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

[Boxscore]

Hmmm. So it seems as if different sources are reporting different things. Well, if someone raped a woman, they should be dealt with accordingly. Regardless of who it is.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

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.

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.

If Kane initiated sex after willfully getting drunk he is responsible for those actions. You are not excused for the actions you initiate if you willfully intoxicate yourself. A drunk person cannot give informed consent. If he acted upon her while they were both intoxicated he is responsible for doing so, while if she was too intoxicated she would not be in a state to consent to the action he initiated upon her.

That is hypothetical, I'm not saying that's what happened exactly but I'm trying to explain this whole notion of "neither could consent". If the woman initiated sex with him, then he would be the one not in position to give consent to her actions, and in that case he would be the victim of rape. That is not what is being alleged in this case however. It's really not that big of a gray area but a lot of posters seem confused about this concept. I keep hearing "logically he was raped a well" despite the fact that people are relying on pretty simplistic, faulty logic.

 

[SCBlueLiner]

Sex party? Maybe Kane was a witness to a rape (accomplice?) Maybe one of his entourage raped someone and he is publically silent to protect him (doubtful, but if there is an accomplice claim, maybe?)

Who freaking knows anymore?

Just going to need to wait until the facts roll out.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

Hmmm. So it seems as if different sources are reporting different things. Well, if someone raped a woman, they should be dealt with accordingly. Regardless of who it is.

I laughed. Not because you said anything outrageous but in an absolute blizzard of dumb comments, the levelheadedness of "Well, if someone raped a woman, they should be dealt with accordingly." caught me off guard

 

[417th]

I thought reports this morning stated that Kane (himself) is not being investigated for rape, but the rape in question took place in his home during a party? If that's the case, should Kane be blamed if two people at his party went into a room and the man ending up forcing himself on the woman?

Entirely untrue or please post a link because that wasn't even suggested in any of the reports that I have read nor was it mentioned in the presser.

Directly from page 1 of this thread.

"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".

 

[Juicy Pop]

Entirely untrue or please post a link because that wasn't even suggested in any of the reports that I have read nor was it mentioned in the presser.

If it isn't him then a number of reporters/agencies are rather screwed.

 

[Il Stugotz]

Not sure what the particular law is where this happened, but I know many states have recently been enacting "yes means yes" laws...which are different from "no means no." Basically it means the accused rapist must PROVE that the woman said YES/consented, rather than the woman proving she said no...which is almost impossible to do without recordings (which could open up other legal issues if both parties aren't aware of this).

Those laws require colleges that receive state funds have affirmative consent (Yes means yes) policies on campus. They apply to student behavior and discipline. Accused rapists are not required to prove consent in criminal courts under these laws.

 

[tempest2i]

Sex party? Maybe Kane was a witness to a rape (accomplice?) Maybe one of his entourage raped someone and he is publically silent to protect him (doubtful, but if there is an accomplice claim, maybe?)

Who freaking knows anymore?

Just going to need to wait until the facts roll out.

If the rape allegation was against anyone other than Kane, I would expect the Chicago-based sports reporters to be screaming that from the rooftops.

Yet no one is even implying that's the case.

 

[Jonteeh]

If Kane initiated sex after willfully getting drunk he is responsible for those actions. You are not excused for the actions you initiate if you willfully intoxicate yourself. A drunk person cannot give informed consent. If he acted upon her while they were both intoxicated he is responsible for doing so, while if she was too intoxicated she would not be in a state to consent to the action he initiated upon her.

That is hypothetical, I'm not saying that's what happened exactly but I'm trying to explain this whole notion of "neither could consent". If the woman initiated sex with him, then he would be the one not in position to give consent to her actions, and in that case he would be the victim of rape. That is not what is being alleged in this case however. It's really not that big of a gray area but a lot of posters seem confused about this concept. I keep hearing "logically he was raped a well" despite the fact that people are relying on pretty simplistic, faulty logic.

Wait.. Are you saying that if you have sex with a drunk person It's rape?

So many persons gets raped on a daily at parties then..

