JJFIVEOH Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 1) Quality of representation is a pretty huge advantage. Also, money allows for the defendant to fully exhaust appeals if convicted. 2) I don't see any reason why there would be permanent damage. Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger, Floyd Mayweather...just a few examples of stars who have faced accusations without any meaningful repercussions. Mayweather was convicted of crimes, you can't compare him. Kobe lost eight figures worth of endorements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) I have read and heard some things that suggest to me that it may not have happened. (I will not post this information or send it in a PM to anyone.) I have to conclude that if -- IF -- Sedita decides not even to proceed to a grand jury, that there's a real reason not to do so. I have no inside information, but on face I think that's the most reasonable conclusion. Mayweather was convicted of crimes, you can't compare him. Kobe lost eight figures worth of endorements. The fact that Mayweather was convicted and suffered no real financial penalties over the long haul only reinforces how unlikely it is Kane will suffer a worse fate. I don't think Bryant lost that much. There's this: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-03-02-bryant-settles_x.htm Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Nutella dropped him after the sexual assault charge was filed. Bryant's five-year, $45 million deal with Nike continues. "Kobe Bryant is currently persona non grata to the endorsement party," Roy Clark of the Dallas-based endorsement firm The Marketing Arm said last fall. Sports marketers have estimated Bryant lost $4 million to $6 million in endorsement contracts after his arrest. It's not nothing, but I haven't found anything suggesting long-term financial harm coming from it. Back to Kane, has he even lost a single endorsement yet? I know EA too him off the cover of NHL this season, but I haven't read anything saying he has lost endorsement contracts. And if the case isn't even brought to a grand jury, I can't fathom him losing contracts now. Edited November 1, 2015 by TrueBlueGED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) I have no inside information, but on face I think that's the most reasonable conclusion. The fact that Mayweather was convicted and suffered no real financial penalties over the long haul only reinforces how unlikely it is Kane will suffer a worse fate. I don't think Bryant lost that much. There's this: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-03-02-bryant-settles_x.htm It's not nothing, but I haven't found anything suggesting long-term financial harm coming from it. Back to Kane, has he even lost a single endorsement yet? I know EA too him off the cover of NHL this season, but I haven't read anything saying he has lost endorsement contracts. And if the case isn't even brought to a grand jury, I can't fathom him losing contracts now. My point is, Mayweather got convicted.... He DID something wrong. Whatever happens to him is his own fault. My earlier post (#2499) was a conditional statement. IF Kane did nothing wrong THEN he shouldn't have had to go through ANY of it. If the woman's claims are false she needs to be held accountable. You can't say the club, the player and the sponsors didn't get off too bad so it's OK. They should't have had to be put in that situation PERIOD. She made claims and his life will never be the same. Case in point, even though it's coming out that the woman's allegations make any claims highly unlikely, Deluca is still siding with her hoping that her life isn't forever changed. In his mind Kane is guilty. Let me repeat, my statement is conditional on Kane having done nothing wrong. He'll forever be labeled a rapist regardless of whether or not he lost endorsements. Blue, if somebody does something wrong that has negative implications, do you think they should be held accountable? Edited November 1, 2015 by JJFIVEOH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) We will never know if her claims are false. We will never know if Kane was unjustly accused, it sucks. If Sedita doesn't think there's enough evidence to prosecute than that's fine. Time to let this be done. My point is, Mayweather got convicted.... He DID something wrong. Whatever happens to him is his own fault. My earlier post (#2499) was a conditional statement. IF Kane did nothing wrong THEN he shouldn't have had to go through ANY of it. If the woman's claims are false she needs to be held accountable. You can't say the club, the player and the sponsors didn't get off too bad so it's OK. They should't have had to be put in that situation PERIOD. She made claims and his life will never be the same. Case in point, even though it's coming out that the woman's allegations make any claims highly unlikely, Deluca is still siding with her hoping that her life isn't forever changed. In his mind Kane is guilty. Let me repeat, my statement is conditional on Kane having done nothing wrong. He'll forever be labeled a rapist regardless of whether or not he lost endorsements. Blue, if somebody does something wrong that has negative implications, do you think they should be held accountable? Do we know her claims were false? Edited November 1, 2015 