Let's Go Blues

and just FYI.....the Victim can not drop charges. If the victim settles the matter the prosecutor can still pursue or can dismiss the case or ask the Grand Jury to no-bill if they feel they cant win the case or its in interest of justice for the victim(victim settles). Ex. Voynov was charged, his wife recanted/settled but the prosecutor still moved ahead with the case.

Also these reports could be using the wrong term and instead of settling he could be taking a plea bargain most likely admitting guilt to a lesser crime and then the victim could still pursue a civil case.

theohall wrote:

Kerfuffle wrote:

ecbm wrote:It's not a reason to assume that nobody does it, especially those that are accused, especially considering that the vast majority people have no trouble going through life never being accused of rape.

The vast majority of people don't have $84M contracts. If u don't think that makes pro athletes a target you're kidding yourself.

Pro athletes that put themselves repeatedly in stupid situations deserve what they get

Exactly.

And I don't give two shits how much money someone has; they're the same before the law. The idea that some should get special treatment because of their privileged economic status makes my blood boil. That's a "it goes with the territory" thing. Yep, someone like Kane will be targeted by hustlers, absolutely true. It's on him not to fall prey to them. It's not for the legal system to help him out with that problem by treating him and those like him as an especially privileged class of citizens. 52% of the GJ says charges are founded and he gets his day in court-damage to his reputation be damned.

Kerfuffle wrote:I see it the opposite way - if a settlement is reached I believe it means he was guilty and was settling to avoid jail and to save his career.

Absolutely. Consider: Gilmour, who was in a similar situation and never settled. He even countersued for slander and libel and only dropped it when the GJ voted not to indict him. A settlement absolutely is an acknowledgement that the evidence is such that the defendant may well lose at trial.

Basically, a settlement makes everyone look pretty bad.

theohall wrote:

Kerfuffle wrote:No, they don't. They deserve a presumption of innocence just like everyone else that the law protects.

So if you were to repeatedly put yourself in bad situations and bad things happened to you, you wouldn't deserve the bad things that happened as a result of your behavior?? Reallly????

Simple example.

You are repeatedly late to work. The boss warns you to knock that shit off. You continue to be repeatedly late to work. You get fired. But somehow this wouldn't be your fault????

Same thing with Kane putting himself in bad situations. Deny it all you want, but that's just homerism blinding you again.

I don't think that's quite the same. I think a more accurate way to put the Kane situation into your analogy would be:

You are repeatedly late to work. The boss warns you to knock that shit off. Someone goes to the boss and says you were late to work today.

Should the boss fire you? If he did fire you without first finding out the ground truth, would it be your fault?

As of now, we don't know if Kane did anything illegal or not in this instance. I think that is more of where Kerfuffle is coming from.

If Kane performed a consensual act with this woman (or did nothing at all to her), and later she claims to have been assaulted, does he deserve to be charged and tried for aggravated assault and rape because he's known for being a douche? I hate Kane as much as the next Blues Fan, but no one deserves false charges. It all depends on the facts of the case.

gaijin wrote:

theohall wrote:

Kerfuffle wrote:No, they don't. They deserve a presumption of innocence just like everyone else that the law protects.

So if you were to repeatedly put yourself in bad situations and bad things happened to you, you wouldn't deserve the bad things that happened as a result of your behavior?? Reallly????

Simple example.

You are repeatedly late to work. The boss warns you to knock that shit off. You continue to be repeatedly late to work. You get fired. But somehow this wouldn't be your fault????

Same thing with Kane putting himself in bad situations. Deny it all you want, but that's just homerism blinding you again.

I don't think that's quite the same. I think a more accurate way to put the Kane situation into your analogy would be:

You are repeatedly late to work. The boss warns you to knock that shit off. Someone goes to the boss and says you were late to work today.

Should the boss fire you? If he did fire you without first finding out the ground truth, would it be your fault?

As of now, we don't know if Kane did anything illegal or not in this instance. I think that is more of where Kerfuffle is coming from.

If Kane performed a consensual act with this woman (or did nothing at all to her), and later she claims to have been assaulted, does he deserve to be charged and tried for aggravated assault and rape because he's known for being a douche? I hate Kane as much as the next Blues Fan, but no one deserves false charges. It all depends on the facts of the case.

Completely agree.

theohall wrote:

gaijin wrote:

theohall wrote:

Kerfuffle wrote:No, they don't. They deserve a presumption of innocence just like everyone else that the law protects.

So if you were to repeatedly put yourself in bad situations and bad things happened to you, you wouldn't deserve the bad things that happened as a result of your behavior?? Reallly????

Simple example.