 

[george14]

Alright, in some states they word things differently. It does not mean that two completely separate actions deserve the same laebel (I know there's only 1 guy in the thread that thinks this so I am not attacking you.)

To clarify, which you have stated, rape is indeed different than sexual assault.

As stated, in MI we have CSC which covers everything sexually related.

 

[JA]

Semi-related, but in 2003 EA made the last-minute decision to change the cover athlete for their NHL 2004 game from Dany Heatley to Joe Sakic for well-known reasons. The decision actually happened post-release because the game was released on September 22, 2003, whereas Mr. Snyder passed away on October 5, 2003.

I wonder if the allegations here might affect EA's decision to feature Kane on the cover of NHL 16. There is still a month to go before the game is slated to be released. This might be a question more suitable for the EA Sports NHL section of this forum, but it relates to this topic as well.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

If Kane initiated sex after willfully getting drunk he is responsible for those actions. You are not excused for the actions you initiate if you willfully intoxicate yourself. A drunk person cannot give informed consent. If he acted upon her while they were both intoxicated he is responsible for doing so, while if she was too intoxicated she would not be in a state to consent to the action he initiated upon her.

That is hypothetical, I'm not saying that's what happened exactly but I'm trying to explain this whole notion of "neither could consent". If the woman initiated sex with him, then he would be the one not in position to give consent to her actions, and in that case he would be the victim of rape. That is not what is being alleged in this case however. It's really not that big of a gray area but a lot of posters seem confused about this concept. I keep hearing "logically he was raped a well" despite the fact that people are relying on pretty simplistic, faulty logic.

I think the real grey area with intoxication-based rape cases is: at which point is someone considered too drunk to provide their consent? Is it when they're at a BAC of 0.10, where they're visibly drunk and have decreased motor skills but can still make (poor) decisions? Do they have to be so drunk that they're incapable of forming a sentence?

There is so much nuance to the effects of intoxication, that I've always found it confusing as to where the cutoff is. Someone being passed out is obvious, as is someone who has clearly lost their ability to function (e.g. can't stand up for an extended period, can't form complete sentences). Beyond that it seems to be pretty difficult to determine at which specific point you could say "this person currently does not have the cognitive capacity to provide legal consent."

 

[slappipappi]

If Kane initiated sex after willfully getting drunk he is responsible for those actions. You are not excused for the actions you initiate if you willfully intoxicate yourself.

I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada it would be possible to raise as a defense to a charge of rape that the accused was so drunk that he couldn't form the required intent to commit the crime. Now, it's not an easy defense to raise, and I'm not saying it would be successful, as each case is decided on its own facts, but there isn't any general prohibition against the possibility.

 

[Off Sides]

Those laws require colleges that receive state funds have affirmative consent (Yes means yes) policies on campus. They apply to student behavior and discipline. Accused rapists are not required to prove consent in criminal courts under these laws.

That is what I have been reading as well. You seem to have a good handle on it, thanks for bringing in some real information.

From what I have read, you are correct, burden of proof of even being too intoxicated to give consent still is on the accusatory and it goes beyond just their testimony.

 

[Major4Boarding]

The decorum in this thread is deplorable. A majority of you need to either conduct yourselves accordingly or refrain from posting about this topic.

Next course of action will be Threadbans and Infractions.

You've been warned

 

[CrypTic]

Wait.. Are you saying that if you have sex with a drunk person It's rape?

So many persons gets raped on a daily at parties then..

Probably not under most state laws (unless the person was passed out or extremely intoxicated). But under the "yes means yes" model, which is used on many campuses, you need to have a person's consent before initiating (or continuing) sexual activities. If the person is too drunk to consent, you've raped them.

begin quote:
Last month, California Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed legislation requiring colleges in the state to adopt sexual assault policies that shifted the burden of proof in campus sexual assault cases from those accusing to the accused. Consent is now “an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.†The consent has to be “ongoing†throughout any sexual encounter.

