Updates to the Kane situation

[Toast88]

Seems like the denial stage of grief. I don't know whether Kane raped this woman or not. I'll withhold judgment until a police narrative is released or until/if he's charged.

That said, sounds like an awful lot of people on these boards and on the radio have it all figured out, what with all the comments about the times women have cried rape and been faking. Just as we shouldn't assume Kane is guilty, we also shouldn't assume the woman made it all up.

 

[HeHateMe]

Agreed. I'd like for this whole "What did she think she was getting herself into" line of thought to go away in these instances. A woman, or man, has the right to withdraw consent any time before or during a sexual act.

I'm no defense attorney but pretty sure once he bites her, she has to ****.

 

[Toast88]

Lol, no. It's an official criminal investigation. Are you saying a rape victim should endure public scrutiny and shame because if not, it's unfair to the accused? What the **** world do you live in?

I agree with the points you've made, but as to your question here: Yes, in fact!

The judicial system at its best is supposed to be one that gives fairness and presumption of innocence to the accused. I would hope journalists and members of the public stay discreet on sexual assault victim identities (and they usually are), but if someone's going to use the public court system and a public prosecutor to bring a case against someone, said public should have access to all of the information in the case, including the names of all parties.

 

[Tjodalv]

Its not a question of right or wrong. Its wrong.

Just wake the **** up and don't play games, not all men are gentleman, not all men can be trusted. Some even have GHP.

Yeah, how dare people assume that if they don't want to have sex the person they're hanging out with will abide by their wishes‽‽‽ Stupid bitches being all flirty and shit and not expecting to get raped, what fucking morons!

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

I'll just say this. These jocks take a chance every time they sleep with a woman that they pick up. Because they are fucking targets of women looking for money and notoriety. This isn't surprising but if a woman agrees to come home with a guy, what does she expect? Sure just say no means no but at the same time, they themselves put their ass in his home.

If there isn't a witness to a "rape" if that is what he will be charged with or evidence of a drug in the "victim's" system, this probably will be he said, she said and end up with a pay-off.

What did I just read?

 

[Shantz My Pants]

What do you do with Patrick Kane?

I'll just say this. These jocks take a chance every time they sleep with a woman that they pick up. Because they are fucking targets of women looking for money and notoriety. This isn't surprising but if a woman agrees to come home with a guy, what does she expect? Sure just say no means no but at the same time, they themselves put their ass in his home.

If there isn't a witness to a "rape" if that is what he will be charged with or evidence of a drug in the "victim's" system, this probably will be he said, she said and end up with a pay-off.

Maybe the bar was closing and he asked her if she wanted to come over and keep drinking/partying? But she was asking for it, right?


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Shantz My Pants]

So because a girl is being flirtatious, that means she deserves to be raped? Because she put herself in that situation she deserves it? Wtf is wrong with you people?


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Tjodalv]

This makes more sense than half you asshats on here:

 

[Naptastic]

I agree with the points you've made, but as to your question here: Yes, in fact!

The judicial system at its best is supposed to be one that gives fairness and presumption of innocence to the accused. I would hope journalists and members of the public stay discreet on sexual assault victim identities (and they usually are), but if someone's going to use the public court system and a public prosecutor to bring a case against someone, said public should have access to all of the information in the case, including the names of all parties.

Why would you have a right to any of that information? And what is a public court? Is there a private court I'm missing.

Rape cases rarely make it to trial because of the spectacle that gets made about an extremely private and vulnerable event. Beyond that, rape is very hard to prove. 97 out of 100 end with no conviction. In no way does that mean they are innocent. Then the victim gets labeled horrible names. That is all on top of being completely violated and disrespected.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Remember the Duke rape case? Presumed guilty right off of the bat until the evidence finally came in. Didn't stop a big time ruin of some kids reputation, though.

Duke lacrosse. The trump card for everyone that thinks that all women that want to date athletes are put on this planet to lie and fake sexual assault.

 

[italianbeef]

I don't disagree, cops should have evidence before arresting people for rape. Like with any crime. Wtf is your point?

