|
Aphrodite posted:Uh, not really. I think everyone expects nothing's going to happen to him. And here's another person who believes that the justice system can handle a case like this properly. I'm not saying that duro is wrong or that it is destined to fail, I just want to point out that I'm not just making poo poo up. The part of the dichotomy is trust in the courts to function properly. Duro posted:
Edit:Understanding presuppositions like this is good for civil discourse is the point I'm trying to make IBurnStuffAlot fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Sep 24, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Duro posted:capable hands of the legal system I get what you're saying here but uhhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Duro posted:Do you not realize how wrong it is to blindly side with rape accusers? Until the number of false accusers becomes anything other than insignificant, blindly siding with the accuser is almost never the wrong thing to do Duro posted:you have some ultra liberal moral obligation to defend those poor innocent women Yeah it's called being a decent loving human maybe you should try it sometime
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
IBurnStuffAlot posted:And here's another person who believes that the justice system can handle a case like this properly. I'm not saying that duro is wrong or that it is destined to fail, I just want to point out that I'm not just making poo poo up. The part of the dichotomy is trust in the courts to function properly. Duro is the system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Do you really have such little faith in your country's legal system? What makes you think like that? I think things go both ways. The USA is a huge country with a ton of people, so yeah, there will be kinks in the system. It's inevitable and human nature. But the big problems faced by americans, I would argue, tend to gravitate towards the access to justice issue: poor people not being able to afford lawyers. Yes, this is a celebrity case so it's harder to prosecute them. But at the same time, the accuser can either afford the lawyer herself, or the lawyer is willing to work for less/contingency BECAUSE of the celebrity nature of the case and the exposure he will get from taking this to trial. So the accuser, one way or another, is going to be properly represented. It's just the other side of this "celebrity trials are unfair" coin
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
It would be nice if the NHL could provide a crystal clear statement given what actions are going to be taken (ex. suspension if/when Kane is charged etc.), but they haven't and probably won't. Given the seriousness of the situation and how Voynov's case was handled I would expect Kane to be suspended if charges are laid but not before then. That may make NHL look bad (especially if Kane is formally charged) but literally ever action the NHL could take right now is going to look bad to someone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
No action will ever be taken because rich old white men give no fucks about "boys being boys". Duro posted: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. When rape victims come forward, the default reaction is to believe them and this reaction is objectively correct. It's got nothing to do with avoiding "slut shaming" and everything to do with the accuser knowing full well that the onus is on them to prove what they're saying or be forever branded a liar. If I say my phone was stolen my friends won't wave fingers at me and yell BULLSHIT DUDE. Also, I choose to think that accusing a famous person means you have to be extra-sure your ducks in a row before you open your mouth (whether he's guilty like Ghomeshi or just weird like Jacko), and I think a lot of other people probably have bias against the accused for that reason too. We're private citizens, not judges. We make up our minds about things with imperfect information all the time. Two people can look at an incomplete set of information and form two different opinions and that's perfectly okay because our skulls aren't courtrooms. Patrick Kane is not entitled to due process in my head. I can think it's probable that he did it (which I do) while also acknowledging that I don't have all the facts and something could come out five minutes from now that will turn everything I think I know about this file upside-down. Whether he ought to be convicted is impossible to say with what we know. Whether he will be convicted is a much easier call. So far as what the league ought to have done about it, well that's really a function of how image-conscious the old boys who run the league are about that sort of th 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
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. Haha Duro's post have been fair and level headed, talking from real experience. Sorry that you don't agree with him, but that's the point of a discussion forum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:And people in it for the money usually don't turn down a settlement. Please show evidence that the accuser turned down a settlement
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Duro posted:Do you really have such little faith in your country's legal system? What makes you think like that? I used to have a lot of faith in the system but then a few patterns arising have eroded that somewhat: police indictments vs civilan indictments(federally), sentence length for minorities vs whites, DuPont heir child rape trial, issues regarding separation of church and state court decisions. Granted these are mostly unrelated to the case at hand, but taken as an aggregate I think they suggest systemic issues with our justice system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Paulocaust posted:Please show evidence that the accuser turned down a settlement Kane's lawyer has said that there never even were settlement talks