You are repeatedly late to work. The boss warns you to knock that shit off. You continue to be repeatedly late to work. You get fired. But somehow this wouldn't be your fault????

Same thing with Kane putting himself in bad situations. Deny it all you want, but that's just homerism blinding you again.

I don't think that's quite the same. I think a more accurate way to put the Kane situation into your analogy would be:

You are repeatedly late to work. The boss warns you to knock that shit off. Someone goes to the boss and says you were late to work today.

Should the boss fire you? If he did fire you without first finding out the ground truth, would it be your fault?

As of now, we don't know if Kane did anything illegal or not in this instance. I think that is more of where Kerfuffle is coming from.

If Kane performed a consensual act with this woman (or did nothing at all to her), and later she claims to have been assaulted, does he deserve to be charged and tried for aggravated assault and rape because he's known for being a douche? I hate Kane as much as the next Blues Fan, but no one deserves false charges. It all depends on the facts of the case.

Completely agree.

I'm not saying he, or anyone, deserves false charges, but you have to wonder if he brought this on himself.
Lots of millionaire athletes have sex with lots of women...yet rape accusations are seemingly few and far between. I think the idea that so many women are all over the place just ready to "take advantage of" these millionaire athletes for a money grab, is way overblown. If that was the case, you'd hear about so many more of these incidents.

Yet Kane seem to have trouble follow him, which is something you have to believe he brings on himself because he continually puts himself in these bad situations where he makes bad choices. He needs to be the responsible one...but he seems to be anything but responsible.

So I don't feel sorry for him in the least based on those assumptions.
Maybe this will be a wakeup call to him...but I'm sure you could have said the same thing after the cabbie incident...yet he seemed to think that incident was rather humorous when me made a joke about it during the cup parade when he spoke to the crowd.

False accusations or not, he brings this shit on himself.

cprice12 wrote:I think the idea that so many women are all over the place just ready to "take advantage of" these millionaire athletes for a money grab, is way overblown.

Very well put. And the attendant implication that women doing this is more common than men committing sexual violence against women is very insidious.

APOD wrote:and just FYI.....the Victim can not drop charges. If the victim settles the matter the prosecutor can still pursue or can dismiss the case or ask the Grand Jury to no-bill if they feel they cant win the case or its in interest of justice for the victim(victim settles). Ex. Voynov was charged, his wife recanted/settled but the prosecutor still moved ahead with the case.

Also these reports could be using the wrong term and instead of settling he could be taking a plea bargain most likely admitting guilt to a lesser crime and then the victim could still pursue a civil case.

Well I think the odds of Kane accepting a conviction of any kind for this are slim to none. Because I think, as you correctly put it, if he "plead out" to avoid more serious consequences the NHL and Chicago Blackhawks, I'm sure, would fail to see the distinction. They'd see allegations of sexual assault and a criminal conviction resulting from it (even if it's to a plain-jane misdemeanor battery or something of the like). They'd hammer him. If you're Kane, ok cool I don't go to prison but I'm still getting, potentially, my sweet contract voided, cut by the Blackhawks, and maybe out of the NHL permanently. It's no conviction or bust.

That's the hardest job of prosecutors when they face these domestic battery/rape situations. Time and time again you get the recanting female victim and as the prosecutor you don't know if it's genuine, if it's the result of controlling male dominance, or "hush money" or what.

But at the end of the day if you have a witness unwilling to cooperate... your options on the criminal side are slim anyway.

cprice12 wrote:I think the idea that so many women are all over the place just ready to "take advantage of" these millionaire athletes for a money grab, is way overblown. If that was the case, you'd hear about so many more of these incidents.

The first option is to get pregnant - you see that all the time with pro athletes - especially NBA players. Getting pregnant secures a woman's financial future. I would call that taking advantage. The lesser known route is to claim rape for a money grab - obviously a more difficult and uphill battle.

Kerfuffle wrote:

cprice12 wrote:I think the idea that so many women are all over the place just ready to "take advantage of" these millionaire athletes for a money grab, is way overblown. If that was the case, you'd hear about so many more of these incidents.

The first option is to get pregnant - you see that all the time with pro athletes - especially NBA players. Getting pregnant secures a woman's financial future. I would call that taking advantage. The lesser known route is to claim rape for a money grab - obviously a more difficult and uphill battle.

The NBA pregnant thing - It takes the man to get the woman pregnant. Don't want that problem, don't screw the girl or use friggin' protection. Pretty simple example of rich guys creating their own problems. Try something else.

Kerfuffle wrote:

cprice12 wrote:I think the idea that so many women are all over the place just ready to "take advantage of" these millionaire athletes for a money grab, is way overblown. If that was the case, you'd hear about so many more of these incidents.

