Evander Kane arrested on misdemeanor charge for June nightclub incident

[darksabre]

Did these posts really change anyone's opinion on Kane?

Yes. To me they're a smoking gun. Up until now we've only had some anecdotal evidence that Kane has a propensity towards violence against women. We now have him publicly identifying with the "plight" of a well known offender.

 

It's hard to ignore. Sometimes it's the smallest things that matter the most.

[Hank]

Fwiw, I thought the post he liked was specifically regarding the way the police set up a barricade and live streamed it being wrong. Again, fwiw, I agree.

[Hoss]

Yes. To me they're a smoking gun. Up until now we've only had some anecdotal evidence that Kane has a propensity towards violence against women. We now have him publicly identifying with the "plight" of a well known offender.

 

It's hard to ignore. Sometimes it's the smallest things that matter the most.

This is where I'm at. I wanted to believe but simply can no longer waste time. Ironically I took photos of my Evander Kane jersey yesterday so I could post it on eBay. I can't get rid of it soon enough.

[Thorner]

Yes. To me they're a smoking gun. Up until now we've only had some anecdotal evidence that Kane has a propensity towards violence against women. We now have him publicly identifying with the "plight" of a well known offender.

It's hard to ignore. Sometimes it's the smallest things that matter the most.

This is what I disagree with. I don't necessarily equate liking 3 Instagram posts, the click of a button, with "publicly identifying with the plight" of Chris Brown and necessarily supporting his actions.

[SwampD]

Who is Chris Brown?

[qwksndmonster]

This is what I disagree with. I don't necessarily equate liking 3 Instagram posts, the click of a button, with "publicly identifying with the plight" of Chris Brown and necessarily supporting his actions.

It looks and sounds like a duck, though. It's not a good look in any case. Edited September 1, 2016 by qwksndmonster

[darksabre]

This is what I disagree with. I don't necessarily equate liking 3 Instagram posts, the click of a button, with "publicly identifying with the plight" of Chris Brown and necessarily supporting his actions.

Would you do the same? Or would you consider the implication first?

[Thorner]

If someone likes a post about how good of a guy Ryan O'Reilly is, despite his alleged incident, does that person condone drunk driving?

[Stoner]

Thorny. Bringing it.

[Thorner]

Would you do the same? Or would you consider the implication first?

I would think probably not.

 

But I also can't pretend to assume I know how I might respond if, in my mind, I had been accused of something I absolutely did not do.

[qwksndmonster]

If someone likes a post about how good of a guy Ryan O'Reilly is, despite his alleged incident, does that person condone drunk driving?

That's a false equivalency. If somebody who is known as a heavy drinker likes a post about how it doesn't matter that O'Reilly got in trouble for DWI, that's closer to what Kane did.

[darksabre]

If someone likes a post about how good of a guy Ryan O'Reilly is, despite his alleged incident, does that person condone drunk driving?

That's moving the yard sticks a bit by trying to compare two very different people and two very different situations.

 

I think many were willing to overlook the O'Reilly incident because it luckily did not result in any major harm.

 

Do you think people would be happy to support O'Reilly if he'd struck and injured someone while drunk driving?

 

Personally, I wouldn't recommend it. Especially if you're someone with a history of drunk driving allegations...

I would think probably not.

 

But I also can't pretend to assume I know how I might respond if, in my mind, I had been accused of something I absolutely did not do.

I would hear my lawyer screaming "Shut up shut up shut up!" in my head. :lol:

[Thorner]

That's a false equivalency. If somebody who is known as a heavy drinker likes a post about how it doesn't matter that O'Reilly got in trouble for DWI, that's closer to what Kane did.

The post isn't about him being in trouble for the DUI, it's about what kind of person he is in spite of that. Maybe the heavy drinker likes the post because he believes that even though he admittedly did something wrong or came close to it, he believes that there could be layers to someone's humanity beyond a single incident.

 

Or what if Kane truly believes he did nothing wrong? If he believes he is falsely accused? Maybe he's liking the posts cause he's taking a shot at how quickly the media is to cover this stuff in order to sell more ad space.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Thorny

[darksabre]

I would also note that I can't believe Cambria hasn't told him to lie low. Like, no social media at all, no going out, etc., until all of this stuff is over.

[Ogre]

That's moving the yard sticks a bit by trying to compare two very different people and two very different situations.

 

I think many were willing to overlook the O'Reilly incident because it luckily did not result in any major harm.

 

Do you think people would be happy to support O'Reilly if he'd struck and injured someone while drunk driving?

 

Personally, I wouldn't recommend it. Especially if you're someone with a history of drunk driving allegations...

 

I would hear my lawyer screaming "Shut up shut up shut up!" in my head. :lol:

Yep. Very different situations. Alleged DWI seems like a stupid thing to do. Domestic violence and alleged assault with a deadly weapon seems like an insane thing to do.

[qwksndmonster]

The post isn't about him being in trouble for the DUI, it's about what kind of person he is in spite of that. Maybe the heavy drinker likes the post because he believes that even though he admittedly did something wrong or came close to it, he believes that there could be layers to someone's humanity beyond a single incident.

