Patrick Kane subject of police investigation [Mod Warning in OP]

[seabass45]

Tim Graham ‏@ByTimGraham · 1m1 minute ago
From @TheBuffaloNews law-enforcement source: Roseanne Johnson, Erie Cnty DA Special Victims Bureau, is prosecutor assigned to Kane case

Charges coming?

Not necessarily.

 

[7even]

Your broader statement is dead wrong.

You convinced me.

 

[Cootsfanclub]

As someone who isn't really familiar with all the laws surrounding rape, how is this affected if they were both drunk? Both parties are unable to consent so is it rape for both?

It would most likely be sexual assault for the man in new york state if no drugs were given.

 

[Sens Rule]

I don't know if the analogy was referring to consent so much as decision-making while drunk, though. You're responsible for your decision to drive while drunk, and apparently, according to NYS law, you're equally responsible for your decision to have sex while drunk.

Driving drunk means over .08 alcohol in your system. Being too drunk to consent to sex is not in arbitrary number. It basically means you are passed out or barely concious and someone has sex with you and you don't even know what is going on. Probably an alcohol content of 2.0 or 3.0. But there is no arbitrary alcohol amount.

It isn't two people hammered who mess around and both are blurry about what happened.

Some rape statistically study asked questions of college students questions about rape and sex and phrased it in a much more loose way as to what being intoxicated is. That is not at all what a court is considering when someone is too intoxicated to consent. Picture a drunk girl passed out on a bed and a guy at a party just seeing her and having sex with her non responsive body. Or someone too intoxicated to know what is going on but still able to move.

 

[Beerz]

Somebody made ya sign a contract, eh?

Not yet.

Some Colleges are requiring it now.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/california-lawmakers-pass-affirmative-consent-sex-policy-bill-1409330586

 

[gnarls barkley]

again, anyone actually know what the implications of a prosecutor being assigned are? I understand job is to review evidence, but does that mean the DA thinks they have a solid case?

 

[DanZ]

Do you really not understand the difference between being a victim of a crime and a perpetrator of a crime?

Yes.

So people are capable of making decisions while drunk in some cases but not others?

I don't disagree that drunk people can be raped. I disagree that drunk people, according to the law, are responsible for their decisions in some cases but not others.

 

[FishMonger]

It has been used as a defense before in Canadian courts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Daviault

But then Parliament immediately made such a defense no good, according to the article.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure what wording to use other than "no good." Not legally viable?

It dun got stucked down? You ain't gun' be able to says that no more?
... you get the point.

 

[hockeykicker]

again, anyone actually know what the implications of a prosecutor being assigned are? I understand job is to review evidence, but does that mean the DA thinks they have a solid case?

not always, sometimes prosecutors can look at what happened and say they arent gonna charge someone. its mostly wait and see

 

[Cootsfanclub]

again, anyone actually know what the implications of a prosecutor being assigned are? I understand job is to review evidence, but does that mean the DA thinks they have a solid case?

They review the evidence and determine whether or not to pursue like you said.

 

[Beerz]

You convinced me.

Your explanation was top notch, chief.

Go ahead and show me any state that says A drunk person can not consent to sex 100% of the time.

 

[Invictus12]

What does consent have to do with drunk driving? Lack of consent is an element of the crime of rape. Consent (or lack of it) has nothing to do with DUI.

I think the point is that if you get behind the wheel drunk, the law considers you to be still able to recognize whether you are capable of making this decision or not. Btw, it doesn't even matter how drunk you are, you are considered to be capable of understanding the consequences.

On the other hand, if one party gives consent to sex while being intoxicated, that consent is void if that party changes his/her mind later on...

In one instance being under the influence doesn't absolve you from your actions and in the other it does.

 

[Stand Witness]

Victims have a hard enough coming out with allegations. I've heard the % of victims not saying anything is like 70% or higher. Don't quote me on that though. Last thing we need to do is de-centivize victims coming forward.

And why would false accusations of rape be different than any other false accusations of another crime?

Thats why I said it is hard to do and needs a good balance because you want to stop the false accusations because they get a lot of attention.

And to point B I don't think they do. Accusing someone of a ton of other crimes can just as easily ruins someones life.

 

[Mattilaus]

It has been used as a defense before in Canadian courts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Daviault

And if you looked in the same Wikipedia article later on it states:

Parliament reacted swiftly in response to the ruling, and within months passed an amendment to the Criminal Code as section 33.1 under the heading of Self-induced Intoxication.

