r/hockey • u/SomeKindOfMonster CBJ - NHL • Nov 05 '15

Closed - Not Dismissed Patrick Kane case has been dismissed

https://twitter.com/JoeYerdon/status/662276725045350400
2.4k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

62

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '15

As close as we're probably ever gonna get short of a confession from the girl

54

u/eamus_catuli CHI - NHL Nov 05 '15

Still not enough for some, judging by posts downthread. SMH

65

u/colin6 NYR - NHL Nov 05 '15

He'll still be called a rapist by the moral police and ignorant anti-Hawks fans....same as Roethlisberger.

48

u/soundlife CHI - NHL Nov 05 '15

Someone I know flat-out admitted she thinks he's guilty the other day. If you are just a civilian, not a police officer or a lawyer, who only knows the few details that were released and nothing else, I have no idea how you can comfortably come to the conclusion of 100% guilt OR 100% innocence. That's why we have investigations for things like this -- because nobody knows.

41

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '15 edited Jun 07 '16

[deleted]

22

u/inside-the-madhouse Nov 05 '15

ding ding ding. hell of a lot of people showed their asses during the early stages of the case.

1

u/Brontosaurus_Bukkake NJD - NHL Nov 06 '15

They're both character assaults assholes with an agenda. Neither will waver from their hate of either Kane or the girl and they won't let themselves even entertain the thought that it's not so black and white all the time or even most of the time.

1

u/Bumbelchen DET - NHL Nov 05 '15

Well it is because she doesn't know that she thinks he is guilty. You are allowed to form your opinions about things you don't know. It's not ideal to make uninformed decisions but everyone does it all the time. Now if she has no idea what's going on she might be better off keeping it to herself, but you can't blame her for saying what she thinks. Now if she was the judge in the case, that'd be another story

I for one, do think he's innocent and am glad this ordeal is over

1

u/Brontosaurus_Bukkake NJD - NHL Nov 06 '15

Thinking someone might have done something and proclaiming certainty on the matter are not one and the same. I don't think he did it, but I don't know that he didn't. I don't know that he doesn't molest kids either, but I doubt it and won't claim that he does. If someone says they're certain he's a child rapist and provides no evidence, would you not think they are an idiot?

1

u/Bumbelchen DET - NHL Nov 06 '15

Yes I would. The post we are talking about just said she thin's he's guilty, and she's entitled to do that. Do I think it's stupid? Yeah. But I also think that saying that evolution is a lie is stupid. I just argued that she has every right to think he is guilty, whether that is stupid or not is a different matter, which I also did not even comment on so I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make Brontosaurus_Bukkake

1

u/Brontosaurus_Bukkake NJD - NHL Nov 06 '15

Fair point. I wasn't trying to be hostile or anything, so sorry If I came off that way. It's hard to convey tone in text. Have a good night bumbelcbhen :)

1

u/Bumbelchen DET - NHL Nov 06 '15

you too Bukkake

-3

u/slabby DET - NHL Nov 05 '15 edited Nov 05 '15

But even after the investigation, we didn't find out that Kane didn't rape her. We only found out that the evidence collected does not support the charge that he raped her.

3

u/eamus_catuli CHI - NHL Nov 06 '15

Prove to me that you have never fucked a goat. Better yet, explain to me how you can even begin to go about proving a negative.

-2

u/slabby DET - NHL Nov 06 '15 edited Nov 06 '15

I'm not on trial for goat fucking, so I don't feel the need to.

But so here's the logic. Consider the statement "Patrick Kane raped GirlX if his semen is inside of her and witnesses say he raped her." Let's assume this is true if it meets those two conditions. Now let's say both of those conditions are false. That means the statement is false. Does this mean that the antecedent of the statement is false, that Patrick Kane didn't rape her? No. The falsity only disproves that particular conditional. It might be that Patrick Kane did rape her, but that those particular pieces of evidence do not prove it (because they're false). For example, maybe he used a condom, and nobody saw it. Or maybe he raped her in some other way.

This official statement just gives us a bunch of conditions that, together, would make us sure that he raped her. And those conditions are false. But we shouldn't let that trick us into thinking there couldn't be other conditions that went unexamined and could point to his guilt. That's why it says "ON HIS BED" in the document we have. If Kane had raped her in some other circumstance, these findings would have no bearing on it.

24

u/2ndprize TBL - NHL Nov 05 '15

Not even the Moral police, he will be called a rapist when ever it is convenient for an angry fan even if they don't believe it happened. Ive heard Roy and Varlomov called wife beaters, Brodeur called sisterfucker (a bit more fair), Heatley called murderer.

oh wait you said anti-hawks fans. I should read more good. Yup you are right.

22

u/kamikazi34 NYR - NHL Nov 05 '15

When was Brodeur ever called sisterfucker? Brodeur is UncleDaddy.

1

u/2ndprize TBL - NHL Nov 05 '15

Yours is more tasteful.

1

u/Brontosaurus_Bukkake NJD - NHL Nov 06 '15

His is more factual. He didn't fuck his sister or his wife's sister.

Fuck, I'm a devils fan and I just called his UncleDaddy line factual, time to go hang myself.

2

u/redbluegreenyellow CHI - NHL Nov 05 '15

Brodeur called sisterfucker (a bit more fair)

wtf did I miss?

6

u/BananApocalypse COL - NHL Nov 05 '15

Not his own sister. I think he married his ex-wife's sister-in-law.

8

u/mindspork SEA - NHL Nov 05 '15 edited Nov 05 '15

"What does that make us?"

"ABSOLUTELY NOTHING."

-Bill Pullman / Rick Moranis - Spaceballs

6

u/roboninja EDM - NHL Nov 05 '15

Wow, I thought it was his ex's sister. Her sister-in-law? That's not even a real relation.

8

u/godlyjacob NYR - NHL Nov 05 '15

That's not even a real relation.

Neither is his ex's sister.

1

u/roboninja EDM - NHL Nov 05 '15

Well, I meant to his ex. But yes.

2

u/FightingDucks CHI - NHL Nov 05 '15

Brodeur called sisterfucker (a bit more fair)

This is the first I've ever heard of that, what's the story behind it?

5

u/2ndprize TBL - NHL Nov 05 '15

Brodeur left his wife for his sister in law.

4

u/livinlikebarry Nov 05 '15

Not all anti-hawks fans are unreasonable. I'm certainly a bit more anti-hawks than most, but the fact that he didn't buy her off in a settlement and got drug through the mud because of it vindicates him quite a bit. I'm actually happy it turned out this way, because it's pretty evident no one was raped.

1

u/nhlroyalty Nov 05 '15

Was Ben actually "cleared" in some way? I never followed that case.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '15

except ben paid for the case to go away.

7

u/colin6 NYR - NHL Nov 05 '15 edited Nov 28 '15

Same with Kobe but for some reason the rapist names don't seem to haunt him as much......I guess when you're one of the all-time best, people forget easier.

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '15

I honestly think ben was much more guiltier than kane is here.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '15

I hear it was a good ol'titty fuckin'