Player Discussion Evander Kane - Part II - (July 22 -Turns himself into BPD/charged)

[Sabre the Win]

A conspiracy theory? Don't you get that this sort of thing is commonly known to frequently happen? Your post sounds very naive. Hanging out in front of a police station to catch a big story would be a bad idea. How often are you going to find a big story doing that? Chances are probably never. You'd be lucky to find any story to write most of the time.

How often are you going to find a big story not doing it. Wouldn't life be so grand if everything just fell into our laps.

 

[DapperCam]

Conspiracy theory: Kane tipped off TBN himself, hoping the bad press would infuriate Murray and force a trade.

 

[Husko]

How often are you going to find a big story not doing it. Wouldn't life be so grand if everything just fell into our laps.

Which is exactly what hoping to get a story by benching outside a police station is. Reporters/journalists can't just hang outside police stations (or anywhere else for that matter) all day waiting for something to fall into their laps. They have jobs to do.

 

[Paxon]

How often are you going to find a big story not doing it. Wouldn't life be so grand if everything just fell into our laps.

That's not what I'm getting at. I'm not saying reporters should not go looking for stories. What I'm saying is that's just not a good place to go looking for a story, especially since perp walks are things reporters often get tipped off to, anyhow. Even if you take the latter out of the equation, you still are just looking at a strategy of pretty terrible efficiency. You make it seem like there is a lot of newsworthy stuff going on in front of police stations, which is not the case.

 

[joshjull]

I don't care if EK cares. I care. You should care. People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. No suspect should ever be paraded in front of the media for a photo op unless convicted of a crime. All of these charges could be dropped tomorrow and never see trial, yet now there's a photo of the guy getting cuffed on the sidewalk on the internet for the rest of his life. There was a case in the 90s that a suspect was arrested, and a few hours after he was booked, he was taken back outside, driven around the block, and perp walked AGAIN so another TV station could get their shot.

Do you think TBN 'just happened' to have a reporter and photog outside central booking when Kane is showing up with counsel to turn himself in, weeks after the incident in question? That wasn't an accident. They got tipped off, and they were there waiting It's an EXCEPTIONALLY common police tactic to do stuff like this for higher profile suspects, or when they're pissed that they couldn't nail a suspect on something else, and they get another crack at him.

Why should we care?

Anyone who can rub two brain cells together knows this is standard fair with celebrities. We also know it doesn't mean a thing about his guilt or innocence. Nor does being charged with a crime mean he's guilty for that matter. Just like on the flip side not getting convicted, or even charged, doesn't mean the person didn't do something wrong or illegal.

You've gone on several rants to defend Kane from all of the "injustices" done to him by the fans, media and BPD. Yet not a single thing he's done in the past bothers you one iota. You have done some incredible linguistic gymnastics to excuse away anything that's been tied to Kane since he was in juniors. And I'm not just talking about suspected or alleged criminal activity. I'm talking about issues, problems or whatever you want to call them with teammates, management and fans. In your mind none of matters at all. But they cuffed him on camera?! Disgusting! Outrageous!


Not to mention its a pretty bizarre to worry about his reputation taking a hit due to getting cuffed on camera. Whatever damage was done to his rep already happened before he was cuffed due to the incident itself and the talk surrounding it.


Kane has a pattern of, for lack of a better word, stupid behavior that needs fixing. Our GM is rightfully annoyed/pissed by it and is going to have a sit down with him. For Kane's own sake I hope its a productive meeting. Where they figure out a way to keep him away from the situations he finds himself in. EDIT: Because there is a very positive side to Kane IMO that we see quite bit in the public eye as well as stories or things he's done for kids. Lets fix the bad and keep that good side rolling along.

 

[Husko]

Why should we care?

Those concerned with civil liberties usually live by the idea that if you (meaning the government) can offend one person's, even the most evil, civil liberties, you can offend anyone's.

