|
TrixR4kids posted:And that would be typical protocol? Not anywhere I've worked. If you're throwing something like that away, you're destroying the poo poo out of it to make it completely unrecognizable. Furnaceface posted:The charges were laid on October 10th upon his arrest. He was detained by police at the hospital. Regardless of whether he ought to have been suspended at the time or not, it's crystal clear that suspending him now would be wrong. That opportunity has long since passed.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Because it's rape we're talking about? Do you think it's wrong when a Police Officer shoots someone that they get suspended with pay while an investigation into what they did occurs? An officer having to shoot his gun and getting supsending during the investigation is a whole lot different than a private citizen getting accused of something with virtually no evidence to support such claims
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
You don't go to the grand jury with "virtually no" evidence.
flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
We don't know what evidence there is which is a little different than an absence of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Regardless of whether he ought to have been suspended at the time or not, it's crystal clear that suspending him now would be wrong. That opportunity has long since passed. This I agree with. They've made their bed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:You don't go to the grand jury with "virtually no" evidence. And how many times does it need to be repeated that the vast majority of rape cases are not fabricated?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
And people in it for the money usually don't turn down a settlement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:There's no tough decision to be made unless you're part of an old boys club that doesn't recognize that behaviour that was once accepted (gently caress puck bunny even if she's drunk / isn't totally cool with it) isn't accepted anymore. This is the dumbest thing I ever read. You don't know what happened, you weren't there. Stop projecting poo poo and making false assumptions. There is a downside: a potentially innocent person (we don't know yet if he's guilty, as much as you have already tried and convicted him in your mind) getting punished for a crime he didn't commit. The blackhawks lose in that scenario, Kane loses in that scenario, and the NHL loses in that scenario. And in case you haven't been paying attention to the world of sports law (I do, because it's part of my job), there have recently been athletes challenging leagues in court over their suspensions and winning. And some of these WERE guilty of what they did. Why should the NHL risk a lawsuit by hastily doing something against Kane before more details emerge on the case. I'm not a PR specialist, so I don't know if they should formally address the situation, but I personally would stay quiet for the time being. Jordan7hm posted:As long as they pay him, they have no responsibility to play him or allow him to attend team functions. No, it shouldn't be treated more seriously. I hate this dumb line of thinking. The accused took the necessary steps to take this matter forward, and it's the legal system's turn to settle this matter. What is this spineless white knight reaction to rape ACCUSATIONS? Ginette Reno posted:He should have been suspended from the start as a precaution. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspend him with pay until the investigation/trial is completed just as precautionary measure. Yes, and he will fight the NHL in court and it will create an even bigger shitshow, all over an accusation. Recent similar trials have not gone in favor of the professional sports leagues Jordan7hm posted:When they are convening a grand jury to decide whether or not to charge you, that is a serious enough accusation that it should give you pause for thought. Suspension with pay is not railroading him. It is the correct response given he is being accused of a very serious crime. Take some time away from the team to deal with your very serious personal problems. First of all, you are overstating the importance of a grand jury re: Kane's potential guilt. I doubt the PA will get involved in Kane's personal criminal defense trial, but you can bet your rear end that they will get involved if the NHL suspends him in any capacity before a finding of guilt has been made in the criminal trial. They will especially get involved if he gets suspended and is then found innocent. That's kinda their job. Also, if you think the league is handling it improperly, stop watching Hockey. There's your solution. Make a stance with your own dollars, but don't try to tell people that are actually involved in this process what they should or shouldn't be doing, because you are completely out of your element.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:You don't go to the grand jury with "virtually no" evidence. Actually, you can. Not saying it's the case here, but you guys are totally putting more importance into the grand jury thing than is necessary. It's a standard preliminary hearing to determine whether or not there is probable cause to determine whether or not the person committed the crime. In a rape case, that probable cause can come from VERY flimsy evidence, and might still be enough to go to trial. We're not talking documentary evidence or dna tests here, we're talking a person's examination in front the grand jury by the prosecution might be enough. Simple testimony. It's not "OMG GRAND JURY THAT MEANS THEY HAVE TONS OF EVIDENCE AND IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD FOR KANE" like you're implying
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Duro posted:Actually, you can. Not saying it's the case here, but you guys are totally putting more importance into the grand jury thing than is necessary. It's a standard preliminary hearing to determine whether or not there is probable cause to determine whether or not the person committed the crime. In a rape case, that probable cause can come from VERY flimsy evidence, and might still be enough to go to trial. We're not talking documentary evidence or dna tests here, we're talking a person's examination in front the grand jury by the prosecution might be enough. Simple testimony. I'm not implying squat. I'm saying that the prosecutor thinks the evidence they have is enough to get an indictment worth pursuing at trial, which is why they've gone through the trouble of trying to get one. You don't do that with no evidence, and very flimsy evidence is more than none. There is a LOT of space between "a possible indictment" and "a criminal conviction". Anyone who thinks one guarantees the other, especially when the defendant is a rich white man with a lot wealthy friends who would much rather see him out of jail than in, is a fool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
