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

[Quagmier]

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?

Because of the stigma associated with it. It is one of the most abhorrent crimes in our society, and is quite unique in just how much of the evidence against an accused comes from the victim's own testimony.

While i agree with you 100% that it needs to be easier for victims to come forward, I also believe that someone making a false rape accusation is committing a heinous crime not only against the person they have wrongly accused, but against people who have actually been the victim of rape.

Keep in mind there is a strong difference between the crown being unable to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and someone outright fabricating an accusation. There's a difference between victim blaming and shaming (which is something society seems to do instinctively in cases like this) and punishing someone who has been found guilty of perjury.

 

[VaSabresFan]

wondering this too.

Generally, it means the police believe they have enough evidence to take it to the prosecution to review.

She will now review the evidence and determine whether or not to proceed to charges.

 

[Beerz]

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

Truth isn't "apologism"

 

[CrypTic]

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.

Any evidence of the bolded? IMO the wrong decision was made at the point of not having another way home (or bringing your car) before you started drinking. Again, you seem to be missing the point that consent is an essential element of the thing in Q in some cases (e.g., contracts, consensual sex) but not in other cases (e.g., drunk driving, theft).

I won't post about this again bc it's OT IMO.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Tim Graham from the Buffalo News was on WGN radio. The part about Kane starts about 6:57: http://wgnradio.com/2015/08/06/kap-...-tim-graham-patrick-kane-update-from-buffalo/

Nothing new factually really, but he says:

- They have a lot of information they haven't reported yet b/c of the sensitivity of the information and they're running everything by their lawyers.

- The general sense from his sources is "it doesn't look good for Patrick Kane"

 

[Quagmier]

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.

The amendment hasn't been challenged yet. There has yet to be another case similar to Daviault. In fact, the laws on automatism and temporary insanity have actually been expanded since this case came down.

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

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.

lol as i said i missed that part.
it isn't distasteful to look at every option with little actual evidence out there.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

In the cup parade, didn't Kane say something along the lines of, "look out for me this summer"?

At the time I thought he was making fun of himself for his immaturity in his younger years. Now it looks like he is an immature ****.

 

[VaSabresFan]

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

It says nothing.

That's not entirely true...cases can be no papered before a prosecutor is assigned, generally the police will bring in the paper work/evidence a junior prosecutor, sometimes a paralegal in some places, review it. If they determine there isn't enough they will no paper it before it actually gets assigned.

 

[hatterson]

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.

If you are committing a crime, being drunk or unable to think is (in almost all cases) not a legal defense. You voluntarily chose to consume a substance that impaired your ability to think and thus are responsible for what you do to others after that point. You are not, [again, depends on jurisdiction] responsible for crimes someone else commits against you.

You are responsible for your own decisions, you are not responsible for someone else's.

 

[Zip15]

Not yet.

Some Colleges are requiring it now.

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

Nice try, California, Chappelle thought of this long before them.

I give you the Love Contract

 

[Beerz]

If you are committing a crime, being drunk or unable to think is (in almost all cases) not a legal defense. You voluntarily chose to consume a substance that impaired your ability to think and thus are responsible for what you do to others after that point. You are not, however, [again, depends on jurisdiction] responsible for crimes someone else commits against you.

You are responsible for your own decisions, you are not responsible for someone else's.

The simple fact of you being drunk doesn't mean a crime was committed against you tho simply because you feel you would't have made the choice to have sex had you been sober.

That is what he is saying.

 

[Quagmier]

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.

As a current insurance litigator in Canada, i think its fair to say we are both going off what we remember in first year crim law.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Because of the stigma associated with it. It is one of the most abhorrent crimes in our society, and is quite unique in just how much of the evidence against an accused comes from the victim's own testimony.

While i agree with you 100% that it needs to be easier for victims to come forward, I also believe that someone making a false rape accusation is committing a heinous crime not only against the person they have wrongly accused, but against people who have actually been the victim of rape.

Keep in mind there is a strong difference between the crown being unable to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and someone outright fabricating an accusation. There's a difference between victim blaming and shaming (which is something society seems to do instinctively in cases like this) and punishing someone who has been found guilty of perjury.

Without an actual confession, I don't know how they could prove a complete made up story.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Truth isn't "apologism"

And somehow you know the truth already?

 

[Off Sides]

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.

Which still seems odd to me, means if you are having relations with anyone, your wife, long time girlfriend, one night stand, if they are intoxicated you better be to so if the other person goes crazy and accuses you of assault when that did not happen by saying they did not give consent, you can say neither did you as your only defense?

 

[kingsholygrail]

Does anyone with legal knowledge know what the implications of having a prosecutor assigned to the case means? Is it any indication of imminent charges being laid?

Standard procedure. The victim has laid the claim of being raped, specifically accusing Kane. The case is open and only at an investigative stage at this point but the case itself is handled by a prosecuter who then can choose to formally charge.

 

[Stand Witness]

If you are committing a crime, being drunk or unable to think is (in almost all cases) not a legal defense. You voluntarily chose to consume a substance that impaired your ability to think and thus are responsible for what you do to others after that point. You are not, [again, depends on jurisdiction] responsible for crimes someone else commits against you.

You are responsible for your own decisions, you are not responsible for someone else's.

I think you are missing the one key thing that actually makes this argument work which is the consenting to something while drunk isn't always considered consenting. He isn't saying that he/she is too drunk to even talk because then it is quite obvious what the answer is but the message to a lot of high school and college students now a days is that you can't consent while being drunk.

 

[Beerz]

And somehow you know the truth already?

No. Not in this particular case.

But what has been discussed is hypotheticals

 

[satbank]

Tim Graham from the Buffalo News was on WGN radio. The part about Kane starts about 6:57: http://wgnradio.com/2015/08/06/kap-...-tim-graham-patrick-kane-update-from-buffalo/

Nothing new factually really, but he says:

- They have a lot of information they haven't reported yet b/c of the sensitivity of the information and they're running everything by their lawyers.

- The general sense from his sources is "it doesn't look good for Patrick Kane"

Yikes. Hope they know how to handle this.

 

[Dalagaze]

Which still seems odd to me, means if you are having relations with anyone, your wife, long time girlfriend, one night stand, if they are intoxicated you better be to so if the other person goes crazy and accuses you of assault when that did not happen by saying they did not give consent, you can say neither did you as your only defense?

From what my Criminal Law professor told me, if you CHOOSE to get drunk, it all goes out the window. You can't say "Oh, I was drunk, I couldn't consent" if you chose to get drunk.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

very vague title

 

[tsujimoto74]

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.

Of course they can, if the person did not give consent. I find the law to be written pretty clearly in that regard. If you are intoxicated by your own choosing to be such and you are not "physically helpless," the state of NY concludes that you are still capable of choosing to consent (or not) to sexual acts and indicating as much to your partner. The only term that leaves grey area there, IMO, is "physically helpless." It could be argued exactly where that line ought to be drawn, and I didn't see any explicit examples of what that means given aside from the victim being passed out.

 

[HanSolo]

From what my Criminal Law professor told me, if you CHOOSE to get drunk, it all goes out the window. You can't say "Oh, I was drunk, I couldn't consent" if you chose to get drunk.

Well that's just not correct.

 

[WiscoBlues]

Truth isn't "apologism"

I don't understand what you're saying here. Claiming that the accusations are false because she just wants to get his money, or the general dismissal of the situation is rape apologizing.