33.1 (1) It is not a defence to an offence referred to in subsection (3) that the accused, by reason of self-induced intoxication, lacked the general intent or the voluntariness required to commit the offence, where the accused departed markedly from the standard of care as described in subsection (2).

For reference I used to work in insurance litigation in Canada.

 

[Beerz]

again, anyone actually know what the implications of a prosecutor being assigned are? I understand job is to review evidence, but does that mean the DA thinks they have a solid case?

A DA is assigned to every investigation by Police... they determine if charges are filed... not Police.

It says nothing.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I guess, for the record, a sexual assult could be as much as a saying something dirty to an unwanted party, it doesn't have to even involve sex.

at least in canada that is how it is. not sure about the states.

Hr could've smacked her butt ala Giroux and the police officer in ottawa.

It's been reported that she went to the hospital and a rape kit was administered.

There's no reason to convict Kane right now, but you seem to be super invested in minimizing this for some reason. It's kind of distasteful.

 

[Insomniac99]

It basically means you are passed out or barely concious and someone has sex with you and you don't even know what is going on.

That's not at all true.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

You seem to repeatedly miss that consent is irrelevant in the case of drunk driving. I don't know if you're trolling or if you genuinely don't understand the difference. But it's been explained quite a few times in the last few pages and I doubt that my explaining it once more will help but I will try.

He should be charged with drunk driving bc consent is irrelevant to that crime. It's not an element of that crime. If you drive when your blood alcohol level is above a certain %, you have committed the crime of drunk driving. Please explain how consent is at all relevant in determining whether you have (1) driven or (2) your blood alcohol level.

My point is that being drunk should not absolve you of the decisions you make at the time, whether that involves giving consent to have sex, or whether you choose to drink and drive.

 

[Hagged]

This is a much better argument. The answer to the question "is it rape because she was drunk" is unequivocally yes. The answer to the question "is it rape if BOTH parties were legally unable to give informed consent" is up for discussion.

In a case that neither have been an active party and got taken advantage of in a passive state obviously both would get convicted. Both are responsible for the result and neither have given consent.

 

[KirkOut]

ITT: a lot of highly educated lawyers

 

[Anglesmith]

Driving drunk means over .08 alcohol in your system. Being too drunk to consent to sex is not in arbitrary number. It basically means you are passed out or barely concious and someone has sex with you and you don't even know what is going on. Probably an alcohol content of 2.0 or 3.0. But there is no arbitrary alcohol amount.

It isn't two people hammered who mess around and both are blurry about what happened.

Some rape statistically study asked questions of college students questions about rape and sex and phrased it in a much more loose way as to what being intoxicated is. That is not at all what a court is considering when someone is too intoxicated to consent. Picture a drunk girl passed out on a bed and a guy at a party just seeing her and having sex with her non responsive body. Or someone too intoxicated to know what is going on but still able to move.

That's true. We've moved from the definition of consent to the definition of drunk.

When people have talked about "drunk" in this thread, I've just been assuming they mean your normal, Friday night version of "drunk" rather than "physically incapacitated." We'll see if either of those applies to this case.

 

[Hobo Bob]

Well, define rape. If rape is "any sex that occurs between an intoxicated party and a sober party," yes, all drunk sex is rape, even drunk consensual sex.

But we both know that's not the definition of rape. Rape is the act of forcing sexual relations on someone against their will or without their being able to give consent. You seem to be under the impression that as soon as someone even so much as a takes a drink of alcohol they become completely unaware of their surroundings and lose all control of their body.

 

[WiscoBlues]

ugh... there's a whole lot of rape apologism and illogical arguments going on in this thread

 

[Dalagaze]

There has to be some sort of stipulations there. While I see the law as written, if someone is intoxicated yet not passed out, they can not be considered assaulted? That just does not seem to make any sense.

In New York, you're deemed incapable of giving consent if you're mentally incapacitated, such as under the influence of alcohol or some other substance. However, that only applies if you did not consent to using said substance. An example would be someone spiking your beverage (non-alcoholic) with alcohol.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Thats why I said it is hard to do and needs a good balance because you want to stop the false accusations because they get a lot of attention.

And to point B I don't think they do. Accusing someone of a ton of other crimes can just as easily ruins someones life.

I think how we treat someone found innocent of rape (as well as child molestation, child pornography, ect.) says more about the dark side of society than the legal system.