On California campuses, consent is no longer a matter of not struggling or not saying no. If the student initiating the sexual encounter doesn’t receive an enthusiastic “yes,†either verbally or physically, then there is no consent. If the student is intoxicated, there is no consent.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/means-enough-college-campuses/

Ppl who have lived in Canada can probably give you better answers about the nuances if this is correct:

The Canadian Federation of Students popularized the phrase as part of a well-received, and still ongoing, sexual assault awareness campaign it launched in 1992.. .. The same year the campaign was launched, the Canadian government adopted affirmative consent as the country’s legal standard, making “No means no†just a slogan, not a binding definition of consent.

 

[Tripod]

Because this was near the end of the other thread, it needs to be seen more:

http://www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/

If you’re still struggling, just imagine instead of initiating sex, you’re making them a cup of tea.

You say, “Hey, would you like a cup of tea?†and they go, “OMG, ***** yes, I would *****ing LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!†Then you know they want a cup of tea.

If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people can’t answer the question, “Do you want tea?†because they are unconscious.

If you say, “Hey, would you like a cup of tea?†and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…†then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it.

If they say, “No, thank you,†then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, okay?

They might say, “Yes, please, that’s kind of you,†and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s okay for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it.

If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question, “Do you want tea?†because they are unconscious.

Okay, maybe they were conscious when you asked them if they wanted tea, and they said yes, but in the time it took you to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk they are now unconscious. You should just put the tea down, make sure the unconscious person is safe, and — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink the tea.

If someone said yes to tea, started drinking it and then passed out before they’d finished it, don’t keep on pouring it down their throat.

If someone said yes to tea, started drinking it and then passed out before they’d finished it, don’t keep on pouring it down their throat. Take the tea away and make sure they are safe. Because unconscious people don’t want tea. Trust me on this.

If someone said “yes†to tea around your house last Saturday, that doesn’t mean that they want you to make them tea all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly their place and make them tea and force them to drink it going, “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK,†or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT.â€

 

[hototogisu]

I wonder if the allegations here might affect EA's decision to feature Kane on the cover of NHL 16. There is still a month to go before the game is slated to be released. This might be a question more suitable for the EA Sports NHL section of this forum, but it relates to this topic as well.

I would say, unless Kane is unequivocally cleared of any wrongdoing almost immediately, they'll change it. EA would never live it down if they kept Kane on the cover and he was convicted of whatever charges may be laid against him.

 

[Topkatz]

People also need to understand. This girl is in a terrible situation already.

Her name is inevitably going to be leaked online.

If it comes out that she has been raped, once Kane was charged and sentenced sports fans are going to harass her and call her every name under the sun, tell her it was her fault and increase the guilt that she has to deal with. Maybe even will have have to move cities and probably live in fear and shame for a long time.

If it comes out that this is unfounded and can not be proved but he did commit the rape, she will actually have to face less PUBLIC consequences than this but will have to deal with the fact that justice has not been done and he is still out there so it will be worse for her as a human being with feelings.

And if it is fabricated then well it tells you more of the type of person who is not vulnerable (or just dangerously misguided) and honestly should expect ridicule because it severely damages the claims of people who are actually raped.

So honestly, people need to realize there is a reason why so few rapes are reported to the police. It's because in our society victimizes the VICTIMS of rape and sexual assault.

Don't rape people, educate yourself on what you are doing before you do it. It ruins lives if you don't. And don't harass people even if you are annoyed.

 

[plymouthmi]

I'm confused by the number of people on this thread acting as though there have been tons of cases of athletes/celebrities having false rape accusations made against them. I can think of a few examples that were outright false accusations but I think too many of you are assuming that if charges were not filed in a case it must be a false accusation. What it really means is we don't know.

A case not being pursued or charges not being filed =/= false accusation.

 

[Aceonfire*]

I would say, unless Kane is unequivocally cleared of any wrongdoing almost immediately, they'll change it. EA would never live it down if they kept Kane on the cover and he was convicted of whatever charges may be laid against him.

It should be Keith's cover anyways.

The idea was dumb and the cover looks horrible. I know they are pandering to the massive amounts of casual fans by having Toews and Kane but having an alleged rapist on the cover would be horrible PR.

I'll stop with the EA jokes but they need to address this.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

]Wait.. Are you saying that if you have sex with a drunk person It's rape? [/B]

So many persons gets raped on a daily at parties then..

