The Rush to Judgement

Jonathan Willis
August 11 2009 06:30AM

 

The hockey world is roundly condemning Patrick Kane after reports that he and his cousin had been charged with assaulting a cab driver and depriving him of his fare. Some of that condemnation has occurred on this website.

Jason Gregor:

Patrick Kane you are a cheap ass idiot! …. I’m sorry there is no defence for what he and his chicken-ass cousin James allegedly did to a Buffalo cab driver this past weekend. The Kanes have been charged with felony robbery and misdemeanour counts of theft and criminal mischief. All of this allegedly stemmed from the cabbie not having 20 cents in change. 20 cents? Really that’s what these two tight-asses were upset about? The original fare was $13.80 and the cabbie supposedly only had a dollar in change. Being that much of a tight-ass is just as embarrassing as allegedly beating up a 62-year-old cab driver.

Baron Wanye Von Gretz IV:

If there is any truth to this business involving Patrick Kane over the weekend then he seriously needs to be beaten within an inch of his life by someone who has the ability to get through to him…. Beating up a cabbie? What a douche.

Of course, it isn’t really surprising. The hockey world is almost bereft of news by August (trust me on that) and this is a big story, involving a recognized star (EA Sports’ cover boy this year) doing something that (if true) is obviously way out of line. There are literally hundreds of articles out there as NHL writers across the continent took advantage of Kane’s foolishness and wrote their first easy column in weeks.

Still, let’s back up a second. The publicly available facts are limited; largely based on an initial police report seen by a Buffalo sportswriter, and on public comments from the cap driver, Jan Radecki.

Don’t get me wrong – if the initial reports are correct, Kane deserves most of the flack he’s getting, and most of the people criticizing him realize it (Wanye prefaces his comments with “if there’s any truth” and Jason Gregor uses the word “allegedly” three times in two paragraphs) but that isn’t what will be remembered. Kane has already been judged and found guilty by public opinion.

There are some things worth remembering here – the first of which is that Kane probably didn’t do it because he’s just that cheap. From today’s Chicago Tribune (g/t Second City Hockey):

During Kane's rookie season in 2007, the then 18-year-old was with his Hawks teammates in Detroit for a game against the Red Wings. I was staying in the same hotel as the team and a few hours before game time jumped into a cab and asked the driver to take me to Joe Louis Arena. After hearing my destination, the driver told me he'd just had a Hawks player in the cab and mentioned what a great guy the player was and that he had given the driver $50 for a $10 cab ride. He then showed me the autograph the player had given him and it read: "Show me the money! (signed) Patrick Kane" Irony aside, this certainly doesn't absolve Kane of any wrong-doing in Sunday's incident, but in my mind should help put to rest the notion that the altercation was because Kane, who as a rookie wasn't yet making millions of dollars but still gave the driver in Detroit a $40 tip, was too cheap to pay Radecki or tip him or that Kane disrespects working men and women such as cab drivers.

Another item worth noting is the public statements made by Radecki’s attorney, Andrew LoTempio (a rather prominent Buffalo-area lawyer and former judge):

"It's pretty much been blown out of proportion. It's a dispute over the cab fee and unfortunately Mr. Radecki didn't recognize Mr. Kane and just thought they were a couple of college kids. "Some of the cab drivers here have a policy of not unlocking the doors until they get paid because they get beat on their fees by the college kids and that just kind of blew up." … LoTempio added that he believed the charges would "absolutely not" rise to the level of a felony, calling it a "regular kid incident." The lawyer also said, "I think we should be able to work things out" with Kane.

None of this absolves Kane, but the issue is probably more about Kane and his cousin getting locked in the cab than it is about the twenty cents in change they were supposedly refused. Radecki’s initial comments seem damning, but then again if I’d been wronged (and it seems pretty clear he was) by someone like Kane I know that I’d have to fight the impulse to exaggerate the incident; perhaps Radecki had a similar impulse.

