Slut shaming in the Buffalo News?

If the accused is always presumed innocent until proven guilty -- which Kane still is, by the way -- why shouldn't the accuser be presumed credible until proven otherwise?

 

It doesn't have to be a "totally accurate precursor." It has to make it more plausible that she would have consented than otherwise would be the case, and it does.

Regardless, the events of the night are relevant. How they got from point A to point B is relevant.

 

Yes, direct slut-shaming quotes from a man who benefits financially and personally from his relationship with Kane and who sought space in the Buffalo News to discredit the woman he believed to be Kane's accuser.

 

Here is where my problem lies: We are attempting to establish that nothing that happened before the moment of truth is relevant to attempting to figure out what happened at the moment of truth. Only two people know what happened at the moment of truth. And, it is currently understood, the accuser is always to be believed. So it's a stacked deck against the defendant. His word in the he-said, she-said battle is irrelevant. And other evidence is irrelevant, as well.

 

This is complete and utter bullshit.

 

You keep saying this, and we're talking past each other. I don't think the bar owner thinks that her actions would justify rape. He might think that they indicate that consensual sex was likely to have occurred later, although he says point-blank that he has no idea.

 

He is not stated what he observed. He is giving his negative opinion and little specific detail.

What does being very forward or flirtatious look like? Is "hanging all over" an accurate description or meant to cast her in a negative light?

Why were he and his buddies laughing about a woman at a bar who seemed interested in a professional athlete?
Would that even be unusual?

 

In what way? What socially acceptable defense is available to Patrick Kane?

 

You don't have any reason to believe the bar owner has an agenda to discredit the woman any more than the accuser, the police, the DA, or any other witness have an agenda to lie.

He's telling what he observed. They quoted him. That's journalism.

 

Jesus. Of course no one would argue sanely that her actions justified rape.

The argument is that her actions justified consensual sex, and that argument IS an argument that the woman is full of shit for crying rape.

 

He hasn't even been charged.

 

I don't understand what this means.