So you're OK with presumption of innocence now before a court case?

BTW, why are you so angry all the time?

 

[Toast88]

Why would you have a right to any of that information? And what is a public court? Is there a private court I'm missing.

Rape cases rarely make it to trial because of the spectacle that gets made about an extremely private and vulnerable event. Beyond that, rape is very hard to prove. 97 out of 100 end with no conviction. In no way does that mean they are innocent. Then the victim gets labeled horrible names. That is all on top of being completely violated and disrespected.

I'd have right to that information because the official dealings of government agencies is public information, be it an arrest report or charging documents or a probable cause statement, etc.

A public court simply means run by a government agency, be it municipal, county or federal.

I sympathize with your position. You're thinking of ways to make the process easier on people who have potentially suffered a violent and violating trauma. That's commendable. But while we should always try to help those in need, we should also stay steadfast to our principles, chief among them keeping as transparent a government as possible. Why would you want to make that process less transparent?

Hey, it sucks. I get that. But that's part of it. It's also not easy for people who are tried but never convicted. Or people who are arrested but never charged. But all those people's mugshots, charging documents, probable cause statements, etc., are also still in the public sphere. We shouldn't be playing favorites on parties of a legal case, especially when it has yet to be legally resolved. Suppressing documentation would do exactly that.

 

[HeHateMe]

I agree with the points you've made, but as to your question here: Yes, in fact!

The judicial system at its best is supposed to be one that gives fairness and presumption of innocence to the accused. I would hope journalists and members of the public stay discreet on sexual assault victim identities (and they usually are), but if someone's going to use the public court system and a public prosecutor to bring a case against someone, said public should have access to all of the information in the case, including the names of all parties.

Um, this is still in the investigation phase. It is not necessary for the public to know the accuser/victim. That was my point.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

So you're OK with presumption of innocence now before a court case?

BTW, why are you so angry all the time?

I'm not angry.

 

[Toast88]

Um, this is still in the investigation phase. It is not necessary for the public to know the accuser/victim. That was my point.

Oh, I agree with that. I wasn't arguing that the victim's name should be given out by the cops before anyone's charged or arrested. An ongoing investigation is one of the few times it's OK for the police to keep documentation, narratives, etc., from the public eye, legally speaking. When the evidence-gathering is over, though, and the case is forwarded to the prosecutor, it becomes public record. And it should.

 

[HeHateMe]

So you're OK with presumption of innocence now before a court case?

BTW, why are you so angry all the time?

Nice trolling. I've been very clear. Cops investigating presume the opposite of innocence while asshats like you question the integrity of the accuser/victim. Once charges are filed, you presume innocence until proven guilty.

 

[italianbeef]

What is wrong with saying women need to be educated on this situation as much as men do?

Camille Paglia says nothing is wrong with that.

http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

So you're OK with presumption of innocence now before a court case?

BTW, why are you so angry all the time?

Actually, the whole idea of presumption of innocence does not come into play until the case goes to court. However, presumption of innocence is not a right of the accused. The burden of proof is on the accuser. These are not the same concept.

Presumption of innocence comes down to evidence in a court. The accuser must prove a positive, the accused does not have to prove a negative.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Actually, the whole idea of presumption of innocence does not come into play until the case goes to court. However, presumption of innocence is not a right of the accused. The burden of proof is on the accuser. These are not the same concept.

Presumption of innocence comes down to evidence in a court. The accuser must prove a positive, the accused does not have to prove a negative.

GOT HIM

ouch...

 

[italianbeef]

I agree with the points you've made, but as to your question here: Yes, in fact!

The judicial system at its best is supposed to be one that gives fairness and presumption of innocence to the accused. I would hope journalists and members of the public stay discreet on sexual assault victim identities (and they usually are), but if someone's going to use the public court system and a public prosecutor to bring a case against someone, said public should have access to all of the information in the case, including the names of all parties.

So you condone rape?

Right, McPrawn? Tribar? MacDickless?