moon111 said:
This is the dumbest thing you've ever said and that's saying a lot.
Patrick Kane - Possible rape charge
- Thread starter digdug
- Start date
This is the dumbest thing you've ever said and that's saying a lot.
Kin
New member
EA has dropped Kane from the cover of their latest NHL game because of the investigation:
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/13425032/electronic-arts-removes-patrick-kane-nhl-16-video-game-cover-amid-investigation
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/13425032/electronic-arts-removes-patrick-kane-nhl-16-video-game-cover-amid-investigation
LuncheonMeat
New member
And in a new report today, the girl the douchey bar owner said was hanging all over Kane (she must have been a whore) wasn't even the one that was allegedly raped.
The young woman who alleges that she was raped by Patrick Kane the morning of Aug. 2 only went to his Hamburg waterfront home because her friend wanted to go, according to three people who have knowledge of the events that night and early morning.
?They were at SkyBar, and Kane invited them to his home. Her friend really wanted to go to Kane?s house, and she didn?t want her friend to go there alone,? a friend of the woman told The Buffalo News. ?It wasn?t her idea to go there.?
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/hamburg/alleged-victim-reportedly-went-to-kanes-home-to-accompany-friend-20150812
The young woman who alleges that she was raped by Patrick Kane the morning of Aug. 2 only went to his Hamburg waterfront home because her friend wanted to go, according to three people who have knowledge of the events that night and early morning.
?They were at SkyBar, and Kane invited them to his home. Her friend really wanted to go to Kane?s house, and she didn?t want her friend to go there alone,? a friend of the woman told The Buffalo News. ?It wasn?t her idea to go there.?
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/hamburg/alleged-victim-reportedly-went-to-kanes-home-to-accompany-friend-20150812
bustaheims
Active member
http://chicagoist.com/2015/09/08/grand_jury_reportedly_starts_procee.php
The Grand Jury hearing on the investigation into Kane has been cancelled, so, as of now, no charges will be filed against him. It was set to be this afternoon, and could be reconvened at a later date.
There has been speculation about a settlement between Kane and his accuser - which is not necessarily an admission of guilt. In a lot of cases, people settle cases like this just to make them go away, and it can often be cheaper than the legal fees and other costs involved with a trial. Without a trial, we'll never really know whether or not Kane is actually guilty of any wrongdoing.
The Grand Jury hearing on the investigation into Kane has been cancelled, so, as of now, no charges will be filed against him. It was set to be this afternoon, and could be reconvened at a later date.
There has been speculation about a settlement between Kane and his accuser - which is not necessarily an admission of guilt. In a lot of cases, people settle cases like this just to make them go away, and it can often be cheaper than the legal fees and other costs involved with a trial. Without a trial, we'll never really know whether or not Kane is actually guilty of any wrongdoing.
So during the press conference today, Kane said that he would only answer questions about hockey.
How do you think people would feel if reporters started asking questions like:
"So Patrick, how many goaltenders do you think you will take advantage of this year?"
or
"Mr Kane, when you are facing a weak defence that you can easily overpower, would you say that your MO is to stick handle aggressively and forcibly take it to the net?"
Too crass? Or do you think that Kane should have to face the music from the media?
How do you think people would feel if reporters started asking questions like:
"So Patrick, how many goaltenders do you think you will take advantage of this year?"
or
"Mr Kane, when you are facing a weak defence that you can easily overpower, would you say that your MO is to stick handle aggressively and forcibly take it to the net?"
Too crass? Or do you think that Kane should have to face the music from the media?
bustaheims
Active member
Significantly Insignificant said:
Considering he's not facing any charges or anything at the moment, it's in his best interests to keep his mouth shut about anything related to the incident in question. Until he has to face the music in court, he really shouldn't face the music anywhere else. I'd rather not see him forced to answer questions based on speculation and hearsay.
bustaheims said:
Yeah, I guess that's the problem with situations like this. You just don't know. It's one of those situations where you can look at it and say "Maybe he is innocent", or it could be one of those situations of "Where there is smoke, there is fire" but he uses his resources to sweep the problem under the rug.