Nope, that's not what I'm saying, missed the entire point.

 

[WreckingCrew]

Wait.. Are you saying that if you have sex with a drunk person It's rape?

So many persons gets raped on a daily at parties then..

Yes actually. There is a point when they say a person is too drunk to give consent and at that point it's rape irregardless. It's a gray area though what qualifies as "too drunk"... passed out unconscious is obviously too drunk, but slurring your words? Legal limit? Tipsy? Stumbling? Not well defined. Ultimately the difficulty in most rape cases is that it's one person's word vs another's, either party can easily lie to make their case and short of obvious evidence (physical force, revordings, etc), it's very hard to prove one way or the other that way. That's part of the reason for the "no means no" vs "yes means yes" laws..."nmn" can lead to false negatives (rapists can get away with it bc lack of proof of rape), "ymy" to false positives (false accusation upheld bc lack of proof of consent). Neither is a good overall scenario, and there is so much grey area in both.

I'm withholding my opinion on this case until more details surface, bc with so few details you either have a dammnng false accusation or a rape victim, and neither of those are good outcomes.

EDIT: Ubi Sunt...thanks for bringing in additional details about that law, I can't really do any more digging around right now. Even still it proves how much "grey area" there is due to which stance is taken by states, what constitutes as consent or lack thereof, which way the laws lean from the start with assumed guilt/innocence etc.)

 

[HydroF]

If Kane initiated sex after willfully getting drunk he is responsible for those actions. You are not excused for the actions you initiate if you willfully intoxicate yourself. A drunk person cannot give informed consent. If he acted upon her while they were both intoxicated he is responsible for doing so, while if she was too intoxicated she would not be in a state to consent to the action he initiated upon her.

That is hypothetical, I'm not saying that's what happened exactly but I'm trying to explain this whole notion of "neither could consent". If the woman initiated sex with him, then he would be the one not in position to give consent to her actions, and in that case he would be the victim of rape. That is not what is being alleged in this case however. It's really not that big of a gray area but a lot of posters seem confused about this concept. I keep hearing "logically he was raped a well" despite the fact that people are relying on pretty simplistic, faulty logic.

People have different ideas of what constitutes initiating. Which is part of the problem. As has been pointed out by many on here, if she just wanted to make out, that doesn't mean she wanted to have sex. If she wanted to get handsy with him, doesn't mean she wanted to have sex. Really we don't know how far any individual wants to go at any given time unless its verbalized, but either side could have misinterpreted what the other was doing as initiating. What you consider initiating sex may be well short of or well beyond what another would consider initiating.

Example hypothetical. They could have been just making out and both ok with that, she getsy handsy and holds his stick and he interprets this as "oh she wants it!" and begins disrobing and what not. She however didn't consider this as initiating anything more than what she was doing, but she considers his disrobing as initiating. What is and is not initiating isn't clear cut and shouldn't be used as a basis for determining who is guilty of rape.

 

[Purity*]

People also need to understand. This girl is in a terrible situation already.

Her name is inevitably going to be leaked online.

If it comes out that she has been raped, once Kane was charged and sentenced sports fans are going to harass her and call her every name under the sun, tell her it was her fault and increase the guilt that she has to deal with. Maybe even will have have to move cities and probably live in fear and shame for a long time.

If it comes out that this is unfounded and can not be proved, she will actually have to face less PUBLIC consequences than this but will have to deal with the fact that justice has not been done and he is still out there so it will be worse for her as a human being with feelings.

And if it is fabricated then well it tells you more of the type of person who is not vulnerable and honestly should expect ridicule because it severely damages the claims of people who are actually raped.

So honestly, people need to realize there is a reason why so few rapes are reported to the police. It's because in our society victimizes the VICTIMS of rape and sexual assault.

Don't rape people, educate yourself on what you are doing before you do it. It ruins lives if you don't. And don't harass people even if you are annoyed.

It is pretty terrible. Not only would probably her name be leaked online, but more than likely pictures as well, and when it gets to a personal level like that, it turns into a terrible situation for any person.