You've gone on several rants to defend Kane from all of the "injustices" done to him by the fans, media and BPD. Yet not a single thing he's done in the past bothers you one iota. You have done some incredible linguistic gymnastics to excuse away anything that's been tied to Kane since he was in juniors. And I'm not just talking about suspected or alleged criminal activity. I'm talking about issues, problems or whatever you want to call them with teammates, management and fans. In your mind none of matters at all. But they cuffed him on camera?! Disgusting! Outrageous!

I don't want to speak for sacktastic, but is it not possible to be troubled by the reoccurring events while still not liking the way he is treated?

Not to mention its a pretty bizarre to worry about his reputation taking a hit due to getting cuffed on camera. Whatever damage was done to his rep already happened before he was cuffed due to the incident itself and the talk surrounding it.

I'd say being on camera being cuffed carries with it a sort of connotation and association most don't want.

Kane has a pattern of, for lack of a better word, stupid behavior that needs fixing. Our GM is rightfully annoyed/pissed by it and is going to have a sit down with him. For Kane's own sake I hope its a productive meeting. Where they figure out a way to keep him away from the situations he finds himself in. EDIT: Because there is a very positive side to Kane IMO that we see quite bit in the public eye as well as stories or things he's done for kids. Lets fix the bad and keep that good side rolling along.

Agreed.

 

[BowieSabresFan]

"Those concerned with civil liberties usually live by the idea that if you (meaning the government) can offend one person's, even the most evil, civil liberties, you can offend anyone's."

Which of his civil liberties have been offended?

 

[SackTastic]

Those concerned with civil liberties usually live by the idea that if you (meaning the government) can offend one person's, even the most evil, civil liberties, you can offend anyone's.
...
I don't want to speak for sacktastic, but is it not possible to be troubled by the reoccurring events while still not liking the way he is treated?
...
I'd say being on camera being cuffed carries with it a sort of connotation and association most don't want.

You're right where I am on this.

I don't personally like that EK keeps finding his way into 'situations' that require some degree of law enforcement involvement, even if he has not been found guilty in a court of law. However, what I _like_ doesn't really matter all that much.

I DO however think he has been treated EXCEPTIONALLY unfairly by many, guilt or innocent notwithstanding. Even considering that he a Sabres player in a hockey insane town, the amount of negative media coverage given to an individual who has only just now been charged with a crime (that isn't likely to stick) is absurd.

The handcuffing thing? BPD can posture all they want how it's policy, but that's whatever to me. The bigger issue is HOW it was done with the media tip first to make a photo op out of it. I do strongly believe that should the suspect in this case have been a man in his 20s from Clarence this doesn't happen, and THAT'S not right. The last 30 years or so are full of cases where media spectacles were made out of suspect arrests, only to later see those charges dropped.

The media is quick to splash a 'sexy' photo on the front page from a perp walk, but they tend to put the corrections buried in the middle of the B section. If it could happen to EK, it could happen to you, it could happen to me. THAT'S why I care about this stuff.

 

[rtfirefly]

I DO however think he has been treated EXCEPTIONALLY unfairly by many, guilt or innocent notwithstanding.

Some might argue (should the allegations of the witnessed activity be verified) that the woman who was seized by the hair, grabbed around the neck, pushed toward Kane's car, and called a **** was the recipient of unfair treatment. Some might even regard it as EXCEPTIONALLY unfair. Some on this board have stated, however, that they are unconcerned by any off-ice behavior, thus it is no big deal.

 

[SackTastic]

"Those concerned with civil liberties usually live by the idea that if you (meaning the government) can offend one person's, even the most evil, civil liberties, you can offend anyone's."

Which of his civil liberties have been offended?

There is case law (Lauro v. Charles) that states parading a suspect in front of the media for no other purpose than to have the media see it serves no legitimate law enforcement interest, and is a 4th Amendment violation.

Of course, this is why law enforcement has 'handcuff policies' and such, even when they aren't commonly followed. All they have to do then, like they did here, is arrest EK on the sidewalk and cuff him, which takes a minute or two, gives the media time to take their pics of video, and since it constitutes 'normal police activity', it's covered. It the same reason why most perp walks are when a suspect under arrest is being walked to a car or something like that; It's then 'normal police business' and not a violation.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Subtle actions like this that imply guilt are way worse than many people seem to think.