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 The last time we (collectively) had this discussion it didn't go very well. I saw a new update so I figured I would share it. I'll leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 My point is, Mayweather got convicted.... He DID something wrong. Whatever happens to him is his own fault. My earlier post (#2499) was a conditional statement. IF Kane did nothing wrong THEN he shouldn't have had to go through ANY of it. If the woman's claims are false she needs to be held accountable. You can't say the club, the player and the sponsors didn't get off too bad so it's OK. They should't have had to be put in that situation PERIOD. She made claims and his life will never be the same. Case in point, even though it's coming out that the woman's allegations make any claims highly unlikely, Deluca is still siding with her hoping that her life isn't forever changed. In his mind Kane is guilty. Let me repeat, my statement is conditional on Kane having done nothing wrong. He'll forever be labeled a rapist regardless of whether or not he lost endorsements. Blue, if somebody does something wrong that has negative implications, do you think they should be held accountable? I'm not making any normative judgment about Mayweather or anyone else. My entire point is that if a convict didn't suffer any meaningful financial penalty, I highly doubt Kane will with the case not even going to a grand jury (if that is in fact how it plays out). If he did nothing wrong, of course it's not okay that he went through anything...but two related points come to mind. How do we ever truly know somebody did nothing wrong? This applies to both sides whenever an accusation is made. Lack of prosecution means the evidence in the case was judged, for whatever reason(s), to be insufficient to proceed to trial. It does not mean the accused did nothing wrong. As a result, lack of prosecution does not imply that the accusations levied were false, it just means the prosecutor doesn't believe the evidence is likely to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt in court. The same as that a conviction, in the grand scheme of things, simply means the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crimes, not that he/she did commit the crimes. Now taking this and flipping it around, is it fair to assume that insufficient evidence for trial implies false accusations to the extent that the accuser should be punished legally? Wouldn't that just be stripping the accuser of due process? Doing so would be convicting the accuser without proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Morally I don't think that's any better (in fact, I think it's far worse) than the accuser getting away with false accusations. Furthermore, if lack of conviction=innocence=false accusations, then shouldn't prosecutors go to prison every single time they lose a case? I think this would be a dangerous approach to legal justice. If Kane is truly concerned about his long-term reputation, he is free to file a defamation suit and try to prove her guilt (although that'd be a lower legal standard to do, the point remains)...I just have a real problem with it being automatic. To be sure, not even presenting to a grand jury is a signal to seriously question the accusations against Kane, but we'll never truly know. I don't think it would be fair to loudly proclaim him a rapist, but then again it wasn't fair for people to just assume right off the bat the accuser was lying. People aren't fair when making judgments, just the way it is. Innocent people get convicted, guilty people walk free...it's just how the legal system works. It sucks when it doesn't work, but I think we have to be extremely careful about conflating moral justice with legal justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I'm not making any normative judgment about Mayweather or anyone else. My entire point is that if a convict didn't suffer any meaningful financial penalty, I highly doubt Kane will with the case not even going to a grand jury (if that is in fact how it plays out). If he did nothing wrong, of course it's not okay that he went through anything...but two related points come to mind. How do we ever truly know somebody did nothing wrong? This applies to both sides whenever an accusation is made. Lack of prosecution means the evidence in the case was judged, for whatever reason(s), to be insufficient to proceed to trial. It does not mean the accused did nothing wrong. As a result, lack of prosecution does not imply that the accusations levied were false, it just means the prosecutor doesn't believe the evidence is likely to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt in court. The same as that a conviction, in the grand scheme of things, simply means the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crimes, not that he/she did commit the crimes. Now taking this and flipping it around, is it fair to assume that insufficient evidence for trial implies false accusations to the extent that the accuser should be punished legally? Wouldn't that just be stripping the accuser of due process? Doing so would be convicting the accuser without proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Morally I don't think that's any better (in fact, I think it's far worse) than the