Naturally, we’ll likely never know – if for no other reason than LoTempio’s comments seem aimed at quieting the story. I can only guess at the reason, but it seems pretty clear-cut: a nice out-of-court settlement for his client.

Lastly, it isn’t like Kane has pled guilty. Kane really hasn’t said anything yet, but his attorney entered a not-guilty plea and made the following statement:

"Obviously he's upset that he would be accused of something like this," Cambria said. "He hasn't committed a crime, and I think the evidence is going to demonstrate that."

Patrick Kane will pay for his mistake – whatever the true extent of it - and his reputation likely won’t recover. Probably it’s deserved. But as far as I’m concerned, the critics making absolute statements without anything more than a superficial knowledge of the facts - which is all any of us have at this point - are moving too quickly.

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#1 Posts about sports as of August 11, 2009 » BLOGVIDEOS
August 11 2009, 06:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

[...] [...]

Avatar
#2 johnm
August 11 2009, 07:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

This situation does not sound good, however I heard some comments from the cabbie and his lawyer and this will be settled out of court with a minor non criminal charge being the most likely. Also heard the cab driver locked the two Kanes in the back seat and would not let them out of the cab as he thought they were college students and this seems to be the standard practice untell they get payment. Media did show the cab driver and he was a bit scratched up but not like he was mugged or anything like that. I see money changing hands and end of story.

Avatar
#3 The Towel Boy
August 11 2009, 07:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I know if he was an Oiler I would defend him to my grave.

*puts copper and blue glasses back on*

Avatar
#4 Travis Dakin
August 11 2009, 07:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Thank you for finally putting some reality into the situation Jonathan. People have really been pissing me off the last couple of days with their rush to judgment and assumption about this issue. It shhows just how ignorant we can be. How can anybody with any tinge of intelligence make a solid judgement after only hearing one side of a story? It's quite a sad picture painted for our society if you ask me. Haven't these people ever been involved in an incident, legal or not, that was blown out of proportion by one side and therefore had people wrongly condemn them? Glass houses.

Avatar
#5 Dave
August 11 2009, 07:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Well Put Willis. I'm shocked by the comments by people that rush to judge. Perhaps this will help tone down the rhetoric.

Avatar
#6 Jonathan Willis
August 11 2009, 07:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

And just to clarify: none of this is me trying to defend Kane. I'm just advising caution.

Avatar
#7 RossCreek
August 11 2009, 07:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Hmmm, the lawyer says its been blown out of proportion eh. Wonder how big a cheque Kane wrote to make this mess go away. As Ted Dibiase always said, everybody's got a price. HAHAHAHAHA!

Avatar
#8 onehitwonder
August 11 2009, 07:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The PR department has done a nice job so far of sidestepping the underage drinking issue. Overreaction = D-Runk

Avatar
#9 JRyanMac
August 11 2009, 07:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Baron Wanye Von Gretz IV is stiill correct though, cabbie beater or not. What a douche. Just for the way he always has that stupid mouth guard hanging out of mouth. Douche all the way.

Avatar
#10 Travis Dakin
August 11 2009, 08:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

JRyanMac wrote:

Baron Wanye Von Gretz IV is stiill correct though, cabbie beater or not. What a douche. Just for the way he always has that stupid mouth guard hanging out of mouth. Douche all the way.

HAHA jelous of the 20 year old hockey super star are we? Douche he is indeed.

Avatar
#11 Clarkenstein
August 11 2009, 08:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Travis Dakin: Well then call me "ignorant"!! Did you, by chance, see the face of the 70 year old cabbie?? Or did you think he got that messed up shaving that morning?? When two punks beat up an old man then the "court of public opinion" has every right to express their opinions on pages like this. However, as we all know it only matters what the judge thinks. Just for a change tho' it would be nice to see some appropriate punishment given...IF.... they are found guilty of the alleged crime.

