Patrick Kane subject of police investigation III [READ MOD OP]

[hototogisu]

Here is the best summary of the facts so far. Please stick to discussing the facts of the case and limit personal speculation.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...erstar-is-subject-of-rape-allegation-20150806

• A young local woman has alleged that Kane, 26, took her to his Hamburg waterfront home and raped her after meeting her in a downtown Buffalo nightclub Saturday night or early Sunday.

• Police searched the Chicago Blackhawks star’s waterfront home on Sunday, looking for evidence.

• The alleged victim went to a local hospital, where she was examined for physical signs that she had been raped.

• The prosecutor assigned to the case is Roseanne Johnson, who specializes in sexual assault cases and heads the Special Victims Unit in the Erie County District Attorney’s Office.

• Kane is being represented in connection with the probe by a top Buffalo defense attorney, Paul J. Cambria Jr., who also represented Kane in 2009 after he and his cousin were accused of roughing up a Buffalo cab driver.

Additionally, Hamburg PD made a statement around 10:30am EST today but said little more than they are awaiting forensic results and confirmed an investigation is on going.



Everyone who posts in this thread should be aware of the Site Rule regarding Libel:

13) Libel: Any posts libeling players, prospects, or hockey personnel. It's not acceptable to post that you heard Player X has a drinking/drug/sex/personal problem from a "good" source. Do not post information that can be considered defamatory without a link to a credible media source. Other forums, personal websites, hearsay, and personal testimonials are not considered credible.

Posts that are deemed to be a violation of this Site Rule may result in infractions/warnings being issued.

 

[Dying Alive]

Frankly, that reply you quoted is absolutely ludicrous. "Being too drunk is not an excuse for having sex with someone too drunk to give consent" - what?

If being drunk means you cannot give consent, then it must apply to both parties. Full stop.

First of all, at least quote what I said correctly if you're going to call it ludicrous. If someone is too drunk to say yes, you stop. This is not a ludicrous concept.

I'll put it more clearly: unless you know for a fact that your dick is welcome, put it away. Or here's another way: if you're too drunk to know whether it's safe to have sex or not, keep yourself out of trouble.

It does apply to both sides. Don't rape. Don't have sex with someone who says no, is unconscious, or is too drunk to say yes. Even if you think he/she is into it. FULL STOP.

 

[Mansfield]

First of all, at least quote what I said correctly if you're going to call it ludicrous. If someone is too drunk to say yes, you stop. This is not a ludicrous concept.

I'll put it more clearly: unless you know for a fact that your dick is welcome, put it away. Or here's another way: if you're too drunk to know whether it's safe to have sex or not, keep yourself out of trouble.

Don't rape. Don't have sex with someone who says no, is unconscious, or is too drunk to say yes. Even if you think he/she is into it. FULL STOP.

I think you're missing the point. The hypothetical situation being discussed is one in which both Patrick Kane and Jane Doe were drunk.

If being drunk means being unable to give consent, and PK and JD were both drunk, logically neither of them could give consent to sex.. This is not a hard concept.

You keep saying it applies to both sides, but are vilifying PK for not "stopping sex" when in this hypothetical situation, he was drunk and unable to make consent to any sex in the first place.

 

[Dying Alive]

I think you're missing the point. The hypothetical situation being discussed is one in which both Patrick Kane and Jane Doe were both drunk.

If being drunk means being unable to give consent, and PK and JD were both drunk, logically neither of them could give consent to sex.. This is not a hard concept.

I'm not missing the point at all. If they were both drunk and he still had sex with her anyway without her consent, that's rape. Also not a hard concept.

 

[DanZ]

I'm not missing the point at all. If they were both drunk and he still had sex with her anyway without her consent, that's rape. Also not a hard concept.

Ok, but being drunk shouldn't automatically mean you are unable to give consent. If that were the case, than Kane also didn't give consent, so logically he was raped as well.

 

[Mansfield]

I'm not missing the point at all. If they were both drunk and he still had sex with her anyway without her consent, that's rape. Also not a hard concept.

If they were drunk, and he had sex with her without her consent, and she had sex without his consent, she also raped him.

This is the problem inherent in saying that someone under the influence cannot give consent.

 

[Mansfield]

If the man can get it up, he is consenting to sex. Pretty simple.

