Freezerburn
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2003
- 7,157
- 16
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.
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.
I would argue that he ruined her life.
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.
Not just unusually, but also unethical
I would argue that he ruined her life.
I know a big bag of money to stop cooperating and go away would certainly ruin my life.
Nice reach....
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.
I know a big bag of money to stop cooperating and go away would certainly ruin my life.
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.
That means you think every person in the world is guilty until proven innocent.
It's funny, many people saying it doesn't mean he didn't do it. I can only shake my head.
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 means you think every person in the world is guilty until proven innocent.
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.