 

Or what if Kane truly believes he did nothing wrong? If he believes he is falsely accused? Maybe he's liking the posts cause he's taking a shot at how quickly the media is to cover this stuff in order to sell more ad space.

Well, 2 out of the 3 posts were discrediting a woman that accused Chris Brown because she was, herself, implicated in some other crime.

[Thorner]

That's moving the yard sticks a bit by trying to compare two very different people and two very different situations.

I think many were willing to overlook the O'Reilly incident because it luckily did not result in any major harm.

Do you think people would be happy to support O'Reilly if he'd struck and injured someone while drunk driving?

Personally, I wouldn't recommend it. Especially if you're someone with a history of drunk driving allegations...

 

I would hear my lawyer screaming "Shut up shut up shut up!" in my head. :lol:

Fair enough. I'm just not sure liking a post about how O'Reilly (or Chris Brown) is actually a good person apart from alleged incidents necessarily or even likely means that the person in question is condoning the specific actions in general.

 

Disclaimer - I obviously in no way am putting my support behind Brown or any of the things he did or may have done. I hope that didn't have to be said.

Well, 2 out of the 3 posts were discrediting a woman that accused Chris Brown because she was, herself, implicated in some other crime.

And that's exactly my point about how "likes" can mean more than one thing. Perhaps this was Kane's (admittedly not smart) way of propping up the idea that accusers can be "untrustworthy" (in his mind), a direct shot at HIS accusers, while not particularly having much to say about Chris Brown specifically. He's probably atleast smart enough to put together a Troll like that.

 

Obviously the accusations of the accuser in the Brown case have nothing to do with their recent troubles, but I can't fathom exactly how Kane's mind might work.

[Ducky]

This is where I'm at. I wanted to believe but simply can no longer waste time. Ironically I took photos of my Evander Kane jersey yesterday so I could post it on eBay. I can't get rid of it soon enough.

Beerme1 will need one soon...

Tell Kaner to stay home until he is traded...keep him away from the youngsters.

[dudacek]

I think Evander Kane believes he is a rich black man being unfairly targeted and his posts reflect that.

I also think he's a douche and a useful hockey player.

All three opinions dont have to be related.

Edited September 1, 2016 by dudacek

[darksabre]

I think Evander Kane believes he is a rich black man being unfairly targeted and his posts reflect that.

I also think he's a douche and a useful hockey player.

All three opinions do t have to be related.

I think there are plenty of wiser ways for him to express his feelings. Commiserating with Chris Brown has got to be the last on the list. To make it the first choice, well...

[dudacek]

I think there are plenty of wiser ways for him to express his feelings. Commiserating with Chris Brown has got to be the last on the list. To make it the first choice, well...

He absolutely should be aware that pretty well anything he does that makes a statement other than contrite, meek or apologetic are going to release the hounds. Therefore, he clearly does not care.

[darksabre]

He absolutely should be aware that pretty well anything he does that makes a statement other than contrite, meek or apologetic are going to release the hounds. Therefore, he clearly does not care.

And how.

[That Aud Smell]

If someone likes a post about how good of a guy Ryan O'Reilly is, despite his alleged incident, does that person condone drunk driving?

No.

 

Now, if someone who was under investigation for a DUI offence, and had a reputation for having such issues in the past, liked a few social media posts that were LOLing about how O'Reilly did a little buzzed driving again -- THAT'D be closer to what we have here.

Thorny. Bringing it.

Pfffff

 

I am quietly preparing myself for being legitimately ambivalent when E Kane scores, etc. for the Sabres.

 

Maybe actual hockey will dissipate these feelings.

[MattPie]

Fair enough. I'm just not sure liking a post about how O'Reilly (or Chris Brown) is actually a good person apart from alleged incidents necessarily or even likely means that the person in question is condoning the specific actions in general.

 

Disclaimer - I obviously in no way am putting my support behind Brown or any of the things he did or may have done. I hope that didn't have to be said.

 

And that's exactly my point about how "likes" can mean more than one thing. Perhaps this was Kane's (admittedly not smart) way of propping up the idea that accusers can be "untrustworthy" (in his mind), a direct shot at HIS accusers, while not particularly having much to say about Chris Brown specifically. He's probably atleast smart enough to put together a Troll like that.

 

Obviously the accusations of the accuser in the Brown case have nothing to do with their recent troubles, but I can't fathom exactly how Kane's mind might work.

 

Likes can be intended in many ways, but none of those can be discerned by anyone other than the person clicking like. People are going to read into it their own way, which may not be at all what the person meant. If you're going to like something that's controversial you better consider the angles if you're worried about your public (or communal) perception. If you want to make a statement, make a statement. If you're using a binary semaphore that's bound to be read the wrong way, you better find a post that says exactly what you want.

[TrueBlueGED]

No.

 

Now, if someone who was under investigation for a DUI offence, and had a reputation for having such issues in the past, liked a few social media posts that were LOLing about how O'Reilly did a little buzzed driving again -- THAT'D be closer to what we have here.

Correct. Does anyone think there'd be any real criticism, if say, he had liked a story of the Duke lacrosse case? Or, hell, even a story about the other Kane and the fake evidence bag?