Updated Evander Kane Cleared in Sex Offense Investigation

[SDS]

I love SDS's level of interest on this point.

 

While I was busy sulking over Reuben Randall's TD that bumped me out of the running for some petty cash, I was fairly confused at what 11 could even be referring to... Scene to scene copyright sounded rather insane.

 

Anyway... Josie posted my only thought. "Nice things" and all that...

[That Aud Smell]

Sorry for your bad fantasy luck. And thanks for a gratuitous chuckle.

 

+++

 

WKBW reporter Tweets a pic of Kane's vehicle being towed.

 

https://twitter.com/HannahBuehler/status/681319203836706816?s=09

Edited December 28, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[dudacek]

What situation? We don't know anything at this point. This post is the exact reason I never posted in the Patty Kane thread, and the exact reason I will not post in this one (going forward, of course).

This, every last word.

Why doesnt someone just post the link to the last thread here and add a few posts about race and Winnipeg?

Edited December 28, 2015 by dudacek

[...]

This is so fu%king stupid...and tragic.  The DA, or someone with authority, needs to crack down on leaks like this.  There is no reason for the public to know unless he is charged.  Now someone is giving WKBW, I think it was, pictures of Kane's vehicle being towed.  Someone needs an ass-whipping and a lesson on how to keep quiet.

Edited December 28, 2015 by SiZzlEmeIsTEr

[DR HOLLIDAY]

This is so fu%king stupid...and tragic.  The DA, or someone with authority, needs to crack down on leaks like this.  There is no reason for the public to know unless he is charged.  Now someone is giving WKBW, I think it was, pictures of Kane's vehicle being towed.  Someone needs an ass-whipping and a lesson on how to keep quiet.

 

I agree with this.......It sullies everybody involved.

[Doohickie]

Well look who showed up.

 

Isn't that just Ducky?

Go eat your pancake.

 

Is it okay if I chuckled at that?

I'm sorry… What type of copyright violation are they looking for?

 

Distinguishing tattoos.

[Doohickie]

Is it OK if I chuckled at some of the comments?

 

I got a chuckle out of this exchange:

 

Upon further review, I am going to hell for reading that reddit thread.

 

 

That is all.

[...]

I agree with this.......It sullies everybody involved.

This is why I advocated P. Kane sue whomever leaked the investigation into his case - to make an example of what happens when you instigate defamation of a person.

[Eleven]

I'm sorry… What type of copyright violation are they looking for?

 

1.  Scenes showing up on compilations.

 

2.  Scenes showing up on the Internet.

[3putt]

This is why I advocated P. Kane sue whomever leaked the investigation into his case - to make an example of what happens when you instigate defamation of a person.

Reporting that someone is being investigated is not defamation if they in fact are being investigated.  PK had no cause of action.  EKane will be in the same boat.

[GoPre]

Yeah guess so, to much ###### And don't think any of us really want to go all over this again.  :sick:

 

Thing is we are not in the same situation, the P kane thing happened during the offseason, and he lost his cover with EA sports over it.   

Pretty sure if that happened mid season P kane wouldn't play either.   

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I believe P Kane would've continued to play. Why hold yourself out if you know you didn't do anything wrong? I'm not saying E Kane didn't do it. Just saying if he knows it's all bs, he should play. Would you drop out of things in your life if an accusation like this was made about you? I wouldn't. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by Thanes16

[That Aud Smell]

It won't be entirely his decision on whether he continues to play, pending the investigation.

 

Buuuuut, he's out there this morning with 15 and 63.

Edited December 28, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[...]

3putt, on 28 Dec 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

Reporting that someone is being investigated is not defamation if they in fact are being investigated.  PK had no cause of action.  EKane will be in the same boat.

 

Note that I did not say the leak itself was defamation, but rather instigated defamation.

 

I think someone creative might come up with a way to argue that information like this is privileged and the premature public disclosure of this type of information is extremely harmful. 

[bob_sauve28]

Since no one really has any idea what this is about, I'd just like to throw out a fact that may or may not be relevant. Kane had just recently done a very public act that brought a lot of attention to him with the kids thing he did. Not unthinkable at all that some gold digger watched that and said she could cash in on his fame.

[Patty16]

Note that I did not say the leak itself was defamation, but rather instigated defamation.

