Slut shaming in the Buffalo News?

That's what the cops in Ferguson and Baltimore did. Worked well.

All right, that was for analogy purposes (although the #ISupport88 group might well riot still). But I'm sure you can see how that would go badly in a whole lot of cases.

If we didn't know anything except there was an investigation, and now we've learned from his Facebook page that Kane's driver is a cop, do you think you'd be saying "investigators are on it, let's let them work"? I don't think you would be saying that.

 

Yep, in a whole lot of cases it would go badly, and cops generally have latitude to make policy exceptions, but I certainly don't think there was any such risk in this case or in sexual assault cases in general.

 

You don't think there will be accusations of a cover-up if the cops (who are known to be buddy-buddy with Kane) stay silent for two months and then the prosecutor decides not to file charges?

Those accusations would sound mighty credible to most people too. Tallahassee comes to mind.

 

Don't be afraid to speculate.

 

I jumped out of this discussion awhile ago because it had reached the absurd. Now I'm questioning my sanity for jumping back in. But Cran and others keep blaming the prosecutors for "leaking" details.

I'm curious where that belief comes from that it was the prosecutors that did it? In my experience both as a crime reporter and as a prosecutor, leaks generally come from the police, not the prosecutors. Sure there have been times where prosecutors have leaked info, but it's much more likely to come out of a police department where officers are chatty and information spreads fast than it is out of a person who could potentially face sanctions up to and including losing their law license. And the Buffalo News story linked back on page 1 only describes the leakers as "sources with knowledge of the investigation," which doesn't indicate much about who they are.

 

I think most laymen are including cops as a subgroup of "the prosecution."

 

Could be anybody....

A police source...
A nurse at the hospital...
The lawyer for the accuser (I read that she retained her own private attorney)....
A family member of the accuser...

Not necessarily a prosecution leak.

 

Yes, my suggestion is only that the law enforcement side leaked, not specifically a prosecutor. Hell, it could have been a clerical person. Regardless, that leak ensured the cycle of crap throwing would happen and that both the accused and accuser would be damaged in the process.

 

One poster is absolutely certain the reporter who wrote the story saw the incident report and any photos of the victim as part of the report.

 

This came off another thread, but it pertained to this one as well and I wanted a chance to respond (I missed what got that thread locked).

Dick, this has nothing to do with "pearl clutching" (your new favorite phrase), or trying to be on the right side of anything. It's about acknowledging that rape is a dreadful crime that happens to far too many women. It is about acknowledging that rape is NOT something that happens in their minds. It's not that a crime that happens because a woman "believes" she was raped. It happens because a man wrongfully tries to take something from her she does not want to give up. It happens because too many men "believe" she was asking for it.

I'm not at all saying the word of the accuser (note that I have repeatedly referred to the woman as an accuser and not a victim) should just be accepted or that there's no need for evidence. But rape is a quantifiable assault that - contrary to your "she believes she was raped" bullshit - quite often leaves evidence. There are specific traumas and evidence associated with rape that have nothing to do with what is in a woman's mind. I acknowledge that's not the case in every rape, but it very often is the case when a woman quickly undergoes a rape kit. And, sadly, some women who choose to undergo the very invasive process are still left waiting for results that could bolster their case that never come (there are reports that more than 400,000 rape kits are yet to be processed nationwide).

You, on the other hand, are defending the publication of quotes from a bystander (who, coincidentally, benefits from an association with the accused) that essentially say, "A woman was flirting with Patrick Kane. Was she the same woman who accused him of rape? I don't know! What happened later? I don't know that either!" as evidence that this particular accuser may "believe" she was raped, but she may not have been because Patrick Kane may have simply misinterpreted her.

You "believe this woman believes she was raped." This statement is the worst kind of misogyny. It's insensitive and condescending at best and flat-out accepting of rape at worst. "Well, she believes she was raped. But he believes she wanted it, so I guess it's OK."

Enjoy your membership in the He-Man Woman Haters Club, Dick.

Also, your hypocrisy in making a child molestation joke shortly after chastising others for making prison rape jokes just defied logical explanation.

 

Well said, pern.

 

You are all failing to understand a pretty simple thing Dick is saying. I haven't had any trouble with it.

Boiled down to its logical basis, it is: If there was a rape, there was a rapist. So, was the woman in Buffalo raped? We don't know. If she was, then Patrick Kane is a rapist. Is Patrick Kane a rapist?

When Dick says "I believe she believes she was raped," he is saying her version is true as it sits in her mind. She is not fibbing or exaggerating for effect -- even though, if this case is like all other rape cases, she will be proven wrong on several details of varying importance. But we've all seen the movies about different people recalling the same event. If you look at the sentence "I believe she believes she was raped," it isn't judgmental. It's quite carefully constructed, actually. How would you phrase your own stance on the matter right now?

Dick is also correct in pointing out, repeatedly, that this is a giant mess on college campuses and elsewhere. We've discussed it here plenty. Even some rape victims' advocates are saying "whoa, put the brakes on" in a lot of those cases.

Turn to the Winston case. We cannot call him a rapist with any real basis. Does that mean the woman wasn't raped? "I believe she believes she was raped" is a perfect summation of how someone might feel about that case. And compared with much of the other Internet reaction, it's far more understanding.

--That said, Dick, I can't help you with your belief that the Buffalo News should have run with the story. That was still fucked up.