Jump to content

Patrick Kane being investigated by police


Samifan

Recommended Posts

@ihabs1993

 

I think it is too early to jump to conclusions that Patrick Kane will get off easily.  He's all ready going to lose Millions of dollars in endorsements now and future ones.  

 

Making examples of players who fake penalties by diving is something players, coaches, officials, and fans want limited in today's game on the ice.  The last couple of years addressing them with fines is a means of cleaning up the game.  Once the diving stops, it becomes a non issue imo.  Yeah, maybe we can all go back and laugh at some old video but that's just it... it could be "OLD video replaced by highlight films.

 

As far as the lifestyle players embrace I think teams do educate their young players.  Teams don't want another tragedy in the NHL like Pele Lindbergh, or the Dan Heatley / Dan Snider's.   I think when the time comes if Patrick Kane is charged with rape, the NHL will take a strong stance as done with Voynov.  We might have even seen Kane suspended if this were the regular season.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

@ihabs1993

 

I already called Kane a punk in this thread. He certainly can't handle his alcohol. Whether he's actually something darker than that is up to the courts, not us, to decide.

 

Evander Kane is a bit of a punk himself. But he'll always be the guy who KOed Matt Cooke, so he's got that going for him.  :thumbsu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I show you a list where he is the most hated player, and you say he's not. That's fine. It's an opinion. Let's move away from Subban.

 

I never said that.

 

 

 

What about the other Kane? Evander Kane. He takes a picture of himself with money and people BLAST him. Patrick Kane punches a cab driver in face, and we move on and even embrace his "life style" while making it into comedy and calling him a legend or a beauty. I am not saying that you specifically do this, just a section of hockey fans. It is enough for this to be considered a systemic problem.

 

Context. Remember - Evander Kane did that during the lockout when the players were crying poverty.  He was rightfully criticized for it at the time.

 

 

Right now, there are 7 twitter accounts making light of Patrick Kane's alcoholic tendencies. The top account has over 90K followers. Maybe this means nothing to you. Maybe you don't get it. That's fine. I just think hockey has a major problem with demonizing players for minor on or off ice activities such as diving or wearing a track suit to practice but when a guy gets drunk and punches a man in the face in a disagreement over pocket change, we think it's hilarious and create these alter egos accounts.

 

Again - the cab incident was 6 years ago.  It's only an issue now because of the alleged rape.  If he's not charged, that and whatever he does in the off season (or did 6 years ago) goes back to being a non-issue.  

 

 

I just think it's time that we start to ask tough questions about the lifestyle hockey players embrace. Why does Patrick Kane get to move on from his acts of drunken rage too easily, but Subban will be branded as a diver for the rest of his life? That's all.

 

Why?  Because a 25 year old parties hard in the off season after winning the Cup?

 

As for Subban - you keep bringing it up so I will reply.  Until he stops diving the yes - he will be branded as a diver for the rest of his career.  Heck - even if he stops it's going to follow him (see: Crosby, Sidney).  It's not like Subban dove once - 6 years ago - and has carried around that label since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Context. Remember - Evander Kane did that during the lockout when the players were crying poverty.  He was rightfully criticized for it at the time.

 

It's off-topic I suppose, but it was the owners crying poverty, not the players. Now, I think it was right to criticize him, as flashing all of that money is pretty insensitive when so many people struggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kane continues to put himself in situations where he cannot keep himself out of trouble. The trouble does not follow Patrick, he seems to go out of his way to find it. One of the more disturbing ideas that this case seems to involve is that the entire Buffalo area has something to do with this. For example, you have the bar owner trying to blame the "victim" by saying she was hanging all over him in the bar. The only reason I use quotes around victim is that the woman the bar owner pointed out was not the victim at all. The victim is a friend of the woman the bar owner mentioned and only went with her friend to keep her safe. Second, I read a report earlier today claiming that the Buffalo Police Lieutenant chauffeured the party back to Kane's house (http://www.buffalone...d-rape-20150815).

You would think that having the police lieutenant around would keep you out of trouble.

 

Police Lieutenant English was "hired" to provide Kane security and a be a driver for the evening. English claims, "there was a mutual agreement to return to Kane's house." WTF does that mean? The victim is not claiming she was held hostage, she's claiming rape!  This must be Lt. English :)

 

post-60-0-63051400-1440063401_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Police Lieutenant English was "hired" to provide Kane security and a be a driver for the evening. English claims, "there was a mutual agreement to return to Kane's house." WTF does that mean? The victim is not claiming she was held hostage, she's claiming rape!  This must be Lt. English :)

 

attachicon.gifJohnny_English_movie.jpg

 

That means my ass is officially covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Samifan

 

conflicting reports out there...