Avatar
#12 Jonathan Willis
August 11 2009, 08:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

onehitwonder wrote:

The PR department has done a nice job so far of sidestepping the underage drinking issue. Overreaction = D-Runk

Nice point; that hadn't occurred to me. I should know that it's 21 in the States; I took a road trip to New York a few years back and was a little surprised to discover I couldn't order a beer.

Avatar
#13 Jonathan Willis
August 11 2009, 08:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Most Likely Outcome:

Patrick Kane pays a lot of money to keep Radecki's mouth shut from here on out, and the charges get dropped.

At least, that's where I'd put my money if this were a betting pool.

Avatar
#14 Showerhead
August 11 2009, 08:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

JW, that was damn near Bob McKenzie-esque in it's calm rationale and reasoned thought process. You've been kicking ass for a long time over a range of different topics and I think it's finally time to plunge into your comment threads to tip my hat and say thanks for all your hard work. Great job sir!

Avatar
#15 Travis Dakin
August 11 2009, 08:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Clarkenstein wrote:

Did you, by chance, see the face of the 70 year old cabbie?? Or did you think he got that messed up shaving that morning?? When two punks beat up an old man then the “court of public opinion” has every right to express their opinions on pages like this

And did you by chance hear what Kane had to say about the incident? How do you know that the Cabbie wasn't being a crazy driving jerk and them locked them in the car? Un-likely but possible. What if Kane had come out to the media and said that before he was ever accused of wrong doing. Would you believe him? If you have one side of the story and you've made up your mind then yes you are ignorant.

Avatar
#16 SkinnyD
August 11 2009, 08:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

onehitwonder wrote:

The PR department has done a nice job so far of sidestepping the underage drinking issue. Overreaction = D-Runk

Given Jon's comparison to the earlier article indicating Kane was a generous tipper during the day whilst (presumably) sober - it wouldn't be a stretch to say this is the root of the problem.

Not sure about the rest of you's - but when I'm inebriated I have a hard time with both math and rationale...just sayin'...

Still, a douchey thing to do - but I'll give the kid the benefit of the doubt til all the facts are out.

Avatar
#17 onehitwonder
August 11 2009, 08:42AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

LT posted that he keeps hearing the Heater deal isn’t dead. I’m glad Patty Kane made him self available to absorb 90% of our douche comments. ~Because I’m sure Heatley enjoys reading ON so he doesn’t get to full of himself~

Avatar
#18 Death Metal Nightmare
August 11 2009, 08:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

imagine if he would have paid and just left the cab? there wouldnt be a situation at all. its kind of funny how just "playing along" in society can keep you out of trouble. or did the bruises on the cabbies face just appear from Fight Club type "self-punishment"? maybe the cabbie really wanted to test his luck against two guys and locked them in for an extra couple bucks. pfff haha

maybe people are jumping the gun but Kane didnt do himself any favors to expect people not to jump it.

we all know the "non-facts" right now, but thinking people arent going to develop a bias based on the story so far is hilarious. bringing in objective "caution" is fine, but dont expect it to win out until more "facts" come out.

Avatar
#19 Jason Gregor
August 11 2009, 08:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Did you see the photo of the cabbie? Do you think the black eye is makeup. Whether Kane or his cousin hit him, the fact is Kane was there when the situation escalated to the point of violence, and the fare was $13.80. They took their original $15 dollars back. Explain to me what instance makes this right.

Kane will pay the guy off so this goes away, but that doesn't make it right. Cabbies are getting beat on all over the damn place, and to just shrug and say "we need all the facts" is a sad state on how you look at things.

What could have happened to cause them to punch a 62 year-old man? There wasn't a girlfriend around that he could have flirted with or made a harsh remark about.

So he locked the doors of the cab. It happens lots, and makes sense since many people like to run rather than pay. Is that cause to get beat up? I sure would hope not.

Avatar
#20 GLoKz0r
August 11 2009, 08:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

While I'm normally one to preach caution in lieu of the facts, in this particular instance, I'm not sure how the facts are going to make this look any better. Unless the 60+ year old cab driver was the one that started the swinging (which really seems unlikely), what exactly would make beating up a sixty year old man acceptable?

