Updates to the Kane situation

[italianbeef]

To add, I'm curious why the fact that he is being investigated for rape ever went public. Seems when perpetrators of whatever other crimes are being investigated that's it's hush hush until prosecutors file charges.

Raise your hand if everyone knows you're being investigated.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

To add, I'm curious why the fact that he is being investigated for rape ever went public. Seems when perpetrators of whatever other crimes are being investigated that's it's hush hush until prosecutors file charges.

Because he's a celebrity in Buffalo it leaked out and since rumors were going around the PD decided to get ahead of anything and say he was being investigated and there's a gag order in place for the department.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[TCD]

I have little to add to the conversation here or anywhere else with regards to this specific rape investigation as it is being exploited by a whole lot of people for every reason under the sun.

Only thing I have to add to the conversation of rape in general is that it absolutely a disgrace and humiliating that a large percentage of the populace don't even know what rape is or what it means. Shame on the general populace and shame on the much of the media for down playing such a series issue. The conversation of rape can't even begin when people believe that "mutual consent to go home together" constitutes as evidence that rape can then not occur. Makes me sad more than anything when people begin to think that way. Can't be angry...just fucking stomach churning sad that some people are that stupid and I have to share the earth with them.

Now back to my Cosby avatar

 

[italianbeef]

Only thing I have to add to the conversation of rape in general is that it absolutely a disgrace and humiliating that a large percentage of the populace don't even know what rape is or what it means.

I'm guessing most here could not define it. At least not legally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/definition-of-rape-is-shifting-rapidly.html?_r=0

The conversation of rape can't even begin when people believe that "mutual consent to go home together" constitutes as evidence that rape can then not occur. Makes me sad more than anything when people begin to think that way.

People who think that way are clearly wrong. I'm sure there are people saying that, too. However, in this particular case, it was claimed by the accuser's people that she didn't want to go with Kane and only went because the friend wanted to. If evidence comes to light, though testimony, video evidence, etc. it could serve to impugn her credibility with a jury.

That doesn't mean Kane couldn't have still raped her at the house, it just means it will be harder to persuade a jury if it ever comes to a trial.

 

[Joker85]

I have little to add to the conversation here or anywhere else with regards to this specific rape investigation as it is being exploited by a whole lot of people for every reason under the sun.

Only thing I have to add to the conversation of rape in general is that it absolutely a disgrace and humiliating that a large percentage of the populace don't even know what rape is or what it means. Shame on the general populace and shame on the much of the media for down playing such a series issue. The conversation of rape can't even begin when people believe that "mutual consent to go home together" constitutes as evidence that rape can then not occur. Makes me sad more than anything when people begin to think that way. Can't be angry...just fucking stomach churning sad that some people are that stupid and I have to share the earth with them.

Now back to my Cosby avatar

The reason you are so upset is because you appear to strawman arguments into the narrow box you are comfortable arguing against and then proceed to do white knight battle against them.

I have yet to see anyone argue that mutual decision to go home proves that a rape "can not" occur. Rather the more nuanced (and therefore apparently difficult to debate) assertion is that a decision to go home, in the absence of any other definitive evidence shows the state of mind of both involved, and goes a long way to establishing that at some point sexual relations were on the table. That does help to boost a later claim of consensual sex, again in the absence of anything to the contrary.

State of mind evidence is not some magic juju that the courts don't know how to deal with. It's used all the time. It's not conclusive, but it is definitely a piece that helps put together a reasonable doubt puzzle.

It works the other way of course as well, if Kane had been seen harassing/hitting on the girl all night with her obviously rebuffing him, it would hurt his later claims that they suddenly decided to have sex. But when you simplify complex issues down to something you can whack away at with your righteous indignation hammer, you really do nothing but perpetuate the type of discussion you claim to be against.

 

[DMelt36]

The reason you are so upset is because you appear to strawman arguments into the narrow box you are comfortable arguing against and then proceed to do white knight battle against them.

I have yet to see anyone argue that mutual decision to go home proves that a rape "can not" occur. Rather the more nuanced (and therefore apparently difficult to debate) assertion is that a decision to go home, in the absence of any other definitive evidence shows the state of mind of both involved, and goes a long way to establishing that at some point sexual relations were on the table. That does help to boost a later claim of consensual sex, again in the absence of anything to the contrary.

State of mind evidence is not some magic juju that the courts don't know how to deal with. It's used all the time. It's not conclusive, but it is definitely a piece that helps put together a reasonable doubt puzzle.

