or supporting a victim. It immediately marginalizes them and makes them scared to come forward. So let's add stress and trauma to what was already stress and trauma.

 

You're just seeing what you want to see.  PA's ideal here is that a rapist goes to jail and can't just buy his/her way out of it.  Naive to how things really work around this country, maybe, but how that translates to blaming the victim is beyond me.

[That Aud Smell]

You're just seeing what you want to see.  PA's ideal here is that a rapist goes to jail and can't just buy his/her way out of it.  Naive to how things really work around this country, maybe, but how that translates to blaming the victim is beyond me.

 

It may not blame them for the incident in the typical sense, but, if I understand the "ideal," it would single them out for disparate treatment under the law.

[LGR4GM]

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. 

 

So why say it at all then.

If you're not going to testify, why come forward? Anyway, I don't envision that the mere reporting of a crime would kick in the requirement to testify.

 

Another thing to think about is the wasted tax dollars and precious law enforcement resources that are put into these cases, only to have the investigators find out -- whoops -- we don't have a victim anymore.

I might vomit. All I can do is make a Darcy joke. The market isn't set.

I'm out. 

I can't unpack everything wrong here and I have no desire to try.

You're just seeing what you want to see.  PA's ideal here is that a rapist goes to jail and can't just buy his/her way out of it.  Naive to how things really work around this country, maybe, but how that translates to blaming the victim is beyond me.

"If she doesn't want the rapist to go to jail, maybe she wasn't raped."  Yea no victim blaming there, my bad.  Shame on me.

[Stoner]

So why say it at all then.

I'm out. 

I can't unpack everything wrong here and I have no desire to try.

"If she doesn't want the rapist to go to jail, maybe she wasn't raped."  Yea no victim blaming there, my bad.  Shame on me.

Just make something up. You're good at that.

[LGR4GM]

Just make something up. You're good at that.

Personal attacks because I disagree with you? Charming.

[LGR4GM]

Just make something up. You're good at that.

If you don't like how I read this "If you go to the police and say so and so raped you, you are compelled to testify. You then have no option of being bought. What's the problem? Why are you making such an allegation if not to see the rapist go to prison?"

 

Why don't you defend it.  You do this all the time PA. You say something that's borderline and then you get called on it. When you get called on it, you have 1 of 2 responses. #1 you don't respond at all and you pretend you didn't read it. #2 you ignore whatever they said and go for something personal. 

 

Your post reads to me, if you don't want to see the rapist in jail why go to the police. That simplistic view, to me carries tons of implications.  If you don't like what I am implying, defend yourself, because quite honestly what you are implying I find infuriatingly moronic and naive.

[TrueBlueGED]

If you're not going to testify, why come forward? Anyway, I don't envision that the mere reporting of a crime would kick in the requirement to testify.

 

Another thing to think about is the wasted tax dollars and precious law enforcement resources that are put into these cases, only to have the investigators find out -- whoops -- we don't have a victim anymore.

I might vomit. All I can do is make a Darcy joke. The market isn't set.

 

As opposed to the wasted tax dollars chasing a conviction that may never come?

[Stoner]

As opposed to the wasted tax dollars chasing a conviction that may never come?

I wouldn't consider one dollar spent trying to convict a rapist to be wasted.

"If she doesn't want the rapist to go to jail, maybe she wasn't raped."  Yea no victim blaming there, my bad.  Shame on me.

You realize you just quoted yourself?

[bbb]

So why say it at all then.

 

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

 

[Neo]

No one needs my defense. This is a good thing, because my ability to defend is very limited. Accordingly, this post is about .... ME!

 

Regarding going to the police, alleging, and then choosing not to testify. PA asked two questions.

 

One, "why do that"? I'm interested, myself. Not enough to ask her based on my relationship with her (none; and none of my business). The question applies no blame to her. How could it? It's unanswered. The question was asked of her, assuming settlement is going on, by the police, the prosecutor, the family and will be by friends and reporters. The question will be asked by her kids 30 years from now. I'm sympathetic to dozens of her answers and would support any motivation she had. "Her call!" PA asked it here. I wondered it myself, both about this crime and crime in general. The great leap of faith I can't make is concluding PA is blaming the alleged victim for the rape when asking her why she didn't follow through with testimony.

 

Two, "do you have a duty" to testify if you allege? Again, I wondered, myself. Some knowledgeable people talked about the state enforcing that by subpoena. I learned. Still more people talked about the human side and why compelled testimony doesn't happen in rape cases. Already sympathetic to the humanity, I learned the state is, too. Again, I see no conclusion of blame.

 

I may have missed something. I have, before. I may have faulty thinking skills. However, my humanity isn't an issue, I see no blaming, and I've had some of the same curiosities. Asking someone "why" doesn't mean you challenge their answer. If she told me "why"', I might say "beautiful" and mean it.

 

If my daughter were in the same shoes, and decided not to press forward, I'd ask "why" and hug her tearfully while supporting her decision.

 

Brb, getting flack jacket!

Edited September 9, 2015 by Neo

[Hoss]

Channel 4 reporting they have sat down for settlement talks but aren't close.

Channel 2 reporting absolutely no settlement talks have taken place.

[Taro T]

Channel 4 reporting they have sat down for settlement talks but aren't close.

  

Channel 2 reporting absolutely no settlement talks have taken place.

2 men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong.

[Stoner]

Channel 2 reporting absolutely no settlement talks have taken place.