accuser getting away with false accusations. Furthermore, if lack of conviction=innocence=false accusations, then shouldn't prosecutors go to prison every single time they lose a case? I think this would be a dangerous approach to legal justice. If Kane is truly concerned about his long-term reputation, he is free to file a defamation suit and try to prove her guilt (although that'd be a lower legal standard to do, the point remains)...I just have a real problem with it being automatic. To be sure, not even presenting to a grand jury is a signal to seriously question the accusations against Kane, but we'll never truly know. I don't think it would be fair to loudly proclaim him a rapist, but then again it wasn't fair for people to just assume right off the bat the accuser was lying. People aren't fair when making judgments, just the way it is. Innocent people get convicted, guilty people walk free...it's just how the legal system works. It sucks when it doesn't work, but I think we have to be extremely careful about conflating moral justice with legal justice. Well stated. And I'll add, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an accuser every time. Let the system decide whether the case has merit. It may very well be that the system worked here. But if we throw doubt upon the accuser as our default condition, due process never has a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I'm not making any normative judgment about Mayweather or anyone else. My entire point is that if a convict didn't suffer any meaningful financial penalty, I highly doubt Kane will with the case not even going to a grand jury (if that is in fact how it plays out). If he did nothing wrong, of course it's not okay that he went through anything...but two related points come to mind. How do we ever truly know somebody did nothing wrong? This applies to both sides whenever an accusation is made. Lack of prosecution means the evidence in the case was judged, for whatever reason(s), to be insufficient to proceed to trial. It does not mean the accused did nothing wrong. As a result, lack of prosecution does not imply that the accusations levied were false, it just means the prosecutor doesn't believe the evidence is likely to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt in court. The same as that a conviction, in the grand scheme of things, simply means the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crimes, not that he/she did commit the crimes. Now taking this and flipping it around, is it fair to assume that insufficient evidence for trial implies false accusations to the extent that the accuser should be punished legally? Wouldn't that just be stripping the accuser of due process? Doing so would be convicting the accuser without proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Morally I don't think that's any better (in fact, I think it's far worse) than the accuser getting away with false accusations. Furthermore, if lack of conviction=innocence=false accusations, then shouldn't prosecutors go to prison every single time they lose a case? I think this would be a dangerous approach to legal justice. If Kane is truly concerned about his long-term reputation, he is free to file a defamation suit and try to prove her guilt (although that'd be a lower legal standard to do, the point remains)...I just have a real problem with it being automatic. To be sure, not even presenting to a grand jury is a signal to seriously question the accusations against Kane, but we'll never truly know. I don't think it would be fair to loudly proclaim him a rapist, but then again it wasn't fair for people to just assume right off the bat the accuser was lying. People aren't fair when making judgments, just the way it is. Innocent people get convicted, guilty people walk free...it's just how the legal system works. It sucks when it doesn't work, but I think we have to be extremely careful about conflating moral justice with legal justice. It's not even insufficient evidence to proceed to trial; what the News is implying is that there's insufficient evidence to proceed to a grand jury. Big difference in the quantum of proof necessary. Prosecuting the accuser would result in a chilling effect that I don't want to see. Ever. Unless there's Duke lacrosse levels of misconduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 It's not even insufficient evidence to proceed to trial; what the News is implying is that there's insufficient evidence to proceed to a grand jury. Big difference in the quantum of proof necessary. Prosecuting the accuser would result in a chilling effect that I don't want to see. Ever. Unless there's Duke lacrosse levels of misconduct. I am reading this differently, I think. It seems like the article's focus is on the fact that charges are unlikely THEN it goes on to say the three sources believe it's unlikely to go to a grand jury. So it seems like they're saying it's doubtful Sedita will levy charges himself and, as a secondary matter, it's also unlikely he sends it to a grand jury. So it seems like they're saying both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Wait. So let me get you all straight: if this doesn't go to a grand jury and the case is dropped, some of you still want to believe Kane is guilty of something and the accuser's claim still has