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

[musichunch]

Because she's at a bar hitting on a 26 year old.

 

I caught myself typing that and thinking holy crap I'm not that old. :lol:

 

Could be the parents. Could be her temperament. Nature/Nurture argument in my opinion. I've seen plenty of families where one sister is always monogamous and the other sleeps around. Again, teenagers do what they want.

[darksabre]

Nobody's making a joke out of this. Please make a list of what we're allowed to discuss and what we're not. His opinion is plausible no matter how much you don't want to believe it.

 

Don't be obtuse. I'm not telling you what you can talk about. 

 

But recognize that when a hypothetical situation that dismisses the seriousness of rape allegations is presented in greater detail than admission of disgust with the alleged rape, that the person making that statement has decided where they desire to apply the most weight. In wookies case, his weight is behind crafting plausible ways to dismiss rape allegations. And that, plain and simple, is f*cked up. 

Because she's at a bar hitting on a 26 year old.

 

I caught myself typing that and thinking holy crap I'm not that old. :lol:

 

Look at you, crafting more things into a dismissive narrative. 

[musichunch]

Hey I live in a place where I occasionally get hit on by girls under 21 at bars.  I use my adult brain, instead of my penis, and don't take them home or buy them drinks or give them my number.  17yr old girls are clumsy compared to a full grown woman when it comes to how they talk to guys, how they drink, and how they act. 

 

Again, it's hard to judge because celebrity/athlete hook-ups have different dynamics. Kane could be drunk and is so used to hooking up with randoms that he barely pays any attention to her. He might not have talked to her at the bar at all and she's invited back by his entourage. Again celebrity encounters have weird dynamics. Plus I'm sure he's used to regular girls of all ages acting clumsy around him due to this status. 

 

I can play devil's advocate all day until more information comes out. 

[LGR4GM]

Again, it's hard to judge because celebrity/athlete hook-ups have different dynamics. Kane could be drunk and is so used to hooking up with randoms that he barely pays any attention to her. He might not have talked to her at the bar at all and she's invited back by his entourage. Again celebrity encounters have weird dynamics. Plus I'm sure he's used to regular girls of all ages acting clumsy around him due to this status. 

 

I can play devil's advocate all day until more information comes out. 

You are correct that all that could be the case and we don't know enough details.  That being said, as the adult you are responsible for your actions, the 17yr old kid is not.

[Taro T]

You err on the side of caution. 

 

Look, I know some 16/17 year olds can look 18-19-20, but using even a slightly critical eye you can absolutely tell when a girl is young, even if you can't peg the exact age. Probably sooner, but once you start hitting those mid-20s and have a job and real responsibility, it's time to start avoiding those girls. This is especially true if you're in a committed relationship and have a heck of a lot to lose. Adults have a responsibility to think with the right head, and if they choose to think with the other one...well, then that's on them.

Not always. Seem to recall a rather famous (infamous? ) model/actress that fooled a major magazine publisher as to her true age and then had several inappropriate acting roles again convincing those hiring her that she was as old as she appeared to be. In that particular case, pretty sure she turned out to be about 3 years younger than she claimed and at least that many younger than she appeared.

 

Agree w/ you on your 1st sentence. Had Patrick done that, no need for this thread and, more importantly, 2 people's lives aren't getting turned upside down.

[thewookie1]

Don't be obtuse. I'm not telling you what you can talk about. 

 

But recognize that when a hypothetical situation that dismisses the seriousness of rape allegations is presented in greater detail than admission of disgust with the alleged rape, that the person making that statement has decided where they desire to apply the most weight. In wookies case, his weight is behind crafting plausible ways to dismiss rape allegations. And that, plain and simple, is f*cked up. 

 

So because I don't want to crucify him out of the gate makes me f*cked up? I'm not making light of rape, it's a horrid act and should be more damning then it is presently, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to blindly trust the girl because she calls rape. Also I love to create "plausible" scenarios for many things, this isn't anything new for me. Some are more plausible than others however.

Edited August 6, 2015 by thewookie1

[WildCard]

You are correct that all that could be the case and we don't know enough details.  That being said, as the adult you are responsible for your actions, the 17yr old kid is not.

I know this will get flack, but...I know plenty of adults who are less smart/mature than the average 17 year old kid

[MattPie]

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)

 

Correct. I don't think anyone here debating forcible rape, just that statutory and grey area *may* exist. But d4rk's point is right and WOPR's advice stands: the only way to win is to not play.

 

You err on the side of caution. 

 

Look, I know some 16/17 year olds can look 18-19-20, but using even a slightly critical eye you can absolutely tell when a girl is young, even if you can't peg the exact age. Probably sooner, but once you start hitting those mid-20s and have a job and real responsibility, it's time to start avoiding those girls. This is especially true if you're in a committed relationship and have a heck of a lot to lose. Adults have a responsibility to think with the right head, and if they choose to think with the other one...well, then that's on them.

 

It's probably worth noting committed relationship and non-exclusive aren't mutually exclusive. I've known a few real-life people that have been in them.

[Taro T]

You are correct that all that could be the case and we don't know enough details.  That being said, as the adult you are responsible for your actions, the 17yr old kid is not.

In NY, when it comes to matters between 2 consenting individuals, a 17 yo IS expected to be responsible for his/her actions.

[LGR4GM]

I know this will get flack, but...I know plenty of adults who are less smart/mature than the average 17 year old kid

It is still on Patrick Kane as the adult.

In NY, when it comes to matters between 2 consenting individuals, a 17 yo IS expected to be responsible for his/her actions.

Oh, then why are we even having this conversation?  I thought 17 was statutory in NY. 

 

Again, we really are lacking a ton of details.