What facts could we POSSIBLY be made aware of that would make us say "ohhhh, yeah, I guess that old bastard had it coming..."?

Perhaps I'm a little old fashioned, but I've always been of the mind that outside of the good ol' fashion Hockey game, it's just not okay to start hitting someone. Ever. (barring a few extreme circumstances, of course... oh, and getting locked in a cab while you fight over a fare is not an "extreme circumstance"). This is doubly so when that someone is a senior citizen.

Sorry JW, I couldn't disagree more here.... I hope the media continues to lambast the little punk. I hope nick names like "20-cent" and the like become common place. Because I really don't care what the facts are, there's none that'll make me feel that Kane was justified in whomping on a 60+ year old dude.

Avatar
#21 Ender the Dragon
August 11 2009, 09:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

While Jon is correct to point out that the public has yet to hear anything close to the unvarnished truth, I thinks some of the mud thrown in the last couple days is somewhat deserved. Patrick Kane is probably not the drunken mugger he's been painted, but he is s-t-u-p-i-d with a capital S. Every young star in professional sports or show business should take classes on PR the second they see their name in print more than once a week. If Kane had been educated/thinking at all, he would have realized the potential ugliness of this situation and avoided it before it ever became news. But naivety and probably some booze and wanting to show off for cousin Cledus led to this firestorm that he's certainly regretting today.

Do you think for a second that Glen Sather or Doug Weight or Dr. Phil haven't wanted to throttle some stupid public loser over a misunderstanding or petty insult? Sure they have. But they're smarter than that and realize that they can't afford to lose it on the person. I think Kane understands that now, albeit he sure had to figure it out the hard way.

Avatar
#22 Chris.
August 11 2009, 09:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I don't care if Kane is innocent or guilty. I'm gonna heckle him without mercy November 21st! I'm gonna have a sign asking for twenty cent donations to the Candy Kane defence fund. I'm gonna wear broken glasses and a neck brace: I'll even put powder in my hair... When you are a public figure, even the APPEARANCE of impropriety lends ammunition to your detractors. I'm gonna have a FIELD DAY...and so will hundreds of other fans in areana's all over the league. It may be wise to drop Kane out of your top twenty this coming hockey pool: even the most stone hearted of men can get worn down by the oncomming shenanigans over an 82 game schedule.

Avatar
#23 ronaldo
August 11 2009, 09:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

This one time coming back from a fine drinking establishment with a couple buddies, our cabbie locked the doors on us. When we got to our apartment two of us unlocked our doors and stepped out so our other buddy was forced to pay. The cabbie thought we were stiffing him, reached back and grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and drove off with one hand and the doors still open. Funniest thing I ever saw. Turns out he drove like that all the way to a police station. Good times.

Avatar
#24 Librarian Mike
August 11 2009, 09:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Jason Gregor:

I'm in total agreement, Jason. I can't possibly imagine what entitles anyone to beat up a cab driver. Yes, cabbies sometimes rip people off. I think of it as a tax for them having to deal with drunken morons who treat them like crap.

Then again, maybe the driver mistook Kane for the guy who played 'Squeak' Scolari in Baseketball.

Avatar
#25 Mike Sciarpelletti
August 11 2009, 09:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I couldn't disagree more with what you've said regarding Kane. Heatley is responsible for the death of another and his reputation is still a "top line scorer". MacTavish killed a kid DWI-ing through Boston. His rep is ex Oilers coach not child murderer. Kane's rep will be fine, and he even might win some defamation suits because of the fly by night reporting done on this story.

I'm shaking my head at the media spin more than Kane at this point.

Nothing has officially come to light yet, let's see what a court has to say on this (if anything) and then jump to conclusions about Kane's character.

Avatar
#26 Jonathan Willis
August 11 2009, 09:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Jason Gregor:

I can't picture a scenario where Kane is in the clear. Also, like you I completely agree that beating up on a cabbie is up there on both the stupid list and the classless list.