merit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Wait. So let me get you all straight: if this doesn't go to a grand jury and the case is dropped, some of you still want to believe Kane is guilty of something and the accuser's claim still has merit? You read funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Wait. So let me get you all straight: if this doesn't go to a grand jury and the case is dropped, some of you still want to believe Kane is guilty of something and the accuser's claim still has merit? Well it's not unheard of for the justice system to fail; on either innocence or guilt. From what I've heard, I believe he's innocet, fwiw (very little I'd imagine) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Wait. So let me get you all straight: if this doesn't go to a grand jury and the case is dropped, some of you still want to believe Kane is guilty of something and the accuser's claim still has merit?Idk about others but I'm saying we don't know the accusers claim is false. If it didn't go I assume Kane is innocent, because there is no proof otherwise. Not sure that makes sense to others but that's where I'm at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 If no charges are filed and it either never goes to a grand jury or does but finds no substantial evidence then Kane is assumed innocent, just like he always has been. But there's still doubt. And Kane's past issues have certainly lost some benefit of the doubt for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I want to hear the explanations that are made. There will be the DA on not prosecuting. There will be Kane who will make a statement and who knows if the accuser will make one. All in all, from what we know, I will stand by the knowledge that Kane made some really bad choices given what his relationship status was at the time. He's certainly not someone I would trust as a person. The rest of it is everyone's own personal opinion. My hope is that he learns to settle his life down and be a little bit less of a partier and far more responsible in his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I wanna toss this grenade, would this conversation be different if Kane's first name was Evander? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I am totally fine with prosecuting an accuser where there is credible evidence that it was a shakedown or payback for being scorned. A knowingly false rape accusation is a criminal act that deserves punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I am totally fine with prosecuting an accuser where there is credible evidence that it was a shakedown or payback for being scorned. A knowingly false rape accusation is a criminal act that deserves punishment. Yea, let's make even it less likely for rape victims to come forward. :thumbsup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Wait. So let me get you all straight: if this doesn't go to a grand jury and the case is dropped, some of you still want to believe Kane is guilty of something and the accuser's claim still has merit? If you're referring to me, that's not even in the same universe as what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I am totally fine with prosecuting an accuser where there is credible evidence that it was a shakedown or payback for being scorned. A knowingly false rape accusation is a criminal act that deserves punishment. I'm torn. Obviously we'd all want justice served. But I'm not comfortable with the possibility of this sort of prosecution scaring off women with legit claims of sexual assault. I guess it would have to be slam dunk for me to be comfortable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Yea, let's make even it less likely for rape victims to come forward. :thumbsup: Sure, just skip the part where it says "knowingly false rape accusation" Why should she not be prosecuted if she knowingly falsely accused him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 If you're referring to me, that's not even in the same universe as what I said. Noome even hinted at it so it could've been directed at anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) Yea, let's make even it less likely for rape victims to come forward. :thumbsup: I can't find a single word in nfreeman's two sentences I disagree with. My only question is to whether it is, in fact, a crime under statues on the books today. I'd guess it is. Edited November 1, 2015 by N'eo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 It's not even insufficient evidence to proceed to trial; what the News is implying is that there's insufficient evidence to proceed to a grand jury. Big difference in the quantum of proof necessary. Prosecuting the accuser would result in a chilling effect that I don't want to see. Ever. Unless there's Duke lacrosse levels of misconduct. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard at a grand jury is basically just probable cause, right? So yea, to not even bring it there is a pretty strong signal about how weak the case is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Sure, just skip the part where it says "knowingly false rape accusation" Why should she not be prosecuted if she knowingly falsely accused him? Do we know she knowingly accused him falsely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.