It works the other way of course as well, if Kane had been seen harassing/hitting on the girl all night with her obviously rebuffing him, it would hurt his later claims that they suddenly decided to have sex. But when you simplify complex issues down to something you can whack away at with your righteous indignation hammer, you really do nothing but perpetuate the type of discussion you claim to be against.

But there have been reports that said accuser didn't even want to be at Kane's house, that she was only going to accompany a friend. That'd certainly throw out most "state of mind" arguments against her, if true.

And if you scroll back through this thread I think TCD's assertions are spot on about people in this thread (and in general, actually) not really understanding what is or is not rape.

 

[TCD]

The reason you are so upset is because you appear to strawman arguments into the narrow box you are comfortable arguing against and then proceed to do white knight battle against them.

I have yet to see anyone argue that mutual decision to go home proves that a rape "can not" occur. Rather the more nuanced (and therefore apparently difficult to debate) assertion is that a decision to go home, in the absence of any other definitive evidence shows the state of mind of both involved, and goes a long way to establishing that at some point sexual relations were on the table. That does help to boost a later claim of consensual sex, again in the absence of anything to the contrary.

State of mind evidence is not some magic juju that the courts don't know how to deal with. It's used all the time. It's not conclusive, but it is definitely a piece that helps put together a reasonable doubt puzzle.

It works the other way of course as well, if Kane had been seen harassing/hitting on the girl all night with her obviously rebuffing him, it would hurt his later claims that they suddenly decided to have sex. But when you simplify complex issues down to something you can whack away at with your righteous indignation hammer, you really do nothing but perpetuate the type of discussion you claim to be against.

Who the **** are you and who the **** are you to accuse me of strawman argue anything? That was the very first post i made on the subject matter and you jumped to some fucking sweeping generalization and conclusion about me and my ideas and views on the current subject matter with Kane and the subject of rape.

I don't have time to converse with anyone who makes a quick sweeping generalization about me or my view points based on a one paragraph post on a sports message board. Holy shit you smug pretentious asshole. You don't even see it do you?

And stop using the term strawman arguing for **** sakes. Everyone and their dog is using the term incorrectly now and all loose now that it's the popular look at me i talk smart term of the day.

 

[TCD]

But there have been reports that said accuser didn't even want to be at Kane's house, that she was only going to accompany a friend. That'd certainly throw out most "state of mind" arguments against her, if true.

And if you scroll back through this thread I think TCD's assertions are spot on about people in this thread (and in general, actually) not really understanding what is or is not rape.

That's part of the overall big picture problems. Old way of thinking about sex and rape. Consent to have sex doesn't mean consent to be raped. One can still be raped while consenting to sex and even while engaging in a sex act. That one baffles some peoples old timer 1950's fucking mind set regarding sex but it's true. Same mind set that our court systems are attached to and won't let go of. It's a big fucking problem (and historically it has a lot to do with the courts and legal systems not listening to women with regards to sex, sexuality and rape...yah I went there). I for one don't sit here and say "well that's the way the courts think so the courts must be right and we must follow how the courts work". **** that only weak sheep do that shit. The courts don't get to define rape..we the public should be telling the courts how things like rape should be defined..and listening to the actual victims for once would be a great fucking start. and again...the majority of these will be women...god forbid we actually fucking start listen to women.

ideas on sex, sexuality and rape need to be challenged constantly because sex and sexuality is always changing socially and culturally. The stubborn courts can't and refuse to keep up with those changes sometimes and it is what creates this fucking shit show. The courts and many laws are out of sync with modern social and cultural ideals and have been for a long fucking time when it comes to sex and sexuality. I for one demand change in attitudes towards sex and sexuality not only from the general public, who i do believe is mature enough to have the discussion reasonably believe it or not, but also law makers and the courts. I'm actually a positive individual and believe that we are all capable of talking about sex openly, maturely and with dignity and grace. Penis goes in vagina.

 

[Joker85]

Who the **** are you and who the **** are you to accuse me of strawman argue anything? That was the very first post i made on the subject matter and you jumped to some fucking sweeping generalization and conclusion about me and my ideas and views on the current subject matter with Kane and the subject of rape.

I don't have time to converse with anyone who makes a quick sweeping generalization about me or my view points based on a one paragraph post on a sports message board. Holy shit you smug pretentious asshole. You don't even see it do you?