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Fateo McMurray posted:Until the number of false accusers becomes anything other than insignificant, blindly siding with the accuser is almost never the wrong thing to do No, it's called doing things properly. It's called not being reactionary. This is a legal matter, whether you like it or not. We deal with legal matters in a specific way, and we wait for facts to be proven before making a decision. Without facts, without properly scrutinizing every exact detail of the circumstances surrounding the event, you can't come to a proper conclusion on the innocence or guilt of the accused person. That's why people should wait for a decision and read it in its entirety before having an opinion on someone's guilt or innocence. What you're doing goes against that very notion. You expect the legal system to work and for convicted criminals to be punished, but you don't want to respect the process. According to you, a single person's word if that person happens to be a girl that got raped, is enough to qualify the accused person as being guilty. So the question I have for you is: do you want to live in a civilized society, or do you want street/mob justice? Cause it seems to be that you're letting your bleeding heart dictate what the appropriate course of action should be, and that poo poo doesn't fly in a court of law when someone's life, livelihood and freedom are on the line. You're going to have to learn to be more impartial if you want to be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
This is America, buddy. I'm free to form opinions on anyone I want regardless of evidence. Kane is a shitheel and I hope he gets 17 years in jail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Aye Doc posted:Kane's lawyer has said that there never even were settlement talks Yeah so maybe she didn't turn down any settlement offer. What I meant is she's apparently not seeking one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Aye Doc posted:Kane's lawyer has said that there never even were settlement talks My point exactly. The lengths that these Patrick Kane witch hunters will go to delude themselves that he's 100% guilty is amazing. The guy may very well be guilty. But no one in this thread is saying he's unequivocally innocent like there are people saying he's unequivocally guilty. I have no vested interest and think he's definitely a bro douche regardless of conviction, but this is why we have a legal system, as broken as some may think it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:No action will ever be taken because rich old white men give no fucks about "boys being boys". I'd say that it's objectively wrong. It's always up to the accuser to prove what they are saying, that is the essence of criminal defense trials. What you're implying is that there should be some sort of unwritten and invisible reverse-onus situation, which goes against our written law. Well, there is no reverse-onus here, so a person accused of sexual assault should be handed the exact same treatment as a person accused of murder or stealing. Your example is completely flawed. If you tell your friends "someone stole my phone", your friends are likely to believe you. But if you tell your friends "Patrick Kane stole my phone". Well prove it. The system isn't perfect, but it's the best that we have. Criminal laws could be clearer and sentences could be more lenient under certain circumstances, but there's no such thing as a "perfect" trial. We're all human.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Fateo McMurray posted:This is America, buddy. I'm free to form opinions on anyone I want regardless of evidence. Kane is a shitheel and I hope he gets 17 years in jail. Yes, and there's a reason why you don't make such decisions. You can have an opinion on the work of those who do, sure, but you personally have no say. As it should be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Yeah so maybe she didn't turn down any settlement offer. There's always the civil trial
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Paulocaust posted:My point exactly. The lengths that these Patrick Kane witch hunters will go to delude themselves that he's 100% guilty is amazing. The guy may very well be guilty. But no one in this thread is saying he's unequivocally innocent like there are people saying he's unequivocally guilty. I have no vested interest and think he's definitely a bro douche regardless of conviction, but this is why we have a legal system, as broken as some may think it is. Who is saying he's unequivocally guilty? I've mostly seen people couching it on both sides. (Also duro's arguments were fine and he didn't cross a line or anything, he is just coming at it from a perspective I strongly disagree with.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this is how it works, but if I'm wrong, someone call me out on my bullshit. If a person says no, and someone else has sex with them anyway, regardless of what the courts say they were raped. A woman, said Patrick Kane raped her, thus, it is what it is. Legal chat is entirely different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Duro posted: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. Again, for the millionth time, most rape cases are not fabricated. There is a high degree of likelihood that Kane is guilty. What the justice system will decide is anyone's guess, but the NHL isn't bound by innocent until proven guilty and given the statistics on rape cases as well as the damage to their image - and the moral quandary of letting a potential rapist continue to represent the brand - there is no reason the NHL shouldn't have suspended him with pay while this gets resolved. As Jordan so saliently pointed out, sitting at home with pay is not a punishment to Kane, and is a completely reasonable course of action for the NHL to take.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Patrick Kane has bad hair and is therefor, a Bad Man case closed