 

I think someone creative might come up with a way to argue that information like this is privileged and the premature public disclosure of this type of information is extremely harmful. 

 

It is virtually impossible to sue a news org for defamation.  There is really no way to institute litigation based on whats out there now, even if the allegations turn out to be false. 

 

Kane would have to show the news org knew it was false, and pub'd anyway w intent to cause harm.  Easy defense for them is that they had credible source and reasonably relied on that source. 

 

to sue a person, non-news, he needs to show quite a bit more.  defaming a public figure is a very high hurdle to clear. 

 

It's a pretty uphill battle, and one you dont' see taken very often since truth is a defense and the defendants would get to depose Kane.  Does an athlete really want to testify on what he was doing late in a hotel (assuming he was there)??? 

[nfreeman]

I don't fault TBN for publishing the fact that EK is under investigation.  It's certainly a newsworthy piece of information that many will be interested in. 

 

I do hope, though, that the P. Kane outcome acts as a brake on the rush to judgment that tends to occur in these situations (both among media members and the general public). 

 

Right now, we know exactly zero.  Let's see what facts emerge.

[...]

I'm not talking about the report of the leak, but the leak itself.  The information about the investigation should be considered privileged and that prematurely disclosing that information should be subject to prosecution.  I understand "defamation" itself is difficult to establish, but I don't believe the legal understanding of defamation covers situations like these and needs to be amended/reconsidered/redefined. 

 

It's simply ridiculous to accept the current reality of the seriousness of the charge out-weighing the nature of the evidence and/or the facts.  I thought we might have learned from Salem witch trials.

I don't fault TBN for publishing the fact that EK is under investigation.  It's certainly a newsworthy piece of information that many will be interested in. 

 

I do hope, though, that the P. Kane outcome acts as a brake on the rush to judgment that tends to occur in these situations (both among media members and the general public). 

 

Right now, we know exactly zero.  Let's see what facts emerge.

 

 

It's not news-worthy; it's sensationalism with the only real purpose being to draw readers/viewers.  What interest would you or I or anyone else have in this case had the investigation remained under wraps and went no-where like P. Kane's did?  Little, especially after the fact.

 

If all we had heard about P. Kane was that someone accused him of rape but the DA felt there wasn't a case worth pursuing, what would the public opinion of P. Kane be then?  I would think it would be FAR less vitriolic and divisive than it is now, and ultimately less interesting.  It would be a minor footnote to the P. Kane story than a major pock-mark.

[Patty16]

I'm not talking about the report of the leak, but the leak itself.  The information about the investigation should be considered privileged and that prematurely disclosing that information should be subject to prosecution.  I understand "defamation" itself is difficult to establish, but I don't believe the legal understanding of defamation covers situations like these and needs to be amended/reconsidered/redefined. 

 

It's simply ridiculous to accept the current reality of the seriousness of the charge out-weighing the nature of the evidence and/or the facts.  I thought we might have learned from Salem witch trials.

 

The leak itself could be grounds for charges, but it wouldn't be defamation, although it should be punished. On of the problems here is that it's actually true hes being investigated, so he can't recover for something that's true. 

 

I agree the definition should be altered, but without getting into 1st Amend. jurisprudence here, it's just really hard to do constitutionally.  People are by and large free to say dumb shhhhh without recourse. 

 

It speaks larger volumes to player choices, guys like crosby and stamkos, do dumb stuff but they control the situation better and usually have private security etc.  Kane and Kane were diff situations, not saying it's all their fault but it's worth noting. 

[...]

Patty16, on 28 Dec 2015 - 12:14 PM, said:

 

It speaks larger volumes to player choices, guys like crosby and stamkos, do dumb stuff but they control the situation better and usually have private security etc.  Kane and Kane were diff situations, not saying it's all their fault but it's worth noting. 

 

See!  Look, there you are.  You have no idea what the facts are, yet, somehow, E. Kane made a poor choice.  It's already started.  He may have done nothing wrong but, to you, his rep is already sullied due to this information being leaked.

[Cereal]

https://twitter.com/pham1717/status/681513132691472384

 

Kane made a short statement. Said he's done nothing wrong and is looking forward to clearing his name. Waiting now for Bylsma.

http://www.wgr550.com/Sabres-Kane-speaks-about-his-weekend-incident/22315695

Evander Kane will play tonight

[Patty16]

See!  Look, there you are.  You have no idea what the facts are, yet, somehow, E. Kane made a poor choice.  It's already started.  He may have done nothing wrong but, to you, his rep is already sullied due to this information being leaked.