And stop using the term strawman arguing for **** sakes. Everyone and their dog is using the term incorrectly now and all loose now that it's the popular look at me i talk smart term of the day.

And just like that the flimsy facade crumbles from sir Knight and we are left with a rambling barely legible mess of rage and self contradictions.

 

[Joker85]

But there have been reports that said accuser didn't even want to be at Kane's house, that she was only going to accompany a friend. That'd certainly throw out most "state of mind" arguments against her, if true.

And if you scroll back through this thread I think TCD's assertions are spot on about people in this thread (and in general, actually) not really understanding what is or is not rape.

Right I'm not at the point where I am trying to argue which version of fact is true based on barely sourced reports. But I'm just saying that state of mind, either way, is a valuable piece of evidence in this type of he said she said deal.

If it is established in court that indeed she was all on board to take it home, that certainly is a piece of circumstantial evidence that would help Kane. If the reports that she did not want to go with him and only went at the urging of her friend are true that would likewise hurt him. Again not conclusive either way but it's just a piece of the puzzle. Certain other folks (hint) are incapable of discussing that issue and instead declare that anyone that finds those facts relevant to piece together innocence or guilt basically supports rape and needs to be treated to a sophomoric rambling expletive filled lecture about the 1950s.

 

[TCD]

Its not strong circumstantial evidence at all in any rape case and its very difficult for any defense attorney to use that sort of circumstantial evidence in any rape cases. Its really no different than using "the short mini skirt" as circumstantial evidence in court in modern rape cases...doesnt hold much water if any at all. Like myself i highly doubt you have ever defended a rape case nor have been in a court for one (although i actually have been but that still means jack shit).

On a personal note i still dont appreciate how you had to attack me right away to draw attention away from the verbal ass kicking you were already getting from a few other posters. Spinning my innocent simple post into something it wasn't and trying to paint me in a bad light around others for your own defense is cheap and a pathetic means of formulating any discussion..as is using passive aggressive content in writing as you did in your last post (hint). I guess lucky for me many of the posters in this forum actually know me well enough to know that i am a reasonable person who does listen to all sides before formulating any type or opinion on a subject matter or an individual. The other posters on here who know me also know that your cheap attempt at slandering me was just that...very cheap and it made you look very bad. Sorry im sure you are actually a decent fellow but you instantly came off as an asshole...something you may want to work on.

Now if you would like to carry on this conversation which i do find very important i would be happy to do so. The subject matter is important to me and one which i have learnt a lot about through friends who have actually been victims of rape and my lovely girlfriend whom can be a very aggressive feminist at times but who has also taught me how to view many issues involving rape through the eyes of a woman. With topics like this it is important to me that everyone stop the message board passive aggressive shit, slandering and generalizing and actually discuss it. If that cant be done then i dont want any part of the debate or open discussion...not this time around not here...not with this subject matter.

And again i have nothing to say about the specific kane story because there is nothing to speak on at all but speculation and early investigations. At no point ever in this forum or any other forum on the internet or in on the streets have i said kane is innocent or guilty. Shocking that some people these days can still actually shut their fucking mouths about a news story and not have to advertise their initial reaction all over the fucking place like attention starved whores that many have become. But it has opened up the discussion on rape again and how we socially and culturally deal with the subject matter esp in the light of the social media world. Anthropologically its pretty fucking amazing sitting back and watching the animals go at the chunk of meat thrown at them.

Im also not going to sit here and play armchair defense lawyer in a rape case that isnt even in court yet let a lone even a charge. I dont know much but i do know that rape cases are very complex and difficult cases in court esp for the defense and circumstantial evidence for defense lawyers in court rape cases are a lot harder to sell a judge and jury on. Not many judges and most certainly not many juries are going to take consent to go home with someone as compelling defense evidence in a rape case in this day and age...sorry...just isn't very compelling defensive circumstantial evidence and it opens up a door for the prosecution to really play to the jury.

 

[italianbeef]

But there have been reports that said accuser didn't even want to be at Kane's house, that she was only going to accompany a friend. That'd certainly throw out most "state of mind" arguments against her, if true.

Reports that were refuted by two eyewitnesses, who fair and balanced Tim Graham immediately criticized for being in Kane's hip pocket.

 

[DMelt36]

Reports that were refuted by two eyewitnesses, who fair and balanced Tim Graham immediately criticized for being in Kane's hip pocket.