I don't know if he did anything wrong or not, and have said here and elsewhere that I do think there is a chance he is being falsely accused. But sitting at home while being paid millions is not a significant punishment, and makes no difference to the public perception of Kane's guilt or innocence. I am speaking solely to the move from a business perspective, and from a larger moral perspective. I think the NHL had very little to gain by taking the stance they took, and very much to gain by treating the accusation more seriously, both in terms of their own public image and in terms of what it means from a moral / societal perspective. Sexual violence is bad bad bad and even while we recognize the fact that an accusation is only that, it is still serious enough to have consequences. He's not being accused by a random person. He was with her, and something happened. Maybe it was rape, maybe not, that's for a court to decide. But the accusation itself is not nothing. The NHL had the chance to be on the right side of something here and send a firm message, and they blew it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I'm not implying squat. I'm saying that the prosecutor thinks the evidence they have is enough to get an indictment worth pursuing at trial, which is why they've gone through the trouble of trying to get one. You don't do that with no evidence, and very flimsy evidence is more than none. There is a LOT of space between "a possible indictment" and "a criminal conviction". Anyone who thinks one guarantees the other, especially when the defendant is a rich white man with a lot wealthy friends who would much rather see him out of jail than in, is a fool. Actually, the victim simply saying "he raped me" in front of a Grand Jury is probably enough for it to move to trial. The bar is seriously that low.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Duro posted:Actually, the victim simply saying "he raped me" in front of a Grand Jury is probably enough for it to move to trial. The bar is seriously that low. No surprise. Entire books have been written on the case law that comes out of Hesaid vs. Shesaid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:No surprise. Entire books have been written on the case law that comes out of Hesaid vs. Shesaid. Listen buddy, you're talking to a lawyer that practices law. Where did you go to law school again? Look at grand jury statistics in any jurisdiction. I bet you only a tiny fraction of grand jury proceedings don't return an indictment Oh wait, I don't have to do that. I can provide statistics here Guess, out of hundreds of thousands of cases in 2010, how many didn't return a true bill? The answer is 11 Once again, you can choose to ignore what I'm saying but you're out of your element and I'm calling you out on it as someone that knows what he's talking about. Edit: a Grand Jury isn't a trial, there is no judge. The prosecution goes in there alone and presents its case and evidence to a group of citizens. All the prosecution has to prove is: "is there a chance that the crime was committed". So yes, what's going to happen is the prosecutor will bring up witnesses that say "Kane was seen leaving the bar with the girl" or "We were Kane's house and the girl was there", and the Grand Jury will say "ok cool, let's take it to trial. That is the amazing evidence we're talking about here. It's almost a formality. You're acting as if it's a big deal. If it was a big deal, why aren't any publications talking about how important the grand jury is? Duro fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Duro, I think you should take some time to think about how you are posting in this thread, and whether or not you are posting in such a way that you are contributing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:Duro, I think you should take some time to think about how you are posting in this thread, and whether or not you are posting in such a way that you are contributing. I'm the only one, as far as I see, contributing actual legal knowledge. Is there a problem with that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
I am neither a lawyer nor an American. My impression was that the GJ system was supposed to act in concert with or in place of prosecutorial discretion to make sensible decisions about whether cases should go to trial. Isn't that what they're supposed to do? I guess I shouldn't be surprised to learn that they don't do that at all. Is it because prosecutors use their discretion to only present matters worth proceeding with, or because they'll indict a bowl of oatmeal and let the trial judges sort it all out? Where's the safety valve in all this where a grownup gets to say "Nope this isn't going anywhere, gently caress it"? I'll happily cop to putting a bit too much faith in that particular part of the machine. I thought it was a filter, not a funnel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I am neither a lawyer nor an American. My impression was that the GJ system was supposed to act in concert with or in place of prosecutorial discretion to make sensible decisions about whether cases should go to trial. Isn't that what they're supposed to do? I guess I shouldn't be surprised to learn that they don't do that at all. Is it because prosecutors use their discretion to only present matters worth proceeding with, or because they'll indict a bowl of oatmeal and let the trial judges sort it all out? Where's the safety valve in all this where a grownup gets to say "Nope this isn't going anywhere, gently caress it"? It's actually a little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B Theoretically, you should only present matters worth proceeding with. However, the threshold is so low that I'm sure indicting a bowl of oatmeal happens very often. With a Grand Jury, you're