|
THE MACHO MAN posted:He's not been charged with anything. They'd fight, rightfully, 100%. 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.
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
THE MACHO MAN posted:Why is that preferable to waiting and acting accordingly once the trial is concluded, which is generally what is done for most things that aren't dui/minor drug stuff or something where the player is jailed? 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?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Duro posted:stuff A) No? You're doing it in your answer under B). B) Statistically, fabrications in rape cases are rare. Therefore, I am presuming Kane is likely guilty. He absolutely deserves a fair trial and presumption of innocence by the actual court of law. He does not deserve my presumption of innocence - I can form an opinion if I want, and based on the stats I'm likely right about his guilt. C) Fair point. I would argue they're just as likely to lose money due to the cloud surrounding Kane and the Hawks while the trial etc goes on. The bad optics from this could cost sponsors, cause bad publicity, etc. So it's lose/lose in my opinion, and given that, they might as well take the moral high ground at least and keep the bad optics away from the sport. D) I'm not arguing Kane be punished. Being at home being paid millions of dollars is not a punishment. E) And if it goes to trial and he loses, the NHL loses in a big way too because people will rip them for how they handled it. Perdido posted:There's a difference between "benefit of the doubt" and being in favor of due process. I'm absolutely in favor of him having a fair trial and presumption of innocence by the court and NHL. The fact that the NHL would continue to pay him while he's under investigation but suspended seems to fall pretty well in line with giving him the benefit of the doubt but also protecting the integrity of the league. Ginette Reno fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Duro posted:
I'm not implying it does? I'm saying as a person that is not involved with the trial I can absolutely use stats and past actions to form an opinion of Kane's likely guilt or lacktherof. He will (rightly) be afforded a higher standard of guilt by the court. That doesn't mean I have to - or should - give a millionaire prick athlete the benefit of the doubt here. Given his wealth and access to good lawyers the vitriol he faces from the public might be the only shame he ever feels.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I'm not going to say I wouldn't have a more difficult time looking my next door neighbor in the eye if they were accused. But given that Patrick Kane is not a risk to me or my personal safety; it's okay to say from a distance that you trust police to do their jobs on this matter. If you don't, you have a lot bigger issues than this thread is really built to discuss. This is a lazy argument that is getting repeated by a lot of people and it has nothing to do with anything so maybe we should stop making it. I'm sure Hand Knit will be more than happy to probate anybody that is taking this so seriously that they can't reasonably discuss it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
It really is like a Law and Order episode at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Am I still allowed to despise Kane for being a rapist and the Blackhawks for harboring him or do I need to obey the court ruling
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Aurora posted:What court ruling? The inevitable one that will go in his favor
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
DJExile posted:It likely won't even get to that point. Charges still haven't been formally filed. Don't get technical with me in the lawyer thread mister
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 20:21
|
|