Patrick Kane subject of police investigation V [READ MOD OP]

[systemsgo]

Is the bar owner "trying to paint a scenario", or just stating what he saw? You seem to making this out as the bar-owner having an agenda or throwing the girl under the bus.

Obviously (at least from my perspective) - whether she was flirting with him or not has absolutely ZERO bearing on the underlying case.

Exactly, it should have ZERO bearing on the case. But when you take into consideration how some people justify rape (not here), or pass the blame to the woman because she isn't cautious enough "what did she expect going to a strange guy's house after a club?", do you really not see where he intended his comments to lead some peoples' minds to?

 

[Dying Alive]

May be the comments were made to investigators and got leaked to the press. And may be he was just telling the truth as he saw it. Why do so many people on this thread want Kane to be guilty? He could be, or not. Seems like the majority here are actually rooting for him to be guilty.

I haven't seen anyone come right out and say they think he's guilty, just that he *could* be guilty and they don't like victim blaming or the assumption that she's just after money. I would imagine that most people would prefer that he wasn't guilty, because if he is it means a young woman was raped.

 

[loudi94]

I haven't seen anyone come right out and say they think he's guilty, just that he *could* be guilty and they don't like victim blaming or the assumption that she's just after money. I would imagine that most people would prefer that he wasn't guilty, because if he is it means a young woman was raped.

It's going to come down to he said, she said and whatever evidence they find. I see this ending in much the way Kobe settled. "Sorry, I thought you were into it. Now here's some money so we shall never speak of it again."
He's in a position to buy his way out of this and regardless of her motive for going to police, if she can remain somewhat anonymous, unfortunately this probably ends up being the best case scenario for her.

 

[systemsgo]

If what he says is true the only way what he said could be considered victim blaming is if you consider someone who bahaves like the woman he described as being at fault. Its not victim blaming to describe what the potential victim was doing. The reader of the comments is the one who decides whether those actions put her at fault and to them, it would be victim blaming.

I don't see those actions as making her the least bit at fault if she was raped, therefore to me, its not victim blaming.

I don't see it as such as well, but do you really not think that there aren't people who think that way? Have you really not heard or read anyone say regarding rape - that the girl shouldn't have worn that, or acted like she was interested or accepted a drink, or gone home with the guy - what did she expect? Just because you don't interpret it that way does not mean that other's won't.

I haven't seen anyone come right out and say they think he's guilty, just that he *could* be guilty and they don't like victim blaming or the assumption that she's just after money. I would imagine that most people would prefer that he wasn't guilty, because if he is it means a young woman was raped.

I have seen that in a previous thread actually, that's just as premature and presumptious as claiming the woman is lying/doing it for money.

 

[tsujimoto74]

He should simply have not commented, he does not know the victim is, and as such, as no relevant information as to the rape case aside from verifying that Kane was at his bar and what time he left. Also, he's inserting his own commentary on to facts.

“hanging all overâ€
“being very forward, very flirtatious with him.â€
“It was almost like she stationed herself near him and was keeping other women away from him,†Croce said. “I noticed it and kind of laughed about it.â€

Yeah, that's my beef as well. BN passing off this guy's conjecture as fact/news. Now, if they wanted to put that commentary in an opinion piece about the subject, that's A-OK, but I don't think it has any business being in an article about new facts surfacing. Heck, for all we know the girl he alleged was draped all over Kane was the victim's friend.

 

[HydroF]

I don't see it as such as well, but do you really not think that there aren't people who think that way? Have you really not heard or read anyone say regarding rape - that the girl shouldn't have worn that, or acted like she was interested or accepted a drink, or gone home with the guy - what did she expect? Just because you don't interpret it that way does not mean that other's won't.

I'm sure there are, but he didn't say those things. IMO people need to be more careful about how they throw out the term "victim blaming". Its the people who read his comments and then say "with that type of behavior she should have expected this to happen. Her fault." that are the problem. Those are the people that are victim blaming. If this guy is giving an honest description of the situation as he saw it, then thats all it is. One guys description of events. It becomes dangerous when you start claiming people are blaming the victim because other people could use what was said in their own twisted way to actually blame the victim.

 

[covfefe]

Yeah, that's my beef as well. BN passing off this guy's conjecture as fact/news. Now, if they wanted to put that commentary in an opinion piece about the subject, that's A-OK, but I don't think it has any business being in an article about new facts surfacing. Heck, for all we know the girl he alleged was draped all over Kane was the victim's friend.