essentially answering the question "could it have happened?". So, unless a prosecutor has a hard time proving that a person was present at the time of the incident or wtv, it's easy to say "yeah, it could have happened. Let's go to trial and settle it". Edit: also, I don't remember for sure, but New York may automatically go to Gran Juries for certain charges. It's not really a choice, but rather a procedural mechanism that would theoretically help the accused get a fair process Duro fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Duro posted:I'm the only one, as far as I see, contributing actual legal knowledge. Is there a problem with that? I think that you should think about how others may read your posts, and just what it is that they will take from those posts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I think that you should think about how others may read your posts, and just what it is that they will take from those posts. Informed opinions on a relevant topic? Listen man, you clearly have a bias against me and target me specifically in these threads, while leaving everyone else alone. It's getting kind of ridiculous. I appreciate the warning this time and I'll try to be more mindful going forward, but don't target me for being snarky or opinionated when literally everyone else is snarky and opinionated over here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Not to derail too much but I think Hand knit is trying to explain that there's a way to tell someone facts without being mean about it, and your core is in question, not your ability. Kind of like how Kane's integrity is in question.... Considering how much of a shitheel he is in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Duro posted:Oh wait, I don't have to do that. I can provide statistics here Your point may be valid enough but you're using federal criminal data when most sexual assaults are not federal crimes. It's so high at the federal level because the feds can cherry-pick which cases to take to US district court and won't go to trial unless they're almost sure of a conviction or a plea deal, much less a grand jury indictment. State and local jurisdictions also return indictments at high rates but I think it's important to consider sexual assault data versus all felony data in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
So if a grand jury is a formality, we can consider Kane effectively going to trial already. Sounds like time to suspend him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Bregor posted:Your point may be valid enough but you're using federal criminal data when most sexual assaults are not federal crimes. It's so high at the federal level because the feds can cherry-pick which cases to take to US district court and won't go to trial unless they're almost sure of a conviction or a plea deal, much less a grand jury indictment. State and local jurisdictions also return indictments at high rates but I think it's important to consider sexual assault data versus all felony data in that regard. It was just easier for me to find federal stats, but I didn't look too hard for New York State stats or sexual assault stats. The core mechanics of the Grand Jury remain the same, and all I'm saying is that we shouldn't put too much weight into the matter proceeding in front of a grand jury, or if an indictment is eventually returned. This evidence issue is probably going to complicate things further and might sidetrack things. Whether the accused's lawyer made it all up or whether he was right and there was tampering, that's a side issue that will have to be dealt with and could end up being a huge distraction. Veskit posted:Not to derail too much but I think Hand knit is trying to explain that there's a way to tell someone facts without being mean about it, and your core is in question, not your ability. Oh, I caught that drift, but it's a fact that Hand Knit has unfairly targeted me in the past, when you consider that I post in many different threads and sub-forums, yet my only infractions come from his doing in SAS hockey threads. It's hard to stay 100% civilized when the vast majority of people in these threads, including the mod, are automatically against what you say from the start. I have a hard enough head that I don't back down from challenges and I guess it peeves him the wrong way? At least he was up front about it this time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:So if a grand jury is a formality, we can consider Kane effectively going to trial already. He hasn't even been formally charged yet, I think that now is a bad time to suspend him Edit: also, there is still a possibility that they don't indict him. If the witnesses that the prosecutor or grand jury call forward give inconclusive statements or if the DNA issue creates major doubts, there is still a chance (especially given the celebrity nature of the accused) that it doesn't lead to a formal indictment. I just found this interesting article on the topic, in case anyone wants to read more about the grand jury process as it relates to this case. The article is a bit old and was written before the DNA tampering stuff came to light. Duro fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Almost half of your probations came from Marty. That's a different person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Almost half of your probations came from Marty. That's a different person. All in the hockey threads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Duro posted:All in the hockey threads. perhaps the problem isn't the hockey threads
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Aye Doc posted:perhaps the problem isn't the hockey threads I'd say it is, given my impeccable track record elsewhere. In fact, that proves that the problem is the hockey threads