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
The bar to clear in terms of burden of proof when the state is going to take away your freedom is by necessity very high, but that doesn't mean a criminal conviction is the measure everyone else has to use to determine guilt. See: civil trials against people who were acquitted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Duro posted:Do you really have such little faith in your country's legal system? What makes you think like that? Are you loving kidding me? Off the top of my head, racial sentencing disparities, school to prison pipelines, excessive drug possession prosecution, DA's who prosecute cases because it looks good for their political careers, rich people avoiding charges and prosecution strictly because of their wealth. And that's just off the top of my head. My god, do you really not see the systemic problems with our legal system? And you're a lawyer, no less? That is worrying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
toxicsunset posted:Patrick Kane has bad hair and is therefor, a Bad Man case closed I can get behind this. Jordan7hm posted:The bar to clear in terms of burden of proof when the state is going to take away your freedom is by necessity very high, but that doesn't mean a criminal conviction is the measure everyone else has to use to determine guilt. See: civil trials against people who were acquitted. OJ did it. Then again, he didn't wear a glove.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:Are you loving kidding me? He's Canadian. I mean I don't have the stats for Canada or anything but it's probably a little better here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Veskit posted:I'm pretty sure this is how it works, but if I'm wrong, someone call me out on my bullshit. Well yeah, duh, the first part of that is the basic definition of rape in a general sense. The questions involved with the second part of your statement here are a) whether Kane had sex with her (I haven't seen anything re:him claiming consensual sex, but that depends on whether the rape kit leak thing re:no signs of his DNA is real or not, and if it's wrong he obviously will), and b) whether the sex, if it occurred, was consensual (which is a quagmire of a legal case.) A woman (or man) claiming rape does not retroactively turn then-consensual sex into rape (though, of course, the word "consensual" means soberly given consent, not a drunken shudder or anything of the sort.) The case itelf is weird, and while it's correct to assume that the woman isn't lying, things like the negative rape kit make this less of a typical sort of thing. Regardless, Kane is scummy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Veskit posted:I'm pretty sure this is how it works, but if I'm wrong, someone call me out on my bullshit. The question then becomes how do you prove someone said no beyond he said / she said. Evidence of trauma or DNA is usually a good indicator of that, but not always present in every case. Then it sort of becomes a character assassination side show. I tend to be biased toward accusers/victims as well because what is there to really gain from making a rape accusation? How pessimistic or paranoid would you have to be to think that they're doing it for nefarious purposes. I would say that a good portion of rape victims who try to seek justice are often treated worse than the alleged rapist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Duro posted:I'd say that it's objectively wrong. It's always up to the accuser to prove what they are saying, that is the essence of criminal defense trials. What you're implying is that there should be some sort of unwritten and invisible reverse-onus situation, which goes against our written law. No, what I'm saying is that when a woman steps forward and says she was raped, our first reaction should not be "pff you're just after his money". It shouldn't be "  BURN THE WITCH" either, but forming an opinion 1% closer to the second one than the first is much safer, both from a balance of probabilities and from a harm reduction point of view. Yeah, being falsely accused sucks, but it happens so rarely and the punishments for it are severe enough that if you look askance at the alleged bad guy you're not going to cause harm most of the time. That kind of thinking is entirely distinct from what happens in a legal proceeding in a court of law, because that proceeding is held to a higher standard. I was talking strictly about each of us making up their own mind about what happened based on the imperfect information we have: A woman accused him of rape, samples were taken from her, a police report was filed, criminal charges are being considered. With a view to all that, I think it's likelier than not that he did it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