[TrueBlueGED]

Not always. Seem to recall a rather famous (infamous? ) model/actress that fooled a major magazine publisher as to her true age and then had several inappropriate acting roles again convincing those hiring her that she was as old as she appeared to be. In that particular case, pretty sure she turned out to be about 3 years younger than she claimed and at least that many younger than she appeared.

 

Agree w/ you on your 1st sentence. Had Patrick done that, no need for this thread and, more importantly, 2 people's lives aren't getting turned upside down.

As the great philosopher Chris Rock once said, "If she looks 18, and says she's 15, she's 12."

[darksabre]

So because I don't want to crucify him out of the gate makes me f*cked up? I'm not making light of rape, it's a horrid act and should be more damning then it is presently, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to blindly trust the girl because she calls rape. Also I love to create "plausible" scenarios for many things, this isn't anything new for me. Some are more plausible than others however.

 

I don't want you to crucify him. 

 

Guess what, it's your DUTY to trust in the allegation until such a time as it is proven to hold no water. Until that time comes you, as a man, are obligated to act in a manner that becomes you. And that means you don't get to craft whatever plausible stories you want about the situation. If you do not understand this, then I cannot help you. 

[Taro T]

It is still on Patrick Kane as the adult.

Oh, then why are we even having this conversation?  I thought 17 was statutory in NY. 

 

Again, we really are lacking a ton of details.

In NY, for someone in Kane's situation, statutory rape is someone 21 or over having relations w/ someone UNDER 17. IF he is being accused of statutory rape, the girl in question was under 17.

[WildCard]

I don't want you to crucify him. 

 

Guess what, it's your DUTY to trust in the allegation until such a time as it is proven to hold no water. Until that time comes you, as a man, are obligated to act in a manner that becomes you. And that means you don't get to craft whatever plausible stories you want about the situation. If you do not understand this, then I cannot help you. 

Wait, what? 

 

As for the other bold: thewookie1 is clearly not a man, but a Wookie, and so his only duty is to that of his home planet, Kashyyyk

[TrueBlueGED]

Again, it's hard to judge because celebrity/athlete hook-ups have different dynamics. Kane could be drunk and is so used to hooking up with randoms that he barely pays any attention to her. He might not have talked to her at the bar at all and she's invited back by his entourage. Again celebrity encounters have weird dynamics. Plus I'm sure he's used to regular girls of all ages acting clumsy around him due to this status.

 

I can play devil's advocate all day until more information comes out.

All of that could be true, but he's really just tempting fate at that point. Throwing caution to the wind out of habit on a regular basis is likely to eventually have consequences.

[woods-racer]

In NY, when it comes to matters between 2 consenting individuals, a 17 yo IS expected to be responsible for his/her actions.

 

 

It is still on Patrick Kane as the adult.

 

Oh, then why are we even having this conversation?  I thought 17 was statutory in NY. 

 

Again, we really are lacking a ton of details.

I think 17 is old enough to figure it out on their own. Less than 17 is not. Statutory rape is for less than 17. If she/he is 16 years old or younger it is statutory rape as long as there was consent.

 

That's what I'm getting...

[LGR4GM]

In NY, for someone in Kane's situation, statutory rape is someone 21 or over having relations w/ someone UNDER 17. IF he is being accused of statutory rape, the girl in question was under 17.

If you (not you Taro but a random you) can't tell the difference between 16yr old and a 21yr old, then you are freaking dumbass. 

 

Thanks for the info. 

[TrueBlueGED]

It's probably worth noting committed relationship and non-exclusive aren't mutually exclusive. I've known a few real-life people that have been in them.

This is true. I just think the safe assumption is this isn't the case most of the time.

[That Aud Smell]

I think 17 is old enough to figure it out on their own. Less than 17 is not. Statutory rape is for less than 17. If she/he is 16 years old or younger it is statutory rape as long as there was consent.

 

That's what I'm getting...

 

Not a hard and fast rule, the age of 17. There is a continuum under NY law to account for, say, a 20 year old having sex with a 16 year-old. (I think those ages make sense under the penal code.) 

[TrueBlueGED]

Not a hard and fast rule, the age of 17. There is a continuum under NY law to account for, say, a 20 year old having sex with a 16 year-old. (I think those ages make sense under the penal code.)

I'm way out of my depth here, but aren't there some other circumstantial exceptions such that 17 does not mean in the clear? For instance, if there's coercion of some sort (something that falls short of forcible rape, obviously) or it can be determined the girl was not of sound mind, that statutory can still be on the table.

[woods-racer]

If you (not you Taro but a random you) can't tell the difference between 16yr old and a 21yr old, then you are freaking dumbass. 

 

Thanks for the info.

When you're 26, yes.

 

But when your much older it is very difficult to tell a 16-21 girl apart. You just know they are very young.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Woods-Racer

[That Aud Smell]

I'm way out of my depth here, but aren't there some other circumstantial exceptions such that 17 does not mean in the clear? For instance, if there's coercion of some sort (something that falls short of forcible rape, obviously) or it can be determined the girl was not of sound mind, that statutory can still be on the table.

 

I thought maybe that was the case as well. Something along the lines of "date-rape-drug statutes." But if such a law does exist in NYS, it's outside of the purely "statutory" provision concerning age.

[woods-racer]

I thought maybe that was the case as well. Something along the lines of "date-rape-drug statutes." But if such a law does exist in NYS, it's outside of the purely "statutory" provision concerning age.

I was only talking statutory.

 

Every thing else is an additional rape charge.

[LGR4GM]

How about we don't treat girls/women like things we can conquer and then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[That Aud Smell]

How about we don't treat girls/women like things we can conquer and then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

To whom are you preaching, son?