 

[SackTastic]

Some might argue (should the allegations of the witnessed activity be verified) that the woman who was seized by the hair, grabbed around the neck, pushed toward Kane's car, and called a **** was the recipient of unfair treatment. Some might even regard it as EXCEPTIONALLY unfair. Some on this board have stated, however, that they are unconcerned by any off-ice behavior, thus it is no big deal.

Would you say the same if she was throwing drinks on Kane , calling him racial epithets, and slapping him in the face for 3 hours before the incident?

Now, I am not saying any of those things happened. Nor am I making any statement that says I'm OK with assaulting anybody. (Although, as I will point out, he was not charged with assaulting anybody.)

Simply stating that may be plenty of extenuating circumstances that nobody knows about. As I'm sure our law enforcement friends can attest, there are plenty of occasions that they have had to file charges against circumstances where every party was trash, but they had to do their jobs anyways.

Every suspect is not automatically an evil monster. Every victim is not automatically a shining innocent angel.

 

[BowieSabresFan]

There is case law (Lauro v. Charles) that states parading a suspect in front of the media for no other purpose than to have the media see it serves no legitimate law enforcement interest, and is a 4th Amendment violation.

Of course, this is why law enforcement has 'handcuff policies' and such, even when they aren't commonly followed. All they have to do then, like they did here, is arrest EK on the sidewalk and cuff him, which takes a minute or two, gives the media time to take their pics of video, and since it constitutes 'normal police activity', it's covered. It the same reason why most perp walks are when a suspect under arrest is being walked to a car or something like that; It's then 'normal police business' and not a violation.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Subtle actions like this that imply guilt are way worse than many people seem to think.

I think you are going way out on a limb with the implication of a 4th Amendment violation. Also, cuffing someone doesn't imply guilt.

As others have said, I find your selective self-righteousness on this issue interesting.

 

[joshjull]

Those concerned with civil liberties usually live by the idea that if you (meaning the government) can offend one person's, even the most evil, civil liberties, you can offend anyone's.

Not caring about him getting cuffed means I don't care about civil liberties? I think you may want to drop the sweeping generalities.

I don't want to speak for sacktastic, but is it not possible to be troubled by the reoccurring events while still not liking the way he is treated?

It certainly is. But the recurring theme I got from Sakctastic was dismissal of the recurring events. Because the only reason those recurring events are even a thing is due to unfair treatment of Kane by the press, fans, etc. Thus they never should have been brought up and are not worth worrying about. (thats my understanding of his stance/not attributing that to you)

I'd say being on camera being cuffed carries with it a sort of connotation and association most don't want.

In a vacuum, sure. But I was responding to the idea that is rep is taking a hit from being in cuffs. In this specific situation everyone knows whats going on. It was known well before he was involved in an incident. It was known before this picture emerged that he was turning himself in and was getting charged with a few things. His rep took a hit awhile ago due to this. You could argue it took another hit with charges being brought. But getting cuffed in this particular case is hardly something the will tip the scale for anyone.

Now if no one knew a single thing about this situation and a picture of Kane getting cuffed was the first time any info about it came out. Then I would agree with the idea it would hurt his rep more. Since it would be shocking in that context and have more of an impact. But in the context of this situation I don't see it as a very big deal. I doubt very many people saw that picture before already knowing about the police reports and then later the charges brought. In that context its not very shocking or would even be viewed as unusual.

Agreed.

I think most would agree on that.

 

[Husko]

I think you are going way out on a limb with the implication of a 4th Amendment violation. Also, cuffing someone doesn't imply guilt.

As others have said, I find your selective self-righteousness on this issue interesting.

What is self-righteous about not liking that the police cuffed him publicly where the press could take picture, when he (sack) believes that an alternative was available? Is there something self-righteous about not liking that action be law enforcement? I really don't get what is morally superior about that opinion?