Nik the Trik said:
Yeah, after he asked that question, there was no answer Kane and the conference was effectively over. I think Kane should have to answer the question. They didn't have to have a press conference. They chose to have one. Once he is in the public eye, he should answer the questions. If he doesn't want to answer questions, then don't have the conference.
bustaheims
Active member
Significantly Insignificant said:
I disagree. I don't think anyone should have to answer any questions about their personal life in any sort of public forum other than a court of law. Just because they chose to have a press conference doesn't mean they don't get to set boundaries. Being in the public eye doesn't eliminate the right to privacy. He's still a private citizen. It may not have been an unreasonable question, but they set the boundaries long before it was asked. His refusal to answer isn't unreasonable, either.
bustaheims said:
I would agree with that to a point. Maybe it's the fact that he is a public figure that muddy's the waters a little bit, because there are probably a high number of these cases that go through the system that the public knows nothing about, but if his status somehow contributes to him not facing a just punishment for his crime, then I think that in a round a bout way, having to answer to the media is some form of karma for circumventing the system.
Heroic Shrimp
New member
"I am confident that once all the facts are brought to light, I will be absolved of having done nothing wrong."
That mouthful was from a written and prepared statement, no less. Me fail English? That's unpossible!
That mouthful was from a written and prepared statement, no less. Me fail English? That's unpossible!
I don't know what the heck the Hawks were thinking here. If they didn't want Kane facing questions about this investigation, they shouldn't have opened the floor to questions. Did they honestly believe that just because they asked for "hockey-questions only" that the media wouldn't bombard the face of American hockey with questions about the on-going investigation surrounding a claim that he raped a woman? Particularly since Kane hasn't been seen or heard from in 6 weeks?
He shouldn't have been taking questions, he shouldn't have held a press conference, and he shouldn't even be at their training camp right now. The Hawks and the NHL too for that matter are only making a terrible situation worse.
He shouldn't have been taking questions, he shouldn't have held a press conference, and he shouldn't even be at their training camp right now. The Hawks and the NHL too for that matter are only making a terrible situation worse.
louisstamos
Active member
Uhhh...did Damien Cox just infer that the definition of consent doesn't matter?
Bullfrog said:
He's basically saying "if Kane says that he's innocent that's all that matters".
The accusation that he raped a girl doesn't matter. The evidence in the case doesn't matter. The fact that there's a grand jury about to convene to look into the investigation doesn't matter. Kane says that he's innocent so let's just carry on like nothing's happening.
bustaheims
Active member
Bullfrog said:
Yeah. I think that last line is what is really important. Whether or not there was consent in this case is only an issue if Kane was actually involved in something that could be considered sexual assault. If he wasn't involved or if nothing happened, then Kane's understanding of consent is irrelevant to the case.
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
I don't think he's saying that, either, otherwise he wouldn't talk about misplaced confidence or being misguided. He's pointing out that all we know is Kane says he's innocent, and that everything else is speculation at this point.
bustaheims said:
I expanded on my post a tad after posting if you wanted to check that out.
But I mean, yeah that is basically the entire premise of his article. Kane says that he's innocent so there's absolutely no reason for the Blackhawks or the NHL to act like it isn't just status quo here.
I know I'm going in circles here from before, but I don't care. Why is the woman's claim of rape "speculation" and Kane's claim of "innocence" taken as fact? We're so far past the point of just an accusation here anyway. There's evidence being prepared in this case. There's been an active investigation on it for 6 weeks. There's a grand jury about to decide whether or not charges are to be laid. And Kane's in the middle of all of this. The NHL has every right to suspend Kane with pay while this plays out. He shouldn't be anywhere near his team or the league at this point. Any business out there would so the same.
Somebody brought this point up on twitter. Let's say that instead of Kane this was all happening to HNIC broadcaster John Doe. Would Rogers take that person off air while the investigation was going on? Absolutely they would.