Pat Kane Investigation talk [MOD: Post #129]

[Freezerburn]

So Pat Kane's accuser gets to continue going anonymous after she almost ruined a person's life?

I would argue that he ruined her life.

 

[Beerz]

I would argue that he ruined her life.

Based on where we are now... I would argue that's a silly stance to take.

 

[Gras]

I would argue that he ruined her life.

If it can't be proved that he did anything wrong how did he ruin her life?

 

[Husko]

Yes, she should stay anonymous. And yes, this entire case never should've been in the press. But outing her will hardly help anything

 

[sabrebuild]

Not in my opinion. We shouldn't know anything about this case. Why should it be public information that someone accused Kane of Rape? Kane suffered with just being accused.

Yup, and that's what sucks in these cases. They go public and the sjw go crazy against the accused because it suits their agenda that the accused must be guilty. Look at old threads and ppls comments are gross and completely ignorant of the facts.

Same thing here. Defensive dudes and fans will say crucify this girl, she made a fake claim, which despite the public info, no one knows if thats true except her and kane.

Its a more horrific real life version of the mcdavid v eichel thread. Hyperbole mixed with ignorance mixed with a self determined belief that one is right makes for some of the dumbest saddest group behavior we get to see.

 

[sabrebuild]

I would argue that he ruined her life.

Sigh

 

[sabrebuild]

Not just unusually, but also unethical

Haha don't get too lost in school that you forget attorneys are people, just like everyone else. It happens far too often.

 

[ZZamboni]

I would argue that he ruined her life.

Go ahead .... Argue it


*crickets*

 

[Reddawg]

I know a big bag of money to stop cooperating and go away would certainly ruin my life.

 

[schpaff]

I know a big bag of money to stop cooperating and go away would certainly ruin my life.

Nice reach....

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Nice reach....

why? civil and criminal courts are very different. Lets wait and see if there is a law suit. Then the bag of money comes.

 

[Zip15]

If it can't be proved that he did anything wrong how did he ruin her life?

That it can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt--the most rigorous legal standard to meet--doesn't mean that Kane did nothing wrong, or that it can't be proved in a court of law that he did "something wrong." For instance, in civil court the complainant would merely have to establish her claims by a preponderance of evidence, the least rigorous legal standard--of course, any such claim would never make it to a jury as Kane would settle long before a judge/jury ever heard the case in order to avoid the media feeding frenzy that would ensue for a Kane civil trial.

The above is not a position that Kane committed a crime or a tort of any nature. Despite claims to the contrary of people who'd like to pretend they know, we very likely will never know what happened that night in Hamburg. Thus, we cannot make any informed conclusion about "who ruined the life of who." We just don't know.

 

[tsujimoto74]

That it can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt--the most rigorous legal standard to meet--doesn't mean that Kane did nothing wrong, or that it can't be proved in a court of law that he did "something wrong." For instance, in civil court the complainant would merely have to establish her claims by a preponderance of evidence, the least rigorous legal standard--of course, any such claim would never make it to a jury as Kane would settle long before a judge/jury ever heard the case in order to avoid the media feeding frenzy that would ensue for a Kane civil trial.

The above is not a position that Kane committed a crime or a tort of any nature. Despite claims to the contrary of people who'd like to pretend they know, we very likely will never know what happened that night in Hamburg. Thus, we cannot make any informed conclusion about "who ruined the life of who." We just don't know.

Just FYI, there are very, very rarely juries in civil cases. Even in cases where it would be permissible, it's usually not advisable.

As for the rest, agree. The fact that there is not enough evidence for charges doesn't necessarily mean Kane is innocent of any wrong-doing. The only people who will likely ever know what actually happened are Kane and his accuser.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[vcv]

I know a big bag of money to stop cooperating and go away would certainly ruin my life.

Why would both parties expose themselves like that? Paying her off would be quite illegal and she already signed a document saying she was dropping the case without promise or payment.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[Sabre Dance]

It's funny, many people saying it doesn't mean he didn't do it. I can only shake my head.

 

[OhreallyOrielly]

It's funny, many people saying it doesn't mean he didn't do it. I can only shake my head.

Do you think that's what it means? Lots of people commit crimes and don't get charged for them. As for wether he did it or not I don't know.

 

[Sabre Dance]

Do you think that's what it means? Lots of people commit crimes and don't get charged for them. As for wether he did it or not I don't know.

That means you think every person in the world is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Zip15]

That means you think every person in the world is guilty until proven innocent.

No it doesn't. His statement reflects the reality that not every person who commits a crime is punished for it--or, many times, even charged. Do you think every murderer here in Baltimore is presently behind bars?

 

[internet toughguy]

It's funny, many people saying it doesn't mean he didn't do it. I can only shake my head.

you can shake your head as much as you want, but it's true. just because the case is dismissed doesn't mean he didn't do it. there are endless examples in society.

 

[Sabre Dance]

No it doesn't. His statement reflects the reality that not every person who commits a crime is punished for it--or, many times, even charged. Do you think every murderer here in Baltimore is presently behind bars?

That is irrelevant. Being accused doesn't mean anything. That's exactly why I've been saying rape accusations should not be public until formally charged.

 

[Husko]

That means you think every person in the world is guilty until proven innocent.

No, it reflects an understanding of what 'not guilty' means.

 

[Zip15]

That is irrelevant. Being accused doesn't mean anything. That's exactly why I've been saying rape accusations should not be public until formally charged.

Just as not being charged doesn't mean that one did not commit a crime. Rather, it reflects the DA's opinion that it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as one should not assume that an individual committed a crime simply because they are charged with a crime, one should not assume that an individual did not commit a crime simply because they are not charged.

 

[Dingo44]

Just as not being charged doesn't mean that one did not commit a crime. Rather, it reflects the DA's opinion that it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as one should not assume that an individual committed a crime simply because they are charged with a crime, one should not assume that an individual did not commit a crime simply because they are not charged.

Except the evidence disproves that what she said happened, happened.

Maybe Kane did something else - sure. But what she said happened was proven to not be true based on the tests they did. To me, that doesn't say he may have done it but they can't prove it - it says he didn't do it. He's innocent - not just not proven guilty.