Because they are.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[italianbeef]

Its not strong circumstantial evidence at all in any rape case and its very difficult for any defense attorney to use that sort of circumstantial evidence in any rape cases. Its really no different than using "the short mini skirt" as circumstantial evidence in court in modern rape cases...doesnt hold much water if any at all. Like myself i highly doubt you have ever defended a rape case nor have been in a court for one (although i actually have been but that still means jack shit).

On a personal note i still dont appreciate how you had to attack me right away to draw attention away from the verbal ass kicking you were already getting from a few other posters. Spinning my innocent simple post into something it wasn't and trying to paint me in a bad light around others for your own defense is cheap and a pathetic means of formulating any discussion..as is using passive aggressive content in writing as you did in your last post (hint). I guess lucky for me many of the posters in this forum actually know me well enough to know that i am a reasonable person who does listen to all sides before formulating any type or opinion on a subject matter or an individual. The other posters on here who know me also know that your cheap attempt at slandering me was just that...very cheap and it made you look very bad. Sorry im sure you are actually a decent fellow but you instantly came off as an asshole...something you may want to work on.

Now if you would like to carry on this conversation which i do find very important i would be happy to do so. The subject matter is important to me and one which i have learnt a lot about through friends who have actually been victims of rape and my lovely girlfriend whom can be a very aggressive feminist at times but who has also taught me how to view many issues involving rape through the eyes of a woman. With topics like this it is important to me that everyone stop the message board passive aggressive shit, slandering and generalizing and actually discuss it. If that cant be done then i dont want any part of the debate or open discussion...not this time around not here...not with this subject matter.

And again i have nothing to say about the specific kane story because there is nothing to speak on at all but speculation and early investigations. At no point ever in this forum or any other forum on the internet or in on the streets have i said kane is innocent or guilty. Shocking that some people these days can still actually shut their fucking mouths about a news story and not have to advertise their initial reaction all over the fucking place like attention starved whores that many have become. But it has opened up the discussion on rape again and how we socially and culturally deal with the subject matter esp in the light of the social media world. Anthropologically its pretty fucking amazing sitting back and watching the animals go at the chunk of meat thrown at them.

Im also not going to sit here and play armchair defense lawyer in a rape case that isnt even in court yet let a lone even a charge. I dont know much but i do know that rape cases are very complex and difficult cases in court esp for the defense and circumstantial evidence for defense lawyers in court rape cases are a lot harder to sell a judge and jury on. Not many judges and most certainly not many juries are going to take consent to go home with someone as compelling defense evidence in a rape case in this day and age...sorry...just isn't very compelling defensive circumstantial evidence and it opens up a door for the prosecution to really play to the jury.

If you want to start another topic on the general discussion of rape, use another forum and/or thread. This one is for discussing updates to the Patrick Kane case.

For someone who hates generalizing and slandering, you sure do an awful lot of it.

 

[HeHateMe]

If you want to start another topic on the general discussion of rape, use another forum and/or thread. This one is for discussing updates to the Patrick Kane case.

For someone who hates generalizing and slandering, you sure do an awful lot of it.

:shibe:

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

If you want to start another topic on the general discussion of rape, use another forum and/or thread. This one is for discussing updates to the Patrick Kane case.

For someone who hates generalizing and slandering, you sure do an awful lot of it.

:drama:

 

[italianbeef]

Because they are.

And her friends and family who weren't there are credible?

 

[DMelt36]

And her friends and family who weren't there are credible?

Who said they were or were not?

I've posted one article in this thread that had interviews with her coworkers while adding some sort of disclaimer that said no person in their right mind is going to say anything negative about a possible rape victim.

So here we are again, back to the "don't have enough information to form a credible opinion" spot. Don't you get sick of going in circles?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Who said they were or were not?

I've posted one article in this thread that had interviews with her coworkers while adding some sort of disclaimer that said no person in their right mind is going to say anything negative about a possible rape victim.

So here we are again, back to the "don't have enough information to form a credible opinion" spot. Don't you get sick of going in circles?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

As a reformed troll, I can identify them from a mile away.

frenchdip is clearly trolling for reactions and does not need to be fed any more.

 

[CRM 114]

If you want to start another topic on the general discussion of rape, use another forum and/or thread. This one is for discussing updates to the Patrick Kane case.

For someone who hates generalizing and slandering, you sure do an awful lot of it.

:shibe:

:drama: