Kane might be in legal trouble in Buffalo (verifiable sources only, no hearsay)

[hockeydoug]

Who gives two ***** about Patrick Kane's name?

thumbs up to this.

Just wanted to point to this again, because this is a real good question.

 

[hockeydoug]

This mess is far more interesting than Bears training camp so I can handle it being drawn out for a few more weeks.

 

[Idionym]

Well, I bought a TT jersey just in case... I wonder if the organization will change jerseys into other players jerseys if Kane is suspended/banned. I have a Kane jersey and I got all my signatures on it so I would be kinda bummed.

And yes, this isn't really important, more just talking to talk.

 

[hawksrule]

I'm sure there are lots of articles out there I haven't read, and in this case I must say I have not read an article that blames the accuser.

Here's a good take on the victim blaming in yesterday's Buffalo News article

 

[Sarava]

Here's a good take on the victim blaming in yesterday's Buffalo News article

I'm not a fan of that article. The author has no problem with all the crap out there that makes Kane look bad. But the second something comes out that doesn't fit the alleged victim's agenda, it's victim blaming? That's crap.

 

[hawksrule]

I'm not a fan of that article. The author has no problem with all the crap out there that makes Kane look bad. But the second something comes out that doesn't fit the alleged victim's agenda, it's victim blaming? That's crap.

What makes Kane look bad are the details which are presumably from the accuser herself -- not some clueless third party. On what planet is that comparable to printing the account of the bar owner who doesn't even know if the girl he's talking about is the alleged victim? On what planet is the bar owner an objective source, given the money he makes off Kane, Buffalo's biggest hometown sports hero, holding private parties there (as was scheduled to do with the Cup). How in the world is anything that happened at the bar relevant to what allegedly happened afterward at Kane's house? You dodged that question when I asked you yesterday. But given the takeaways of most of the bozos in this thread, the smear seems to have worked.

 

[SAADfather]

Here's a good take on the victim blaming in yesterday's Buffalo News article

This article is just as irresponsible as the one he was trying to bash. All around terrible.

 

[Sarava]

What makes Kane look bad are the details which are presumably from the accuser herself -- not some clueless third party. On what planet is that comparable to printing the account of the bar owner who doesn't even know if the girl he's talking about is the alleged victim? On what planet is the bar owner an objective source, given the money he makes off Kane holding private parties there (as was scheduled to do with the Cup). How in the world is anything that happened at the bar relevant to what allegedly happened afterward at Kane's house? You dodged that question when I asked you yesterday. But given the takeaways of most of the bozos in this thread, the smear seems to have worked.

If I'm a bozo for not assuming that he did it or for not being willing to trash his name, then so be it. He's innocent until proven guilty as far as I'm concerned.

Now regarding what happened at the bar. I didn't dodge anything. I clearly stated that if she is the one (big if that we don't know), then Kane's attorney's would have a field day with that if this ever came to trial.

That doesn't mean she can't say no. Everyone understands that. A woman can say no at any point.

The problem is, these types of cases often end up being his word against hers. If it turns out the alleged victim is the one who seemed to be the pursuer, that goes against the grain of most rape cases (I would think), and might be hard to get a full jury to bite on that he was indeed guilty.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

What makes Kane look bad are the details which are presumably from the accuser herself -- not some clueless third party. On what planet is that comparable to printing the account of the bar owner who doesn't even know if the girl he's talking about is the alleged victim? On what planet is the bar owner an objective source, given the money he makes off Kane, Buffalo's biggest hometown sports hero, holding private parties there (as was scheduled to do with the Cup). How in the world is anything that happened at the bar relevant to what allegedly happened afterward at Kane's house? You dodged that question when I asked you yesterday. But given the takeaways of most of the bozos in this thread, the smear seems to have worked.

You're kidding right?

Unless someone else witnessed what happened at the house it is a circumstantial case, essentially he said/she said.

What happened or didn't happen at the bar will go to the party's state of mind or to their credibility.

Hypothetical example, if someone overheard the young woman say something that might undermine her later claims.

(If the bar is owner is not an objective source, what would call the "victim". Certainly she has skin in the game.)

 

[Idionym]

What makes Kane look bad are the details which are presumably from the accuser herself -- not some clueless third party.

What makes Kane look bad is an accusation, as the only real details we have so far are bite marks and a scratch and that the alleged crime was around 4 a.m at Kane's house.

On what planet is that comparable to printing the account of the bar owner who doesn't even know if the girl he's talking about is the alleged victim? On what planet is the bar owner an objective source, given the money he makes off Kane holding private parties there (as was scheduled to do with the Cup).

The bar owner said some interesting stuff but that's all it was, interesting. He isn't the key witness, it was just the newspaper trying to piece the evening together. Is he biased? Probably, but the article you posted is too, so it is comparable.

How in the world is anything that happened at the bar relevant to what allegedly happened afterward at Kane's house? You dodged that question when I asked you yesterday.

