Patrick Kane Rape Investigation

[Banedon]

Lack of evidence wouldn't "clear" him.

[Sammy Sofa]

I had never heard of Sports Mockery until this thread; who the [expletive] reads this garbage?

[Banedon]

I had never heard of Sports Mockery until this thread; who the [expletive] reads this garbage?

 

I admit I followed them on twitter for a little while, but quickly figured out that they're essentially willing to pass on any sports rumor they happen across, without any verification or investigation. They're real bad.

[Guest]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Flames24Rulz]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Dan Bernstein now.

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Wait what? He's not going to be charged but sexual assault still in play? That doesn't make sense.

[Guest]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Wait what? He's not going to be charged but sexual assault still in play? That doesn't make sense.

 

with rape

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Wait what? He's not going to be charged but sexual assault still in play? That doesn't make sense.

 

with rape

 

Misread it.

[Sammy Sofa]

http://bite-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/iago-burn.gif

[Guest]

Wait, is there a difference between sexual assault and rape?

[Guest]

Wait, is there a difference between sexual assault and rape?

Sexual assault would be much broader, no?

[Sammy Sofa]

Wait, is there a difference between sexual assault and rape?

Sexual assault would be much broader, no?

 

I would think so. Rape, I believe, amounts to forced intercourse in the eyes of the law. Sexual assault would basically cover everything else.

 

But hey, let's put out the lawyer-signal.

[Guest]

yeah. like the weirdo running around lincoln park groping women. that's sexual assault.

[Exile on Waveland]

Wait, is there a difference between sexual assault and rape?

Sexual assault would be much broader, no?

 

I would think so. Rape, I believe, amounts to forced intercourse in the eyes of the law. Sexual assault would basically cover everything else.

 

But hey, let's put out the lawyer-signal.

 

Answered...with the cliche "yes, but..." lawyer answer. Generally speaking, sexual assault is a broader term and would actually encompass rape as well. I'm sure that is the case here--maybe unable to prove sexual intercourse, but can prove biting was violent and sexual in nature, or whatever else happened. But some states have abandoned the term "rape" completely for "sexual assault" (a mistake in my opinion--a linguistic white-washing (though I believe it was the progressives that desired this change?)), some use "sexual assault" for any crimes with sexual motivation, etc.

 

Rape laws have changed quite a bit--and quite recently. At common law, rape was forcible sexual intercourse against the women's will (with consent presumed for married couples). Obviously, there are significant problems with that. So there have been many, and ongoing, reforms for sex crime terminology. Heck, it was just last year that Indiana amended its rape definition to include rapes of men (previously a man couldn't be "raped," it was instead "criminal deviate conduct") (because rape was specifically defined by statute as male/female sex organ)).

Edited August 26, 2015 by Exile on Waveland

[Sammy Sofa]

Go, lawyer-signal! Thanks, Exile. That...sounds like a nightmare of a mess.

[Banedon]

From what I was able to see it basically amounts to being able to prove penetration or not. Maybe they have bite marks or bruises or something, but no proof of penetration, so sexual assult.

[Exile on Waveland]

From what I was able to see it basically amounts to being able to prove penetration or not. Maybe they have bite marks or bruises or something, but no proof of penetration, so sexual assult.

 

Yes. "Rape," or its semantic equivalent, requires penetration in every statute I'm aware of.

 

And, trying to avoid being too graphic, that is often very hard to prove other than "he said, she said" scenarios--unless there is seminal fluid present (which, obviously, use of a condom would usually prevent). Even in cases of molestation of children, there is rarely evidence of physical damage (not having a science/biology background at all, this was always surprising to me--I had just assumed that physical damage would be a fait accompli in such scenarios. Doctor testimony usually puts physical damage appearing in only around 5-10% of cases).

[Banedon]

Wow, not to get off topic, but that surprises me a lot.

[Guest]

yeah. like the weirdo running around lincoln park groping women. that's sexual assault.

 

Grabbing boobs.

[Sammy Sofa]

Wow, not to get off topic, but that surprises me a lot.

 

Sadly, it doesn't surprise me at all. It's a tough crime to have clear cut evidence for in the first place, but then there's the added resistance of thinking the presence of a condom could mean it was rape, or if she's not (to be horribly blunt) torn up then, hey, it couldn't have been rape, right? It's a miracle anyone ever gets convicted over these sorts of crimes.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Sammy Sofa

[Guest]

From what I was able to see it basically amounts to being able to prove penetration or not. Maybe they have bite marks or bruises or something, but no proof of penetration, so sexual assult.

 

So, the rape kit found nothing.

[Banedon]

Wow, not to get off topic, but that surprises me a lot.

 

Sadly, it doesn't surprise me at all. It's a tough crime to have clear cut evidence for in the first place, but then there's the added resistance of thinking the presence of a condom could mean it was rape, or if she's not (to be horribly blunt) torn up then, hey, it couldn't have been rape, right? It's a miracle anyone ever gets convicted over these sorts of crimes.

 

I wasn't clear. I meant specifically what he said about cases involving children.

[Banedon]

From what I was able to see it basically amounts to being able to prove penetration or not. Maybe they have bite marks or bruises or something, but no proof of penetration, so sexual assult.

 

So, the rape kit found nothing.

 

Seems that way, if the report is true, which hasn't been backed up anywhere else.

[Guest]

Wow, not to get off topic, but that surprises me a lot.

 

Sadly, it doesn't surprise me at all. It's a tough crime to have clear cut evidence for in the first place, but then there's the added resistance of thinking the presence of a condom could mean it was rape, or if she's not (to be horribly blunt) torn up then, hey, it couldn't have been rape, right? It's a miracle anyone ever gets convicted over these sorts of crimes.

 

I wasn't clear. I meant specifically what he said about cases involving children.

 

Well, with children, i'd bet that they come forward far later than others. I have no idea, though.

[Exile on Waveland]

or if she's not (to be horribly blunt) torn up then, hey, it couldn't have been rape, right?

 

I know that the State/prosecutors generally consider this to be a stumbling block, and take steps to mitigate it. That's why, with any good prosecutor, they'll introduce testimony about the rarity of physical damage (even when it hasn't been, and/or won't be, affirmatively asserted by the defendant). That's the only reason I actually know about this rarity, in the first place.

 

And, I have to admit, without having heard this testimony constantly, I likely would have been initially somewhat skeptical of rape/molest* claims without physical damage. It's a good thing that the human body can absorb/heal but it does make these cases harder.

 

 

*Just to clarify, I specifically meant I would have been skeptical in cases involving kids, not adults.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Exile on Waveland