 

 

English said that he was with a group that included Kane and the alleged victim at SkyBar, a downtown Buffalo nightclub, before driving Kane, two women and one of Kane’s male friends to the player’s suburban Buffalo home. The officer then drove himself home.

 
 Although English admitted that he has no way of knowing what happened between Kane and the alleged victim once they were inside Kane’s house, he told officers investigating the case that he saw “no inappropriate behavior [at SkyBar] or on the drive to Kane’s home.”
“It was a mutual agreement to go hang out at the house,” English said.
 
He also disputed the accounts of three sources quoted last week by the News, who told the paper that the alleged victim went to Kane’s home because she did not want her friend to go there alone. According to English, the alleged victim convinced her female friend to go with her to Kane’s home.
 
Kane’s attorney, Paul Cambria, Jr., said that Lieutenant English’s account is significant because the officer “witnessed Kane’s conduct with the alleged victim prior to the alleged attack.” As an employee of Kane’s, however, English is not without bias—much like the friends who stepped up to defend the reputation of the alleged victim, but who did not witness the alleged attack.

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/08/17/patrick-kane-rape-investigation-off-duty-policeman-chauffeur-story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "As an employee of Kane’s, however, English is not without bias—much like the friends who stepped up to defend the reputation of the alleged victim, but who did not witness the alleged attack."

 

 When a case goes *this* public, I'm pretty sure you can throw out the employee and employer status involved. I don't know many in their right minds that would risk a perjury charge to put forth inaccurate details of the night in question. Then again, guilty or not, Kane would probably keep this guy on for life should he make it out unscathed, so a lot of coin on the line can obscure things....I just disproved my own point...LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

http://sabres.buffalonews.com/2015/09/08/kane-grand-jury-postponed-sources-say/

 


A grand jury investigation into rape allegations against National Hockey League star Patrick Kane set to begin Tuesday afternoon has been abruptly postponed, according to three current and former law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case.

The reason for the delay appears to involve the possibility of ongoing settlement talks between attorneys for Kane and the victim, two of the sources said.

 

What the hell kind of "settlement" can possibly be being reached here?

 

Voynov's wife apparently didn't want to press charges, but they carried on with that.

 

If there was a crime committed, then a crime was committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the state laws. In CA, the prosecutor can continue with a DV indictment even if the victim refuses to press charges, from what I read regarding the Voynov arrest. That may not be the case in New York - if the victim declines to press charges, then the prosecutor's hands could be tied. I do agree, how can one reach a settlement with the victim in a criminal, not civil, case, however?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the state laws. In CA, the prosecutor can continue with a DV indictment even if the victim refuses to press charges, from what I read regarding the Voynov arrest. That may not be the case in New York - if the victim declines to press charges, then the prosecutor's hands could be tied. I do agree, how can one reach a settlement with the victim in a criminal, not civil, case, however?

 

So (as I said in the shoutbox) the upshot is "how much will it cost to make it OK I raped you"?

 

They were going to a Grand Jury - this wasn't a "victim not pressing charges" this was "does a Grand Jury find enough evidence to file charges"? How does that get derailed by a "settlement" between "the rapist" and his accuser?

 

Again, if a crime was committed then a crime was committed.

 

This thing stinks to high heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the state laws. In CA, the prosecutor can continue with a DV indictment even if the victim refuses to press charges, from what I read regarding the Voynov arrest. That may not be the case in New York - if the victim declines to press charges, then the prosecutor's hands could be tied. I do agree, how can one reach a settlement with the victim in a criminal, not civil, case, however?

 

I'm no lawyer but I don't think there's anything that would prevent the lawyers for the two sides agreeing to settle out of court (except the desire to do so of course). At that point, if the woman declines to go ahead with the charges there probably isn't much the prosecutors can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but it's a weird turn of phrase. She isn't suing Kane, where you'd see an out of court settlement, he's being prosecuted for rape. What you'd typically see here is a plea bargain for Kane with the prosecutor, which would exclude the victim entirely. It's odd to see a victim negotiating with a perpetrator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but it's a weird turn of phrase. She isn't suing Kane, where you'd see an out of court settlement, he's being prosecuted for rape. What you'd typically see here is a plea bargain for Kane with the prosecutor, which would exclude the victim entirely. It's odd to see a victim negotiating with a perpetrator.

 

I think the idea would be that the two sides would come to their agreement and then although the criminal case would proceed, she would just refuse to testify. Prosecutors probably don't like trying to force rape victims to testify, so the charges get dropped. Ugly, and hopefully won't go that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no lawyer but I don't think there's anything that would prevent the lawyers for the two sides agreeing to settle out of court (except the desire to do so of course). At that point, if the woman declines to go ahead with the charges there probably isn't much the prosecutors can do.