My dude said "askance" drat
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
It is worth repeating over and over and over again that bringing charges of rape or sexual assault is typically a very difficult process even when it involves two regular people off the street. It involves a lot of hurdle-jumping, telling a story about something awful that happened to you the same way to multiple people multiple times, and having the courage to publicly testify against your attacker in open court. All of these things taken individually are super difficult, and combined are almost impossible. When you throw in the fact the victim's attacker in this instance is a wealthy, extraordinarily high-profile athlete, it's even tougher to come forward. Kane is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:Are you loving kidding me? Yeah I brought this same point up, but its much more convenient to ignore it in favor of a normative view of the system
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
toxicsunset posted:My dude said "askance" drat Kane probably just anced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
IBurnStuffAlot posted:Yeah I brought this same point up, but its much more convenient to ignore it in favor of a normative view of the system
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Innocent until proven guilty applies to most things, including the inevitable civil trial. The burden of proof will change depending on who is determining guilt though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
So everyone that wants to give Kane the benefit of the doubt is aware he's a guy that beat up a cab driver over a nickel, right? This is the guy you're asking us to give the benefit of the doubt to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Again, for the millionth time, most rape cases are not fabricated. There is a high degree of likelihood that Kane is guilty. What the justice system will decide is anyone's guess, but the NHL isn't bound by innocent until proven guilty and given the statistics on rape cases as well as the damage to their image - and the moral quandary of letting a potential rapist continue to represent the brand - there is no reason the NHL shouldn't have suspended him with pay while this gets resolved. A) I never claimed that rape cases are fabricated B) What are you basing "there is a high degree of likelihood that Kane is guilty" on? Your blind belief in a rape accuser's story? Even if zero rape cases are fabricated, Kane is still entitled to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence, whether he's an athlete or joe schmo. C) The NHL isn't bound by "innocent until proven guilty", but they are bound by contractual obligations. The safest way to punish Kane is after a determination of criminal guilt has already been made. Until then, they open themselves up to a lawsuit by the NHLPA and Kane over the fact that he was unjustly punished. In case you haven't been paying attention, many recent cases of athletes vs leagues on the topic of suspensions have been ending in favor of the athlete. The NHL isn't stupid. The court of public opinion means little to them if appeasing the pitchfork mob opens them up to a juicy lawsuit that they are likely to lose. People aren't going to stop watching hockey just because one star is accused of raping someone. And athletes are much more likely to use the legal system these days when facing a suspension because if these decisions are made arbitrarily based on flimsy interpretations of agreements or by-laws or wtv, then it's easy to win. D) Kane has already been punished due to this in certain ways: endorsement deals. It's simpler there, because his contractual obligations concern only himself with regards to the company. It's a different relationship between him and the NHL, especially with a union involved. E) If this does go to trial and Kane loses, he'll have much bigger problems to face than a suspension. Possible jail time and being refused entry into Canada are the big ones. His career will be over regardless. That's another reason why it makes little sense to punish him now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
I agree, and like many of the protections afforded to us its often raised as a banner to suppress opposing views. While Kane might be innocent until he is formally convicted (loving lol), he's not insulated from us all knowing that he probably raped that woman. There's no requirement of reasonable doubt in terms of public opinion Edit: I meant to quote Pat Clements and I can't copy/paste on an Android device apparently
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Harlock posted:All the information and rumors swirling about whose DNA is actually in the kit or what has been "leaked" is all unverified information coming from questionable sources. Even further, it's pretty sketchy and a serious breach of the system for people to leak out information like this in an ongoing investigation. Actually, what has come out regarding the DNA evidence has been confirmed by both lawyers. Completely agree that the leaks are very serious and shouldn't be happening, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Perdido posted:Actually, what has come out regarding the DNA evidence has been confirmed by both lawyers. Completely agree that the leaks are very serious and shouldn't be happening, though. I believe that was chapter three in "How to Poison a Jury Pool".
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:22
|
|