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

[JJFIVEOH]

 

 

Well if hoss knows more, he shouldn't be obligated to tell us because this is a delicate matter. 

 

Right, I don't think anybody should be obligated to tell us anything. Just saying he's prematurely judged before. In Kromer's case he jumped on Kromer when the story initially sounded like he beat up some 12 year olds in broad daylight, then the real story came out that it was 17 year old trying to steal his belongings and then got physical with him. It was so minor the state/city didn't even press charges.

 

I don't like judging aybody until the verdict comes out. More often than not leagues will make a stupid decision and take action before the verdict comes out.

[nfreeman]

I was with you until this. How would you, or anyone else, have any idea how frequent this is? I'll agree that it happens, but quite often? Surely you're not assuming that every accusation which fails to lead to criminal conviction is trumped up BS, are you?

 

Well, I didn't claim to know the frequency, and certainly I don't think an accusation that doesn't result in a conviction is necessarily BS.  But there has been an increasing amount of scrutiny of rape claims in the wake of the recent UVA and Columbia cases (admittedly more general -- i.e. not focusing on athletes -- but I think the gist is still applicable) -- and the results are pretty compelling.  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.

[calti]

It was so fabricated that the prosecutor did time.

Yep that prosecutor was certifiable.And scary. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, I didn't claim to know the frequency , and certainly I don't think an accusation that doesn't result in a conviction is necessarily BS. But there has been an increasing amount of scrutiny of rape claims in the wake of the recent UVA and Columbia cases (admittedly more general -- i.e. not focusing on athletes -- but I think the gist is still applicable) -- and the results are pretty compelling. 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.

With respect, you literally said "quite often." As to your examples, I think there's some pretty evident recency bias with how you're viewing these things.

[calti]

Question for the atty's// well informed. What is the new York state law for statutory rape? Is it a 17 yr old girl or under with any man over 18?

I think in California its some strange combination of ages. Like a 16 yr old male with a 14 yr old female is not rape.Or something along those lines.

 

And if its by the numbers statutory rape and the girl had a fake ID...does that come into play? Does a suspect have to check ID and then verify through some govt site?

[3putt]

Question for the atty's// well informed. What is the new York state law for statutory rape? Is it a 17 yr old girl or under with any man over 18?

I think in California its some strange combination of ages. Like a 16 yr old male with a 14 yr old female is not rape.Or something along those lines.

 

And if its by the numbers statutory rape and the girl had a fake ID...does that come into play? Does a suspect have to check ID and then verify through some govt site?

S 130.25 Rape in the third degree.

A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:

1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is

incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than

seventeen years old;

2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual

intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or

3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without

such person`s consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some

factor other than incapacity to consent.

Rape in the third degree is a class E felony.

[Doohickie]

I'd rather have a guy who bumps a Tim Horton's when he's had a bit too much to drink.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, we *do* have one of those...

[deluca67]

We're discussing rape!  :wallbash:

 

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

[z-man]

Well this sucks.

[Doohickie]

If I ever get a hold of a story, I am going to create the handle "not shrader".  No one will suspect a thing.

 

If *I* ever get a hold of a story, I plan on using "not shrader" as well.  Just sayin'.

That your default setting is to presume someone is guilty

 

The law requires innocent until proven guilty.  The court of public opinion does not.

[Wilbur]

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

[shrader]

If *I* ever get a hold of a story, I plan on using "not shrader" as well.  Just sayin'.

 

You can go with "not shrader 2".  It can be a little play on words that brings on some fun debate.  Should the name have a "2" or a "too"?

[WildCard]

When someone implies that have additional information, that their mind has changed over time against the accused and makes a reference to removing home surveillance cameras... Well, you don't have to be Bob Ross to paint that picture.

The painting lacks happy little clouds.

It could certainly use some 

[MattPie]

S 130.25 Rape in the third degree.

A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:

1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is

incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than

seventeen years old;

2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual

intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or

3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without

such person`s consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some

factor other than incapacity to consent.

Rape in the third degree is a class E felony.

 

Interesting. I wonder if someone had a fake for 21 and showed it to "prove" they're 21, the other party could press charges for fraud.

[wjag]

Depending how this plays out, a guilty plea/plea bargain might land oneself on the registry too...

 

I genuinely hope this is not true..

Edited August 6, 2015 by wjag

[Doohickie]

You can go with "not shrader 2".  It can be a little play on words that brings on some fun debate.  Should the name have a "2" or a "too"?

 

Nah.  If you snag it first I'll use "not not shrader"

[Hoss]

Right, I don't think anybody should be obligated to tell us anything. Just saying he's prematurely judged before. In Kromer's case he jumped on Kromer when the story initially sounded like he beat up some 12 year olds in broad daylight, then the real story came out that it was 17 year old trying to steal his belongings and then got physical with him. It was so minor the state/city didn't even press charges.

 

I don't like judging aybody until the verdict comes out. More often than not leagues will make a stupid decision and take action before the verdict comes out.

This is so far off base you're swimming in the Black Sea. There was never an insinuate of 12 year olds. It was teenagers. When I hear of teenagers out late at night I think 16/17/18. And charges WERE filed. They were dropped in a settlement. Take the blinders off.

[WildCard]

I think there's some leeway there, too. If she was in a bar with a fake ID there's at least grounds that he didn't know she was under-age. I think; I'm no lawyer.

Rape is rape there is no leeway for me

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

[shrader]

Nah.  If you snag it first I'll use "not not shrader"

 

I can't wait until nobody creates the name somebody so he can leak out a story.

[WildCard]

Nah.  If you snag it first I'll use "not not shrader"

Pretty sure that just makes you Shrader  ;)

I can't wait until nobody creates the name somebody so he can leak out a story.

Well played

Depending how this plays out, a guilty plea/plea bargain might land oneself on the registry too...

 

I genuinely hope this is not true..

Same here. Kane is my favorite player in the league, and maybe all of sports. If this is true I couldn't be a fan of him anymore, just wouldn't feel right rooting for him on the ice knowing what he's done off of it

[JJFIVEOH]

This is so far off base you're swimming in the Black Sea. There was never an insinuate of 12 year olds. It was teenagers. When I hear of teenagers out late at night I think 16/17/18. And charges WERE filed. They were dropped in a settlement. Take the blinders off.

 

I never said that you made the insinuation that they were young kids. The media did that. You however jumped the gun and said he didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. There were no charges, the parents dropped them. If there was anything criminally significant the city/county would have charged him themselves. A settlement isn't an admission of guilt. A settlement is a sign that the accused isn't going to risk his career by going through the process. In most cases if the accusers go for a settlement they have an ulterior motive.

 

The fact that you did assume they were older teenagers and still assumed guilt makes it even worse. I don't hold it against you, young people are naturally naive.

[LTS]

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.

Edited August 6, 2015 by LTS

[Johnny DangerFace]

I don't hold it against you, young people are naturally naive.

Ugh ok JJ. Nice passive aggressive insult coming from perhaps our most naive poster :)

[Huckleberry]

Pretty sure that just makes you Shrader  ;)

Well played

Same here. Kane is my favorite player in the league, and maybe all of sports. If this is true I couldn't be a fan of him anymore, just wouldn't feel right rooting for him on the ice knowing what he's done off of it

 

If this is true he won't have a career anymore.

[Hoss]

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.