Wow. So I guess if a woman has any lubrication going on, she is also consenting to sex.

 

[DanZ]

If the man can get it up, he is consenting to sex. Pretty simple.

Yeah, that's not what the law says

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

If the man can get it up, he is consenting to sex. Pretty simple.

Uh, isn't that a little like saying that a woman walking around showing half her butt cheeks and/or breasts via revealing clothing is "consenting to sex"? In both cases you're talking about 100% visual "cues" - no element of consent (verbalized or not) at all.

 

[HydroF]

I'm not missing the point at all. If they were both drunk and he still had sex with her anyway without her consent, that's rape. Also not a hard concept.

Exactly. As Dying Alive states, it doesn't apply to both sides, its not the same rules for men and women. Its the mans duty regardless of how drunk he is to maintain awareness of whether or not he actually should and wants to have sex as well as whether the female should or wants to have sex. The female has no responsibilty in this situation. Fully agree with you.

 

[Beerz]

If the man can get it up, he is consenting to sex. Pretty simple.

No.

 

[Phousse]

If the man can get it up, he is consenting to sex. Pretty simple.

That's one of the dumbest things I've read on this subject

 

[Dying Alive]

If they were drunk, and he had sex with her without her consent, and she had sex without his consent, she also raped him.

This is the problem inherent in saying that someone under the influence cannot give consent.

That makes no sense. It's possible to have consensual sex when both people are drunk. It's also possible for a rape to occur when both parties are drunk. If my boyfriend and I both get drunk and have sex, fine. If we both get drunk and I'm not in the mood and he holds me down and has sex with me anyway, that's rape. It doesn't matter if he's drunk. Or I'm drunk. It's rape.

 

[DetroitRed]

You know they do this in every rape trial:

Defense Lawyer: "Your honor, my client is innocent, because rape isn't actually as common in society as some people claim."

Judge: "Is that all?"

Defense Lawyer: "Yes, your honor."

Judge: "Prosecution?"

Prosecutor: "Your honor, this man is guilty because rape is very common in society."

Judge: "Okay. And you say the defendant was drunk. I don't need any more details. Just let me adjourn and make my decision. I'll be right back."

(The discussion isn't even relevant.)

 

[Beerz]

Exactly. As Dying Alive states, it doesn't apply to both sides, its not the same rules for men and women. Its the mans duty regardless of how drunk he is to maintain awareness of whether or not he actually should and wants to have sex as well as whether the female should or wants to have sex. The female has no responsibilty in this situation. Fully agree with you.

You make that up on the fly?

 

[TheKingSlayer]

Wow. So I guess if a woman has any lubrication going on, she is also consenting to sex.

If she is initiating, then yes. Not really the same scenario otherwise.

Example:
Man and woman are drunk. Man has ***** and initiates sex = he is saying yes.
Man and woman are drunk. Woman initiates sex and is wet = she is saying yes.

If one or the other is not ready to go from the onset then things are different as both can be turned on forcefully (for lack of better wording ATM). This would be rape.

More clear?

 

[DanZ]

Exactly. As Dying Alive states, it doesn't apply to both sides, its not the same rules for men and women. Its the mans duty regardless of how drunk he is to maintain awareness of whether or not he actually should and wants to have sex as well as whether the female should or wants to have sex. The female has no responsibilty in this situation. Fully agree with you.

So more or less you are saying that men cannot be raped?

 

[yRessUneChose]

this reminds me of one story in Slashs book(autobiography, guitarist of hard rock group Guns N Roses) that one time, while the group wasn't popular as it is/was(1985, their first album came out 1987) they partied their ***** off and Axl Rose the singer took one girl back to his room(they were living in a music studio because well, broke lol) they probably had sex what not, because when the girl wasn't drunk/drugs wore off, she started screaming what not, and then, Axl Rose told her off, to go away, Slash as always, tried to defuse the situation and intervening between the two. As it turned out, the girl had links to the LAPD, and Axl and Slash were both charged with statuary rape.

both of them had to lay low for awhile, and eventually the charges were dropped,


now, I am not comparing both of the situations, but, again, being drunk shouldn't be an excuse, however, if both of them are... I mean,, ? (this is where it can become complicated)

it sorts of remind me of also Big Ben's big story, where he was charged of ''raping'' a woman, he was suspended for first four games of the NFL season back in 2010(Ben is sort of like on the status of Kane.. TOP QB in the league as he is TOP player in the league...)