You are not alone in feeling that way:

http://www.dailypublic.com/articles/08092015/why-mark-croce-went-news-about-pat-kane

http://www.sportsmediaguy.com/blog/2015/8/9/the-buffalo-news-irresponsible-journalism

http://deadspin.com/report-accuser-claims-patrick-kane-overpowered-and-rap-1723073528

 

[THE HOFF]

Exactly, it should have ZERO bearing on the case. But when you take into consideration how some people justify rape (not here), or pass the blame to the woman because she isn't cautious enough "what did she expect going to a strange guy's house after a club?", do you really not see where he intended his comments to lead some peoples' minds to?

well just take it with a grain of salt. Same goes for the media making a lot of noise with biting marks on the shoulder... I guess I'm about to get picked up as well.

 

[pitcher]

He should simply have not commented, he does not know who the victim is, and as such, as no relevant information as to the rape case aside from verifying that Kane was at his bar and what time he left. Also, he's inserting his own commentary on to facts.

“hanging all over”
“being very forward, very flirtatious with him.”
“It was almost like she stationed herself near him and was keeping other women away from him,” Croce said. “I noticed it and kind of laughed about it.”

Am I missing something? Since when does the witnesses have to know the victim to be asked questions about events that happens, directly related or not to the case?

Also what you quoted doesn't in any way is victim blaming. He is saying what he saw. Is it really surprising that some woman would be hanging all over a millionaire hockey player, that she would be flirting with him, and that she would try to keep other woman away from him? Do you really think things like that don't happens every time any of these superstars goes to a bar? What if he is just saying what he saw? Would he be the first person interviewed who describe what he saw with adjectives and expressions instead of just using robotic sentences?

Like I said before... you are speculating and accusing with no other evidence than that scenario you created in your mind... scenario which could be, or not, the truth.

 

[Selanne00008]

I find the suggested timeline of events rather interesting. First everyone's at a bar having a good time. In the blink of an eye, some people are back at Kane's place doing God knows what. In another blink of an eye, a young woman is having a rape kit done at a hospital and someone calls the police.

That's quite a tight schedule. He would've barely had time to roll off of her before she changed her mind!

Is there a timeline of when he left the bar? That's all we really need. To his house in Hamburg it's probably a solid 25 minute drive. If his crew discussed leaving with them for a bit, and then eventually left the bar at say 2:40, he could be home by 3:10am.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Yeah, that's my beef as well. BN passing off this guy's conjecture as fact/news. Now, if they wanted to put that commentary in an opinion piece about the subject, that's A-OK, but I don't think it has any business being in an article about new facts surfacing. Heck, for all we know the girl he alleged was draped all over Kane was the victim's friend.

I think he was mostly covering for himself and his business.

-He suggested that no inappropriate conduct on Kane's part happened at the bar
-He said that Kane was not very drunk
-He defended Kane's character

not sure about the US, but Bars in Canada are liable for the conduct and actions of intoxicated patrons. Kane also probably brings a lot of business to the bar. He was mostly trying to protect himself from a business standpoint.

“I’ve got no skin in this game. I am only telling you what I observed,” is BS.

 

[HydroF]

I think he was mostly covering for himself and his business.

-He suggested that no inappropriate conduct on Kane's part happened at the bar
-He said that Kane was not very drunk
-He defended Kane's character

Pure speculation. Put this right up there with the people who make comments like "I think she is just doing this for money."

 

[LetsGoBLUES91]

I agree... But the bar owner claimed to have "no skin in the game" which isn't true.. That speaks to his credibility. As you said, he could very well be telling the truth and I disregard everything he said because it's on the premise of a lie...

If I begun a story with "when I used to be the lead singer of the Rolling Stones" and proceed to tell you a completely wild story that actually true with the exception of me being in the stones, the rest of my story is likely to be disregarded as well...

Bottom line, bar owner is a tool. He shouldn't have commented, but if he makes that choice, at least be honest.

In general, the type of people who own places like that are the worst type of people.

He has no credibility.

 

[McDonald19]

Great hockey player.

Questionable character off the ice, to put it nicely.

Hope he doesn't dodge the law on this one. (Assuming he really did the action in question).

 

[cbcwpg]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/0...-reportedly-has-bite-marks-leg-scratch-source

Kane's lawyer calls statements against his client 'completely inaccurate' as rape investigation continues.

"These things are being said as if they are facts," Cambria said. "I am not going to participate in that stuff. When the time comes, I will respond to things, but I am not going to participate at this time in this whole media thing that is going on."

 

[Mr Pipe]

If you really use that as a argument, then how about planning to sleep or not to sleep with someone BEFORE going to the bar ? And how is it different?

I think the analogy is poor because in the drunk driving situation, someone has the ability to make it extremely hard for themselves to drive home after drinking. Ie, they could take a taxi from home to the bar, then from the bar to home. In this situation there is virtually a 0% chance that they will be driving drunk.