 

Tell that to Mrs. Voynov...

 

This isn't a civil case - this is a criminal complaint. And this isn't a fender bender in a traffic stop. Someone accused another person of raping them.

 

I think the idea would be that the two sides would come to their agreement and then although the criminal case would proceed, she would just refuse to testify. Prosecutors probably don't like trying to force rape victims to testify, so the charges get dropped. Ugly, and hopefully won't go that way.

 

Again, the Voynov case just flies in the face of this line of reasoning (from where I sit). Mrs. Voynov didn't want to press charges. She didn't testify. And they got a nolo from Voynov in the prosecution.

 

If there is evidence of a crime (I presume/hope something was being presented to the Grand Jury other than "he said/she said") how does a prosecutor decide that buying off the victim means the case isn't worth pursing?

 

If there was no evidence of a crime (rape kit, etc.) then what is the "settlement" about?

 

And how, exactly, do we go from "don't blame/shame the victim" to "the victim got enough money to drop the accusation"?

 

To be clear, WE DON'T HAVE THE FULL STORY (and at this point, we may never) but, again, given the reporting out there, this situation stinks.

 

At the very least it could perpetuate the "myth" of the money-grubbing accuser.

 

Which stinks for all future legitimate victims.

 

As we've discussed on here, rape is one of the most heinous and vile acts imaginable. The idea a rapist could buy off his accuser and escape punishment beyond a monetary settlement stinks to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran

 

Well said (all points).  I have to look at this from the point of what is the motivation for Kane and the accuser to agree to this (assuming what we are hearing is true).

 

I like to think that Kane - if innocent - would fight this to the very end especially since he has the financial means to do so.  That said, it's possible that he wants to really and truly make this "go away" regardless of appearances - even if that  means this "settlement" can be taken as an admission of guilt on his part.  Clearly this would be an ongoing distraction during the season. In some ways, it could turn the table and make him seem like a victim. "I'm innocent.  I don't want this to be a distraction to me or my teammates. She was willing to "settle" for X amount of dollars (probably a drop in the bucket for him). As you said, it perpetuates the "myth" of the money-grubbing accuser. If it is about justice, why didn't she turn down the money? 

 

From her perspective - she could absolutely not want to go through the horrors of a rape trial where the events must be relived in detail.  Add to that the intimidation of multi million dollar athlete and his team of high powered attorneys sitting on the other side of the court room.  Unfortunately for her, taking the money and walking away as opposed to just walking away are going to be viewed very differently in the court of public opinion.

 

Of course - there is the possibility that it is/was about the money after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Of course - there is the possibility that it is/was about the money after all.

 

The problem is that the "rapist" label against him will never go away if there is even the slightest perception that he "bought himself out of it". There will be activists and "fans" in every city who will bring it up. Who will shout it from the stands. FOR THE REST OF HIS CAREER. Hell, we still hear about the "cabbie" incident.

 

And, for the accuser, the idea "she was in it for the money" will never go away if she takes money to drop the accusation. And that perception will continue to (wrongly, IMO) extend to every other victim of a rich, entitled attacker.

 

I don't even have "a dog in this fight" and I am (in case you couldn't tell) livid about the whole damn thing. It just perpetuates the worst "on both sides".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Tell that to Mrs. Voynov...
 
This isn't a civil case - this is a criminal complaint. And this isn't a fender bender in a traffic stop. Someone accused another person of raping them.

 

Regardless, if the victim chooses not to cooperate with the prosecution then my guess is that it would be very unlikely that the prosecutor would go forward with the case. I think we all know that's not especially uncommon in rape cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for allegations not going away, ask Roethlisberger. His accuser admitted to lying and he still gets it from all sides.

The difference between Voynov and Kane is that most states allow for prosecution of domestic violence cases without a participating victim because victims are often too afraid to do the necessary thing. It is one of very very few cases that can be brought to bear against someone without "facing your accuser".

We all are granted the right to face our accuser by the 6th Amendment. So in most criminal cases out there, all but a few exceptions, the prosecution can NOT proceed to charge a defendant without the cooperation of the victim. ESPECIALLY in a case where the victim is the only person who can say whether they gave consent or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, if the victim chooses not to cooperate with the prosecution then my guess is that it would be very unlikely that the prosecutor would go forward with the case. I think we all know that's not especially uncommon in rape cases.

Then don't make the accusation in the first place (more common in actual rape cases).

My issue is that this calls all accusers into question.

It STINKS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the prosecution can NOT proceed to charge a defendant without the cooperation of the victim. ESPECIALLY in a case where the victim is the only person who can say whether they gav

Yup.

An assault is the crime. The person assaulted is the witness to the crime. We need them to testify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...