Really wish we didn't need a part two...
Sarava, two leftover questions from the previous thread.
1. Please explain how anything the bar owner said impacts what she reportedly told police regarding what transpired at Kane's house.
2. What is the alleged victim's 'agenda' that you referred to?
Here's a more appropriate primer on what is considered objective from a legal perspective:
http://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2...al-statements/
Where did I say I had more information? Why are you making crap up?
But the second something comes out that doesn't fit the alleged victim's agenda, it's victim blaming? That's crap.
1) I never said that directly impacts it. I did answer this question twice already, with how I think it could potentially affect a trial (if one comes about). Feel free to go back and read it. I'm not going to answer the same question 16 times.
2) The victim's agenda or story. Don't read to hard in to that.
Marotte Marauder;
I don't think you quite yourself understand the point you are trying to make if you provide that as a link to back your comment. Care to explain?
Sarava:
Well, you wrote
If we are to comment on a story that doesn't "fit the alleged victim's agenda", logically there has to be an agenda that this information doesn't fit. Since no information has been released that even slightly suggests an agenda, please explain why you reached the conclusion that there is one.
1. If you can't even theorize as to how the bar owner's statements impact her allegations, you're confirming their irrelevance. Avoided the question 16 times is more like it.
2. Agenda is a loaded word. You can pretend to not know that.
Really wish we didn't need a part two...
Perhaps it is. I was actually going to use the word 'story' first. Then I thought, oh that could be taken as I'm saying she is lying. So I changed it and I still get nitpicked. I guess 'version of events' would be the most proper. Of course, this is where the word 'agenda' does fit. Because only people with an 'agenda' in this discussion would nitpick something like that
You're not being nitpicked. Your agenda is clear.
On another note. Was reading JJ's blog. He and some others think Kane is probably a goner from the Hawks either way this turns out.
What do you all think? Obviously if he is charged and convicted that would be it. But what if he isn't charged or is charged and gets off?
At this point I'll guess he stays, but I wouldn't blame the Hawks if they moved him. And another thought is he might be hard to move with that 10.5 mil caphit if it is felt he has baggage.
If he's not charged/convicted, he'll remain a Hawk. I'll put money on it.
Like 3 cents then?If he's not charged/convicted, he'll remain a Hawk. I'll put money on it.
How do you get rid of Kane? Terminate his contract? I guess, but it'd be pretty terrible to lose a face of your franchise for nothing. Trade him? Not many teams have cap space for Kane, and we probably wouldn't get fair value knowing the recent events. Neither of those options are good for the franchise too, as many fans would be up in arms if nothing happened and then they trade Kane. Honestly, unless he is charged I don't think it's really realistic. If he is charged, then the conversation becomes much more realistic.