Let's say this same person gets extremely drunk and is persuaded to go home with a rich and famous athlete. There is probably no way this could have been "planned for" in the same way that the transportation arrangements could have been planned for. It is much more likely that someone could be convinced to go home with someone from the bar than it is for someone to make proper transportation arrangements, and somehow still manage to drive home drunk. Just by being drunk and in a crowded setting, you make it more likely that you may be targeted for sex and by being intoxicated, you make yourself more vulnerable to certain situations. I'm not trying to blame the victim here, I believe I am just stating the fact that you have more than a 0% chance of being taken advantage of in a bar under the influence of alcohol.

If you plan accordingly to make it impossible/unreasonable to drive yourself home, then it's just not going to happen.

Not trying to start a fight or anything, just want to make my argument clear.

Leaving car at home: 0% chance you will be driving your car home. It's impossible.
Simply being intoxicated at a bar: more than a 0% chance that you might be persuaded into leaving with someone that you wouldn't otherwise leave with. It's possible.

 

[LetsGoBLUES91]

Great hockey player.

Questionable character off the ice, to put it nicely.

Hope he doesn't dodge the law on this one. (Assuming he really did the action in question).

There is absolutely no doubt that he's an ass. This was well known before this incident.

I could see a lot of scenarios where he was a ******* on the night of August 1st, while not breaking the law. If I had to bet on the actual truth, that would be it.

He's a ******. I still don't believe he would rape someone. But of course we are all just guessing here.

 

[loudi94]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/0...-reportedly-has-bite-marks-leg-scratch-source

Kane's lawyer calls statements against his client 'completely inaccurate' as rape investigation continues.

"These things are being said as if they are facts," Cambria said. "I am not going to participate in that stuff. When the time comes, I will respond to things, but I am not going to participate at this time in this whole media thing that is going on."

What whole media thing? This is the quietest I've ever seen the media in such a high profile case.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Am I missing something? Since when does the witnesses have to know the victim to be asked questions about events that happens, directly related or not to the case?

Also what you quoted doesn't in any way is victim blaming. He is saying what he saw. Is it really surprising that some woman would be hanging all over a millionaire hockey player, that she would be flirting with him, and that she would try to keep other woman away from him? Do you really think things like that don't happens every time any of these superstars goes to a bar? What if he is just saying what he saw? Would he be the first person interviewed who describe what he saw with adjectives and expressions instead of just using robotic sentences?

Like I said before... you are speculating and accusing with no other evidence than that scenario you created in your mind... scenario which could be, or not, the truth.

It kinda is. Not overt victim blaming, but victim blaming all the same. What relevance does the conduct of a female patron have to do with the rape? 1) It may have not been the same woman as the accuser; 2) Which he acknowledges but says anyways; and 3) Consent can be withdrawn at any time, so it doesn't even matter if it was the same person.

The only purpose printing it is to protect Kane's image (by somehow justifying his actions, which is victim blaming) or attacking the credibility of the accusor (which is unlikely). It could also have been idle gossiping on Croce's part, although why would you talk to a reporter and not be very clear with what is on the record?

 

[Coaches Coroner]

I think he was mostly covering for himself and his business.

-He suggested that no inappropriate conduct on Kane's part happened at the bar
-He said that Kane was not very drunk
-He defended Kane's character

not sure about the US, but Bars in Canada are liable for the conduct and actions of intoxicated patrons. Kane also probably brings a lot of business to the bar. He was mostly trying to protect himself from a business standpoint.

“I’ve got no skin in this game. I am only telling you what I observed,†is BS.

This. I would also say that multi-millionaire patrons probably don't grow on tree's, I'm sure protecting a customer who may spend a lot of money at your establishment currently or going forward constitutes having some sort of skin in the game. If Joe Blow don't the street is accused of this I have a harder time seeing this going to bat for him or getting involved to the point of talking to the media. It kind of weakens what a person is saying when they have to tell you how impartial they are.

 

[systemsgo]

Yeah, that's my beef as well. BN passing off this guy's conjecture as fact/news. Now, if they wanted to put that commentary in an opinion piece about the subject, that's A-OK, but I don't think it has any business being in an article about new facts surfacing. Heck, for all we know the girl he alleged was draped all over Kane was the victim's friend.

Pretty much.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/0...-reportedly-has-bite-marks-leg-scratch-source

Kane's lawyer calls statements against his client 'completely inaccurate' as rape investigation continues.

"These things are being said as if they are facts," Cambria said. "I am not going to participate in that stuff. When the time comes, I will respond to things, but I am not going to participate at this time in this whole media thing that is going on."

That's a good move, deflecting possible questions while dismissing the claims made so far and not providing us with any new information.