Well, you get information and then judge if it is relevant. For example, if Kane was shouting at the bar "I'm going to rape someone tonight!", that would be relevant. If you don't think that it's relevant then ignore it when judging further information.

 

[Sarava]

For the record - the police have asked for the contact info of every employee at the bar that night. So while hawksrule deems what happened there to be irrelevant, the police disagree.

 

[Neo1978]

I'm not a fan of that article. The author has no problem with all the crap out there that makes Kane look bad. But the second something comes out that doesn't fit the alleged victim's agenda, it's victim blaming? That's crap.

I agree with you. None of these articles pass the 180 degree test. If you want to know if you are biased on a subject, just change the information 180 degrees opposite. This is fairly easy in this case as all you really need to do is switch the "his" to the "her" and vice versa. Then just say something equivalent about this other person and see if that offends. If only one of those two arguments offends you, you need to be careful with your bias.

And don't these journalists know even the basics of writing a logical argument? I mean how many times can you beg a question in the same article? It is incompetent to state your opinion as a fact and then try to use that to justify your opinion. The writing in this country has fallen off the deep end.

 

[Nocando]

I'm not a fan of that article. The author has no problem with all the crap out there that makes Kane look bad. But the second something comes out that doesn't fit the alleged victim's agenda, it's victim blaming? That's crap.

Yes. The bite marks and scratch on the accuser are described by an unnamed third party, and for some reason that's fine. But the first hand account of an eye witness describing only what he saw is dubious and victim blaming. We don't know who the victim (or the victimizer) is in this case. We don't know anything at all. If the talk in my work department (23 women and 3 men) means anything, all this gossip and lecturing has not been beneficial to the accuser.

 

[Sarava]

Yes. The bite marks and scratch on the accuser are described by an unnamed third party, and for some reason that's fine. But the first hand account of an eye witness describing only what he saw is dubious and victim blaming. We don't know who the victim (or the victimizer) is in this case. We don't know anything at all. If the talk in my work department (23 women and 3 men) means anything, all this gossip and lecturing has not been beneficial to the accuser.

I agree. I think there's been a huge bias against Patrick Kane with the reporting to this point. That's the way society is. Guilty until proven innocent. What if Kane turns out to be the victim?

 

[hawksrule]

If I'm a bozo for not assuming that he did it or for not being willing to trash his name, then so be it. He's innocent until proven guilty as far as I'm concerned.

Now regarding what happened at the bar. I didn't dodge anything. I clearly stated that if she is the one (big if that we don't know), then Kane's attorney's would have a field day with that if this ever came to trial.

That doesn't mean she can't say no. Everyone understands that. A woman can say no at any point.

The problem is, these types of cases often end up being his word against hers. If it turns out the alleged victim is the one who seemed to be the pursuer, that goes against the grain of most rape cases (I would think), and might be hard to get a full jury to bite on that he was indeed guilty.

I wasn't specifically calling you a bozo. My apologies.

I was referring to those who immediately pounced on their 'gotcha' soapboxes. "Why was she flirty?", "Why did she follow him out of the bar", "Why did she walk into a room alone?", "If she walked into the bedroom first then that's giving consent".

As you said above, she has the right to say no at any time. So unless the police can unravel a premeditated plan to blackmail Kane, which they won't be able to do, none of those questions have any relevance to what happened in that room.

You're kidding right?

Unless someone else witnessed what happened at the house it is a circumstantial case, essentially he said/she said.

What happened or didn't happen at the bar will go to the party's state of mind or to their credibility.

Hypothetical example, if someone overheard the young woman say something that might undermine her later claims.

(If the bar is owner is not an objective source, what would call the "victim". Certainly she has skin in the game.)

MM, as one of the only people who like and respect your hockey opinions, I suggest you stick to hockey, because that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Here's a definition for you:
objective

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


The above is what you expect of a rape victim? Jfc.

 

[Nocando]

What if Kane turns out to be the victim?

Oops!

 

[Idionym]

MM, as one of the only people who like and respect your hockey opinions, I suggest you stick to hockey, because that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Here's a definition for you:
objective

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


The above is what you expect of a rape victim? Jfc.

The point wasn't that the victim needs to be objective, the point was you were bashing the bar owner because he MIGHT not be objective. Not a single witness/person involved is going to be objective, and it's a ridiculous standard to set when someone is giving information.

 

[hawksrule]

For the record - the police have asked for the contact info of every employee at the bar that night. So while hawksrule deems what happened there to be irrelevant, the police disagree.

I could have phrased that better. But you're still not answering. Don't tell me the lawyer will have a field day. Tell me how anything the bar owner said impacts what she reportedly told police regarding what transpired at Kane's house.

Yes. The bite marks and scratch on the accuser are described by an unnamed third party, and for some reason that's fine. But the first hand account of an eye witness describing only what he saw is dubious and victim blaming.

Unnamed third parties close to the investigation, according to the Buffalo news. Their legal department would never let them print that unless it's solid. You're reaching big time.