from what I remember, the girl's charges were blurry, and eventually it was done off-court,


I think right now best thing to do as fans is to wait, and see where this thing goes, because as famous people come and go, at first everyone jumped on the wagon of Big Ben being a rapist, as far as calling him Ben Rapistburger(Roethlisberger) where in the end the girl was probably drunk and she never sued him


and even then, being drunk doesn't excuse to rape/fondle a girl, in case people misread what I wrote o.o

 

[Off Sides]

Nothing necessarily to do with this incident, and may be considered off topic since no one seems to know any specifics, but relating to the conversation in a strict legal sense,

I don't think I understand the laws correctly, I really just can not image them meaning that any form of intoxicated sex equates to no consent being given.

Just seems that would open up all sorts of revenge motivated accusations and threats of bring up false charges being thrown around. (and no I do not mean that to mean just from one gender or the other)

Just a pure guess but drunk people seem to have sex a lot, it seems improbable that a law would be written without some sort of contingency for the grey area between incapacitated and just buzzed or whatever.

 

[Dying Alive]

Exactly. As Dying Alive states, it doesn't apply to both sides, its not the same rules for men and women. Its the mans duty regardless of how drunk he is to maintain awareness of whether or not he actually should and wants to have sex as well as whether the female should or wants to have sex. The female has no responsibilty in this situation. Fully agree with you.

Good strawman.

If a woman says no, she doesn't want to have sex with you. If she is too drunk to say yes, use your brain and err on the side of caution. I've also been pretty clear that the rule applies to both men and women.

 

[Mansfield]

That makes no sense. It's possible to have consensual sex when both people are drunk. It's also possible for a rape to occur when both parties are drunk. If my boyfriend and I both get drunk and have sex, fine. If we both get drunk and I'm not in the mood and he holds me down and has sex with me anyway, that's rape. It doesn't matter if he's drunk. Or I'm drunk. It's rape.

Okay, I don't disagree with that. The viewpoint being pushed here is that it was rape simply because she was drunk. This is completely unfair and a massive double standard.

If physical force or other extreme coercion was involved (on either side), yes, it's rape, and being drunk doesn't change that.

Exactly. As Dying Alive states, it doesn't apply to both sides, its not the same rules for men and women. Its the mans duty regardless of how drunk he is to maintain awareness of whether or not he actually should and wants to have sex as well as whether the female should or wants to have sex. The female has no responsibilty in this situation. Fully agree with you.

I honestly hope you're just trolling.

 

[Felix Unger]

If the man can get it up, he is consenting to sex. Pretty simple.

This is one of those cases where misogyny necessarily reflects horribly on what some men think about themselves. You basically think that any person that can get a rise out of you is thereby entitled to jump you on the spot? Holy ****!

I'm not missing the point at all. If they were both drunk and he still had sex with her anyway without her consent, that's rape. Also not a hard concept.

Moreover, in my experience this whole hypothetical is massively overblown to prove a false point (which, I agree, it fails to make). I've, frankly, never seen two people so drunk or drugged that they both didn't know what they were doing. I guess it could happen, but I've only seen it on Veronica Mars.

OTOH, I have seen people try to take advantage of people who are drunk or state an intention to get someone drunk. And I think anyone with enough friends knows at least someone (if not several) who were victims of something like this.

 

[teleman]

If the man can get it up, he is consenting to sex. Pretty simple.

Not true.
Wood appears when you least want it to. Like it's got a mind of its own. Sometimes that is the only part of the body that seems willing.
If a person doesn't consent even if they're aroused do no proceed.

 

[Beerz]

That makes no sense. It's possible to have consensual sex when both people are drunk. It's also possible for a rape to occur when both parties are drunk. If my boyfriend and I both get drunk and have sex, fine. If we both get drunk and I'm not in the mood and he holds me down and has sex with me anyway, that's rape. It doesn't matter if he's drunk. Or I'm drunk. It's rape.

Agreed.

However it has been floated about here from others that simply being intoxicated means a woman can not give consent

 

[Hammettf2b]

If the man can get it up, he is consenting to sex. Pretty simple.

Please tell me you're joking.