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Duro posted:Oh, I caught that drift, but it's a fact that Hand Knit has unfairly targeted me in the past, when you consider that I post in many different threads and sub-forums, yet my only infractions come from his doing in SAS hockey threads. It's hard to stay 100% civilized when the vast majority of people in these threads, including the mod, are automatically against what you say from the start. I have a hard enough head that I don't back down from challenges and I guess it peeves him the wrong way? At least he was up front about it this time. You really need to think about your life and your choices if you think arguing on an internet forum is a ~challenge~. You are very fragile. I mean, I know what your hair color is and how sexually attractive you perceive yourself to be, man, that's not something an absolute stranger who has never interacted with you should pick up just from your pseudonymous postings on an internet sports forum, and it reeks of insecurity and fragility. Your weird insistence that rooting for a team of hockey mans in any way reflects their glory onto you is also pretty fragile, honestly. I'll be thrilled if the Sharks ever win a Cup but it's not like it's going to mean poo poo about me as someone who roots for them. You're a pretty fragile, insecure dude.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Unless Duro is secretly Patrick Kane maybe we can get back to wildly speculating about things like how the victim had DNA from other people turn up in her kit (was it a party?), or what might have to happen for the NHL to actually suspend someone for being a horrible person instead of just a bad hockey player with a lovely contract?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:You really need to think about your life and your choices if you think arguing on an internet forum is a ~challenge~. You are very fragile. I mean, I know what your hair color is and how sexually attractive you perceive yourself to be, man, that's not something an absolute stranger who has never interacted with you should pick up just from your pseudonymous postings on an internet sports forum, and it reeks of insecurity and fragility. Your weird insistence that rooting for a team of hockey mans in any way reflects their glory onto you is also pretty fragile, honestly. I'll be thrilled if the Sharks ever win a Cup but it's not like it's going to mean poo poo about me as someone who roots for them. You're a pretty fragile, insecure dude. Please stop derailing this thread with talk about me, and refrain from personal attacks. You might want to brush up on the rules here buddy
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Jesus, derailing the derail thread. I just want to point out that the big disconnect between the two nebulous sides in this thread seems to be deeply rooted in differences of opinion about the effectiveness and ability of the U.S. justice system to mete out unbiased justice. Just an observation, but I would like to point out that trials of this type and the popularity of one of parties historically has lead to crazy distortions of justice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
IBurnStuffAlot posted:Jesus, derailing the derail thread. Uh, not really. I think everyone expects nothing's going to happen to him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
There are a couple of other disconnects, such as whether it's okay to have things like Brian Banks happen. A lot needs to be done to get away from slut shaming, etc. (I've heard some pretty bad things about the accuser in this case at work, from people I ordinarily don't think of as terrible people), but destroying due process will have bad effects for some innocent people but you get called a victim blamer for pointing that out here and suggesting fixing the justice system symptomatically. For the record I think Kane is guilty, and even if he isn't, his girlfriend is really dumb for not dumping him because he's obviously hooking up with lots of other girls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
THE MACHO MAN posted:Allowing the legal process to play out on a very unclear trial is the correct thing to do, something anyone else here would want in a similar situation in their professional life. Justice is not any less served if he's found guilty and immediately banned, suspended, jailed, etc. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I speak to differing perceptions about the efficacy of justice. I can pull more explicit examples, but the implicit ones are more difficult to do without crazy amounts of context IBurnStuffAlot fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:There are a couple of other disconnects, such as whether it's okay to have things like Brian Banks happen. Pleading guilty to a crime you did not commit should never be preferable to going through a fair trial, but here we are. quote:anks was arrested and charged after classmate Wanetta Gibson falsely accused him of dragging her into a stairway at Polytechnic High School (Poly) and raping her. Faced with a possible 41 years to life sentence, he accepted a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years of probation, and registering as a sex offender.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Nail Rat posted:There are a couple of other disconnects, such as whether it's okay to have things like Brian Banks happen. A lot needs to be done to get away from slut shaming, etc. (I've heard some pretty bad things about the accuser in this case at work, from people I ordinarily don't think of as terrible people), but destroying due process will have bad effects for some innocent people but you get called a victim blamer for pointing that out here and suggesting fixing the justice system symptomatically. I think that on the contrary, too much weight is put on the accusation/accuser and not enough is put on the respect of due process and presumption of innocence. Since the story came out, people such as yourself that have quite literally zero evidence to support their claim, are stating with conviction that Kane is guilty. Do you not realize how wrong it is to blindly side with rape accusers? And I know you're doing it because you feel like you have some ultra liberal moral obligation to defend those poor innocent women, because clearly we live in a patriarchy and defending a person's right to defend themselves from accusations is akin to "slut shaming". And I'm not saying we should blindly side with Kane either, nor am I saying that we should insult the accuser. In fact, I admire the accuser for taking the right steps from the beginning. But whether you like it or not, Kane is innocent until proven otherwise. How about we leave it in the capable hands of the legal system and wait for an actual decision to be made by a court of law before stating that Kane is guilty of anything. Then, once that's done, go hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:16
|
|