We don't know who the victim (or the victimizer) is in this case. We don't know anything at all.

I've never said differently.

The point wasn't that the victim needs to be objective, the point was you were bashing the bar owner because he MIGHT not be objective. Not a single witness/person involved is going to be objective, and it's a ridiculous standard to set when someone is giving information.

That makes no sense. Why couldn't there be objective/impartial people at the bar, as opposed to someone who makes money off the local sports hero?

But that's not even the point. What was the value of the Buffalo News printing the bar owner's statement when 1. he doesn't even know if it's the same woman, and 2. No one can explain why his statement pertains to what transpired at Kane's house. Maybe you can take a crack at it.

 

[Periwinkle]

I'm not a fan of that article. The author has no problem with all the crap out there that makes Kane look bad. But the second something comes out that doesn't fit the alleged victim's agenda, it's victim blaming? That's crap.

Would you like to explain what that agenda is, as you seem to have information we don't?

What makes Kane look bad are the details which are presumably from the accuser herself -- not some clueless third party. On what planet is that comparable to printing the account of the bar owner who doesn't even know if the girl he's talking about is the alleged victim? On what planet is the bar owner an objective source, given the money he makes off Kane, Buffalo's biggest hometown sports hero, holding private parties there (as was scheduled to do with the Cup). How in the world is anything that happened at the bar relevant to what allegedly happened afterward at Kane's house? You dodged that question when I asked you yesterday. But given the takeaways of most of the bozos in this thread, the smear seems to have worked.

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated and people still don't get it.

Just like journalistic standards seem to have deteriorated, so seems to have people's critical media reading skills. It blows my mind that people don't see the victim blaming element of an article going to great lenghts giving the floor to someone who says he doesn't know this is the same woman, and describing this person's behaviour in a classical way facts (or "facts") are being used to twist to place the blame on the victim. It's no different than the bar owner saying "there was a woman wearing a very short dress and dancing provocately, but I don't know if this is the same woman". That would be just as meaningless on whether the rape occured or not like this story is.

Secondly, people don't seem to have the media reading skills to understand the distinction between
1)opinion pieces and news articles reporting a story
2)the difference between printing something in the area's main newspaper that gets quoted around the globe over a blog

Commentary/opinion are clearly marked as such, and are used to provide a commentary on the irresponsible journalism of the news article and social media reactions; in a commentary piece there of course is a level of subjectivity that shouldn't be in a news article.

Yes. The bite marks and scratch on the accuser are described by an unnamed third party, and for some reason that's fine. But the first hand account of an eye witness describing only what he saw is dubious and victim blaming. We don't know who the victim (or the victimizer) is in this case. We don't know anything at all. If the talk in my work department (23 women and 3 men) means anything, all this gossip and lecturing has not been beneficial to the accuser.

If the bits of information that has come out has lead your co-workers to turn against the alleged victim, it says absolutely nothing about the case and a lot about your co-workers. And the oft-denied existance of rape culture.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

You're kidding right?

Unless someone else witnessed what happened at the house it is a circumstantial case, essentially he said/she said.

What happened or didn't happen at the bar will go to the party's state of mind or to their credibility.

Hypothetical example, if someone overheard the young woman say something that might undermine her later claims.

(If the bar is owner is not an objective source, what would call the "victim". Certainly she has skin in the game.)

Thanks for the compliment, I think.

MM, as one of the only people who like and respect your hockey opinions, I suggest you stick to hockey, because that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Here's a definition for you:
objective

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


The above is what you expect of a rape victim? Jfc.

Thanks for the compliment, I think.

Here's a more appropriate primer on what is considered objective from a legal perspective:

http://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/...e-testimonial-and-non-testimonial-statements/

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Continue here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=105978689

 

[Sarava]

Would you like to explain what that agenda is, as you seem to have information we don't?



I don't know how many times this has to be repeated and people still don't get it.

Just like journalistic standards seem to have deteriorated, so seems to have people's critical media reading skills. It blows my mind that people don't see the victim blaming element of an article going to great lenghts giving the floor to someone who says he doesn't know this is the same woman, and describing this person's behaviour in a classical way facts (or "facts") are being used to twist to place the blame on the victim. It's no different than the bar owner saying "there was a woman wearing a very short dress and dancing provocately, but I don't know if this is the same woman". That would be just as meaningless on whether the rape occured or not like this story is.

Secondly, people don't seem to have the media reading skills to understand the distinction between
1)opinion pieces and news articles reporting a story
2)the difference between printing something in the area's main newspaper that gets quoted around the globe over a blog

Commentary/opinion are clearly marked as such, and are used to provide a commentary on the irresponsible journalism of the news article and social media reactions; in a commentary piece there of course is a level of subjectivity that shouldn't be in a news article.




If the bits of information that has come out has lead your co-workers to turn against the alleged victim, it says absolutely nothing about the case and a lot about your co-workers. And the oft-denied existance of rape culture.

Where did I say I had more information? Why are you making crap up?