 

No its not. I'm simply pointing out that he was in a riskier setting if it was at the harborcenter in a hotel room w a young girl.  It doesn't make it wrong nor do i hold him to some other standard.  

 

Other players choose differently, he doesn't.   What i said is all young guys do dumb stuff, you did, i did, players do too.  He was a less controllable setting, other players avoid those.  It's not right or wrong. 

 

I don't know the facts and neither do you, I am making reasonable inferences from what's been put out there.  I do not take those facts as gospel during an investigation.

[nfreeman]

I'm not talking about the report of the leak, but the leak itself.  The information about the investigation should be considered privileged and that prematurely disclosing that information should be subject to prosecution.  I understand "defamation" itself is difficult to establish, but I don't believe the legal understanding of defamation covers situations like these and needs to be amended/reconsidered/redefined. 

 

It's simply ridiculous to accept the current reality of the seriousness of the charge out-weighing the nature of the evidence and/or the facts.  I thought we might have learned from Salem witch trials.

 

 

It's not news-worthy; it's sensationalism with the only real purpose being to draw readers/viewers.  What interest would you or I or anyone else have in this case had the investigation remained under wraps and went no-where like P. Kane's did?  Little, especially after the fact.

 

If all we had heard about P. Kane was that someone accused him of rape but the DA felt there wasn't a case worth pursuing, what would the public opinion of P. Kane be then?  I would think it would be FAR less vitriolic and divisive than it is now, and ultimately less interesting.  It would be a minor footnote to the P. Kane story than a major pock-mark.

 

The leak itself could be grounds for charges, but it wouldn't be defamation, although it should be punished. On of the problems here is that it's actually true hes being investigated, so he can't recover for something that's true. 

 

I agree the definition should be altered, but without getting into 1st Amend. jurisprudence here, it's just really hard to do constitutionally.  People are by and large free to say dumb shhhhh without recourse. 

 

It speaks larger volumes to player choices, guys like crosby and stamkos, do dumb stuff but they control the situation better and usually have private security etc.  Kane and Kane were diff situations, not saying it's all their fault but it's worth noting. 

 

I agree that this type of leak ought to be punishable -- both as a criminal act against the leaker (presumably someone in the BPD) and as a civil matter against the BPD.  If Kane were to win, say, a $5MM judgment against the BPD as a result of this leak, police departments generally would be much more careful about their internal controls on this type of information. 

 

Having said that, from the BPD's perspective, once it received the leaked info, I think it's undeniably newsworthy.  And while there would certainly have been less of a hullaballoo if the P. Kane news had been divulged in the manner that Sizzle suggested, I think that as time passes the net effect will be pretty much the same -- i.e. in a year, people will remember that P. Kane was accused, that the charges were dropped and that the DA pretty much implied that the accuser was lying. 

[Eleven]

I agree that this type of leak ought to be punishable -- both as a criminal act against the leaker (presumably someone in the BPD) and as a civil matter against the BPD.  If Kane were to win, say, a $5MM judgment against the BPD as a result of this leak, police departments generally would be much more careful about their internal controls on this type of information. 

 

Having said that, from the BPD's perspective, once it received the leaked info, I think it's undeniably newsworthy.  And while there would certainly have been less of a hullaballoo if the P. Kane news had been divulged in the manner that Sizzle suggested, I think that as time passes the net effect will be pretty much the same -- i.e. in a year, people will remember that P. Kane was accused, that the charges were dropped and that the DA pretty much implied that the accuser was lying. 

 

But the BPD has no obligation  to keep the information confidential to begin with.  It could have held a press conference and announced it, if it wanted to.

[That Aud Smell]

But the BPD has no obligation to keep the information confidential to begin with. It could have held a press conference and announced it, if it wanted to.

Good point.

[Patty16]

But the BPD has no obligation  to keep the information confidential to begin with.  It could have held a press conference and announced it, if it wanted to.

 

 

Exactly, and i'm not sure how to craft a rule prohibiting such things, since the exceptions would almost certainly swallow any new rule.