 

[Husko]

In a vacuum, sure. But I was responding to the idea that is rep is taking a hit from being in cuffs. In this specific situation everyone knows whats going on. It was known well before he was involved in an incident. It was known before this picture emerged that he was turning himself in and was getting charged with a few things. His rep took a hit awhile ago due to this. You could argue it took another hit with charges being brought. But getting cuffed in this particular case is hardly something the will tip the scale for anyone.

Now if no one knew a single thing about this situation and a picture of Kane getting cuffed was the first time any info about it came out. Then I would agree with the idea it would hurt his rep more. Since it would be shocking in that context and have more of an impact. But in the context of this situation I don't see it as a very big deal. I doubt very many people saw that picture before already knowing about the police reports and then later the charges brought. In that context its not very shocking or would even be viewed as unusual.

I think the connotation and association still carries. Pictures, images, etc. they mean something. Where as words can fade away, a picture can easily be reposted and republished over and over again. Maybe it's less of a big deal as words are now so easily memorialized on the internet, but at least to me the picture strikes me as particularly invasive. There's something powerful about the image. It's why juries don't get to see the defendant in jail attire/shackles, even though everyone clearly knows the defendant is being charged with a crime (though obviously those are two different situations).

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Even if this was a "perp walk", which I doubt, it was a really lame attempt. It resulted in one photo where Kane's one wrist appears to be getting cuffed. He's not fully cuffed with both hands behind his back, he's not being walked anywhere, let alone some distance that would allow a "parade". It seems as if there's one friggin' camera.

This isn't even a perp walk. If there was any reason for cuffing him outside other than policy, I wouldn't be surprised if it had more to do with Cambria. Since Cambria talked about having a conversation with BPD about not cuffing Kane, I can imagine someone thought, "Screw Cambria, he doesn't tell us how to work", and told a detective to cuff him anyway.

However it happened, bottom line is it's a low level case that won't go to a jury trial. There is no actual harm Kane suffered from influencing a future jury. Everyone knows if you get arrested, you probably get hand cuffed at some point. It's not some affliction to his civil liberties. There's photos in the news every day of a hand cuffed suspect getting put into the back of a patrol car. Somehow they get over the horror of the pic getting posted on a news site.

 

[toomuchsauce]

I think you are going way out on a limb with the implication of a 4th Amendment violation. Also, cuffing someone doesn't imply guilt.

As others have said, I find your selective self-righteousness on this issue interesting.

"Charter of negative liberties" is a good phrase for this discussion. There are certain things the government cannot do to you. The police are government actors. Here, they possibly did one of the things that the constitution proscribes, per the relevant case law defining the reasonableness of searches and seizures. "Cuffing" (here, arresting) a suspect is a seizure. Of note, "cuffing someone" is not the issue. Making a public spectacle of the arrest is the issue. While this "perp walk" thing is arguably a low priority constitutional violation, it might give us a sense of the esteem in which the local PD holds the constitution as a guide for their routine searches and seizures (and, currently, there is an issue regarding their use of checkstops in minority neighborhoods). That's kind of a big deal and, beyond just Evander, it impacts citizens of Erie County who *don't* have similar wealth and status.

Raising that issue is not problematic or "interesting" (in the pejorative sense, as you've used it here) - rather, it's good citizenship.

Most importantly, none of the above has anything to do with "Evander Kane" as a person or a hockey player. Your opinion about the man is yours - but it's irrelevant to this question.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

We don't need to be wasting time talking about whether Kane's constitutional rights or civil liberties were violated. This particular arrest does not come anywhere close, even under the broadest interpretation of Lauro vs Charles (which had some of it's original ruling reversed anyway).

 

[rtfirefly]

Would you say the same if she was throwing drinks on Kane , calling him racial epithets, and slapping him in the face for 3 hours before the incident?

Yes I would. But there have been no accusations of that happening. There have been no suggestions that that, or anything like it, happened. No intimations, no hints, no inklings, no imputations. None. So at the moment, you're inventing an extenuating circumstance, based on no facts, no evidence, no allegation, nothing but a wish that a terrible and unjustifiable (if true) act was somehow dismissible or defendable.