It kinda is. Not overt victim blaming, but victim blaming all the same. What relevance does the conduct of a female patron have to do with the rape? 1) It may have not been the same woman as the accuser; 2) Which he acknowledges but says anyways; and 3) Consent can be withdrawn at any time, so it doesn't even matter if it was the same person.

The only purpose printing it is to protect Kane's image (by somehow justifying his actions, which is victim blaming) or attacking the credibility of the accusor (which is unlikely). It could also have been idle gossiping on Croce's part, although why would you talk to a reporter and not be very clear with what is on the record?

OMG. Thank you, I was getting a headache trying to argue that.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I think the analogy is poor because in the drunk driving situation, someone has the ability to make it extremely hard for themselves to drive home after drinking. Ie, they could take a taxi from home to the bar, then from the bar to home. In this situation there is virtually a 0% chance that they will be driving drunk.

Let's say this same person gets extremely drunk and is persuaded to go home with a rich and famous athlete. There is probably no way this could have been "planned for" in the same way that the transportation arrangements could have been planned for. It is much more likely that someone could be convinced to go home with someone from the bar than it is for someone to make proper transportation arrangements, and somehow still manage to drive home drunk. Just by being drunk and in a crowded setting, you make it more likely that you may be targeted for sex and by being intoxicated, you make yourself more vulnerable to certain situations. I'm not trying to blame the victim here, I believe I am just stating the fact that you have more than a 0% chance of being taken advantage of in a bar under the influence of alcohol.

If you plan accordingly to make it impossible/unreasonable to drive yourself home, then it's just not going to happen.

Not trying to start a fight or anything, just want to make my argument clear.

Leaving car at home: 0% chance you will be driving your car home. It's impossible.
Simply being intoxicated at a bar: more than a 0% chance that you might be persuaded into leaving with someone that you wouldn't otherwise leave with. It's possible.

First of all, you can still drive drunk, even if you leave your car at home. Drive a friend's car or steal one are two examples. And leaving the bar with someone is not the same as hooking up. That requires consent. If you give it, cool. If you don't (saying no, physically indicating no, being to drunk, etc.) then its the responsibility of the other person (or persons, whatever your into) to not take advantage of you.

And if you're drunk and someone else wont or cant give consent, don't sexually assault them. If you're too drunk, don't drink so much next time. This isn't complicated stuff, the legal stuff is.

 

[pitcher]

I think the analogy is poor because in the drunk driving situation, someone has the ability to make it extremely hard for themselves to drive home after drinking. Ie, they could take a taxi from home to the bar, then from the bar to home. In this situation there is virtually a 0% chance that they will be driving drunk.

Let's say this same person gets extremely drunk and is persuaded to go home with a rich and famous athlete. There is probably no way this could have been "planned for" in the same way that the transportation arrangements could have been planned for. It is much more likely that someone could be convinced to go home with someone from the bar than it is for someone to make proper transportation arrangements, and somehow still manage to drive home drunk. Just by being drunk and in a crowded setting, you make it more likely that you may be targeted for sex and by being intoxicated, you make yourself more vulnerable to certain situations. I'm not trying to blame the victim here, I believe I am just stating the fact that you have more than a 0% chance of being taken advantage of in a bar under the influence of alcohol.

If you plan accordingly to make it impossible/unreasonable to drive yourself home, then it's just not going to happen.

Not trying to start a fight or anything, just want to make my argument clear.

Leaving car at home: 0% chance you will be driving your car home. It's impossible.
Simply being intoxicated at a bar: more than a 0% chance that you might be persuaded into leaving with someone that you wouldn't otherwise leave with. It's possible.

You are talking about specific situations, both of which have nothing to do with what I said to start with that you quoted to start that whole argument.

Last thing I will say about this since it's starting to be ridiculously OT. Even if you leave your car at home, there is still a % of chance that you might drive someone else's car, or that you decide to drive your car once you get back home. The question, and what I was talking about is not about how/when you decide or not to drive your car or to go on and sleep with someone, it's about the act itself and how your faculty to take decisions should make you responsible for your acts, no matter the gravity of said acts. If you are drunk and drive, you are responsible to be driving while drunk, unless someone took you by force, and for example point a gun at you and force you to drive while drunk. If you decide to sleep with someone while you are drunk, then you are responsible for that also, unless someone force you to do it, or do it while you are in an unconscious state, in which case you are a victim. But being drunk doesn't equal being unconscious. If you are concious, flirt with someone, goes home with him, have sex with him and at no point point to him that you don't consent to have sex with him, then even if you are really drunk, that shouldn't be considered rape imo.

 

[LT]

I think we're at a good stopping point.

Let's continue it here - http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1939347

Please read the entire first and second posts before posting.