The first option is to get pregnant - you see that all the time with pro athletes - especially NBA players. Getting pregnant secures a woman's financial future. I would call that taking advantage. The lesser known route is to claim rape for a money grab - obviously a more difficult and uphill battle.

False rape accusations are really really rare though. It's pretty much just a hollow talking point that suggests it's a 50/50 thing on whom to believe when in reality over 90% of rape accusations are legit.

Kerfuffle wrote:

cprice12 wrote:I think the idea that so many women are all over the place just ready to "take advantage of" these millionaire athletes for a money grab, is way overblown. If that was the case, you'd hear about so many more of these incidents.

The first option is to get pregnant - you see that all the time with pro athletes - especially NBA players. Getting pregnant secures a woman's financial future. I would call that taking advantage. The lesser known route is to claim rape for a money grab - obviously a more difficult and uphill battle.

Care to cite your source?

Kerfuffle wrote:The first option is to get pregnant - you see that all the time with pro athletes - especially NBA players. Getting pregnant secures a woman's financial future. I would call that taking advantage. The lesser known route is to claim rape for a money grab - obviously a more difficult and uphill battle.

Are you Donald Trump?

Blackhawks announced that they are having a press conference tomorrow 9/17 at 2pm CST. Kane will not be at the press conference - no surprise there. I don't think they're going to say much other than to either announce that Kane will start on time with the team or will be suspended. Expect a few words to state that the organization is embarrassed about this and supports treating women with respect, etc, etc. It's not like these guys know all about the case - they only know what Kane and his attorney tell them. Since training camp is starting and there is no end in sight to this investigation it seems they needed to say something to get the white elephant out of the room as the season starts up.

The word seems to be that Kane will be in camp.

Yeah, the NHL's image as the league of ingenuous Canadian farm boys is going the way of the dodo. Ongoing investigation into a rape charge? Beating on your wife? Well if you're good, you'll be invited to camp and will have your rights retained even after you've been deported. Meanwhile, if you get caught with some oxy at the border AND you're in decline while making a lot of money-hit the bricks, asshole.

I don't remember, but did we mention the scratches and bite marks allegedly on the victim already?

SteveO wrote:I don't remember, but did we mention the scratches and bite marks allegedly on the victim already?

We did - doesn't really mean anything though.

So Kane attended the presser today after all - even after the media said he wouldn't be there. His statement reads like his lawyer wrote it obvioulsy "
"I cannot apologize enough for the distraction this has caused my family, my teammates, this incredible organization, and of course our fans," Kane said during a press conference at the University of Notre Dame. "While I have too much respect for the legal process to comment on an ongoing matter, I am confident that once all the facts are brought to light I will be absolved of having done nothing wrong."

Then it was business as usual. So basically my take on this presser is this was done to get the white elephant out of the room before he shows up at camp.

He sure does appreciate a lot of questions.

http://deadspin.com/patrick-kane-holds- ... 1731495819

dmiles2186 wrote:He sure does appreciate a lot of questions.

http://deadspin.com/patrick-kane-holds- ... 1731495819

Kane had an opening statement to read, and he didn’t do it correctly:

Patrick Kane wrote:This has been an incredibly difficult time for many people. I cannot apologize enough for the distraction this has caused my family, my teammates, this incredible organization, and of course, our fans. While I have too much respect for the legal process to comment on an ongoing matter, I am confident that once all the facts are brought to light, I will be absolved of having done nothing wrong.

“Absolved of having done nothing wrong” would mean that he did indeed do something wrong. Maybe nerves got to him.

Kane just can't seem to do anything right off the ice. What a train wreck of a human being.

Media members were then allowed to ask Kane questions, provided the topic was hockey. You can guess how that went. Via Puck Daddy:

Kane was asked if he felt he embarrassed the organization.

“I appreciate the question,” Kane said, before dodging it.

Kane was asked if he ever considered staying home, and not being a distraction at camp.

“Again, I appreciate the question,” Kane said, before dodging it.

And on and on it went.

Mark Potash of the Chicago Sun Times apparently reached his breaking point, asking Kane if, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, he “would quit drinking.”

“Mark, I appreciate the question,” Kane said, before dodging it.

[...]

As one NHL player agent told Puck Daddy via text: “This was a terrible idea by himself, the team and his agent. This is doing everything they didn’t want to do.”

It’s nice that Kane appreciated all the questions.

That kind of reminds me of the McGwire "I'm not here to talk about the past" comment that he made again and again. Well, why are you here then?
Ugh.