 

[toomuchsauce]

Even if this was a "perp walk", which I doubt, it was a really lame attempt. It resulted in one photo where Kane's one wrist appears to be getting cuffed. He's not fully cuffed with both hands behind his back, he's not being walked anywhere, let alone some distance that would allow a "parade". It seems as if there's one friggin' camera.

This isn't even a perp walk. If there was any reason for cuffing him outside other than policy, I wouldn't be surprised if it had more to do with Cambria. Since Cambria talked about having a conversation with BPD about not cuffing Kane, I can imagine someone thought, "Screw Cambria, he doesn't tell us how to work", and told a detective to cuff him anyway.

However it happened, bottom line is it's a low level case that won't go to a jury trial. There is no actual harm Kane suffered from influencing a future jury. Everyone knows if you get arrested, you probably get hand cuffed at some point. It's not some affliction to his civil liberties. There's photos in the news every day of a hand cuffed suspect getting put into the back of a patrol car. Somehow they get over the horror of the pic getting posted on a news site.

I generally agree with the "this is kind of overblown" tone of your post. However, as I stated in my previous post, it *could* be a violation of the constitution if done by police in the manner alleged. That's the issue - not "well Evander will be fine so there's no violation." Again, the "Bill of Rights" tells the government what it cannot do. As a general concept, if they engage in proscribed behavior, they've violated the constitution. This is true of any *government* action.

 

[joshjull]

"Charter of negative liberties" is a good phrase for this discussion. There are certain things the government cannot do to you. The police are government actors. Here, they possibly did one of the things that the constitution proscribes, per the relevant case law defining the reasonableness of searches and seizures. "Cuffing" (here, arresting) a suspect is a seizure. Of note, "cuffing someone" is not the issue. Making a public spectacle of the arrest is the issue. While this "perp walk" thing is arguably a low priority constitutional violation, it might give us a sense of the esteem in which the local PD holds the constitution as a guide for their routine searches and seizures (and, currently, there is an issue regarding their use of checkstops in minority neighborhoods). That's kind of a big deal and, beyond just Evander, it impacts citizens of Erie County who *don't* have similar wealth and status.

Raising that issue is not problematic or "interesting" (in the pejorative sense, as you've used it here) - rather, it's good citizenship.

Most importantly, none of the above has anything to do with "Evander Kane" as a person or a hockey player. Your opinion about the man is yours - but it's irrelevant to this question.

Its not about bringing up the picture and not liking it was done. More than a few have done with little to no comment from others. He was referencing that specific posters curiously selective righteous indignation.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

I generally agree with the "this is kind of overblown" tone of your post. However, as I stated in my previous post, it *could* be a violation of the constitution if done by police in the manner alleged. That's the issue - not "well Evander will be fine so there's no violation." Again, the "Bill of Rights" tells the government what it cannot do. As a general concept, if they engage in proscribed behavior, they've violated the constitution. This is true of any *government* action.

Just so people know, walking a hand cuffed suspect in view of media and cameras is NOT a constitutional violation, as long as they are walking to or from some place with a legit purpose.

 

[BowieSabresFan]

What is self-righteous about not liking that the police cuffed him publicly where the press could take picture, when he (sack) believes that an alternative was available? Is there something self-righteous about not liking that action be law enforcement? I really don't get what is morally superior about that opinion?

It's one thing to disapprove of an action. When you call it "disgusting," and go on about it, then you are descending into "self-righteous" territory.

When you take this whole bar situation as a whole, and only focus on the cuffing for your anger, then it gets labeled as selective.

And please don't suggest (you haven't yet) that I do not care about civil rights. I care very much about them. I just fail to see where his civil rights were violated here.

Enough on this from me though. This has garnered way more discussion than it deserved, and part of that blame lies on me.

 

[joshjull]

What is self-righteous about not liking that the police cuffed him publicly where the press could take picture, when he (sack) believes that an alternative was available? Is there something self-righteous about not liking that action be law enforcement? I really don't get what is morally superior about that opinion?

I think a better way to put it is "curiously selective righteous indignation".