On the other hand, the wrath of virtually the entire hockey world has turned on Kane because of the timing and apparent senselessness of the incident. In the absence of further information his character is going to continue to take a drubbing, and until such time as we know exactly what happened it probably isn't right.

Kane hasn't even issued a statement yet; I think we can afford to wait a few days or a week or whatever before reviling him further.

Besides, there's plenty of people already assassinating his character; I don't feel any particular inclination to pile on at this point in time.

Avatar
#27 Jonathan Willis
August 11 2009, 09:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Mike Sciarpelletti wrote:

Heatley is responsible for the death of another and his reputation is still a “top line scorer”. MacTavish killed a kid DWI-ing through Boston. His rep is ex Oilers coach not child murderer. Kane’s rep will be fine, and he even might win some defamation suits because of the fly by night reporting done on this story.

And there are others.

Avatar
#28 jcbel
August 11 2009, 09:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Another twist in the story...

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/760115.html

Avatar
#29 MattL
August 11 2009, 09:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Jason Gregor wrote:

Did you see the photo of the cabbie? Do you think the black eye is makeup. Whether Kane or his cousin hit him, the fact is Kane was there when the situation escalated to the point of violence, and the fare was $13.80. They took their original $15 dollars back. Explain to me what instance makes this right.

Jason, you're an awesome journalist, but seriously, you're still a journalist.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Avatar
#30 scorecoff hemmercules
August 11 2009, 09:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Mike Sciarpelletti:

My sentiments exactly. The cabbie's lawyer even said it's been blow way out of proportion. Does anyone really care about this that much?? In a month no one will even remember this. I know hockey news is slow but really, does Oilersnation need 3 articles about something no one really has the actual facts on??? Not to mention Kane has nothing to do with the oilers or edmonton in any way.

*awaits "Don't read it then if you don't like it" comments*

Avatar
#31 common sense
August 11 2009, 09:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Jason Gregor: There are always two sides to a story. I don't think Gregor as learned much from his Heatley reporting fiasco. Cliche but true: innocent until proven guilty and in Gregor's case: An Ottawa Senator till really traded...

Avatar
#32 Wanye Gretz
August 11 2009, 09:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

Patrick Kane pays a lot of money to keep Radecki’s mouth shut from here on out, and the charges get dropped.

Ain't that the truth.

I think you raise a fair point in saying there shouldn't be a rush to judgement of Kane until he has had his day in court.. My main point - and it is an HONOUR to be quoted in a Willis article btw - was that a lot of the damage is already done, damage that Hockey USA and the Hawks can ill afford.

Due legal process aside it's still a scandal that 99% of NHLers (who have doubtlessly been drunk in a taxi the odd time too) wouldn't come within 10,000 feet of.

The fact Kane is in that 1% speaks to his character IMO.

Avatar
#33 Wanye Gretz
August 11 2009, 09:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

scorecoff hemmercules wrote:

*awaits “Don’t read it then if you don’t like it” comments*

I would never tell you not to read articles on here. In fact I am going to go write 3 more articles on the topic and email them to you personally.

If you are in the business of writing on NHL hockey matters 24/7/365 and a star of Kane's magnitude is involved with a scandal of this nature I think you can expect a lot of editorial takes on the matter - particularly on August 10, 2009.

Avatar
#34 Chaz
August 11 2009, 09:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

MattL wrote:

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Oh, you mean like OJ?

The fact he was charged shows he and his Cuz did something wrong. No DA would ever charge someone, let alone someone with money and influence, unless they knew something criminal occurred. Sorry JW, but I'm with Gregor on this one. The guy's a scum-bucket and if we wait to pass judgement we won't get a chance as this will be swept under the carpet and the facts will likely never get out.

Just my 20 cents...

Avatar
#35 Librarian Mike
August 11 2009, 09:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ scorecoff hemmercules:

To be fair, there's not much going on with the Oilers right now. Hell, Tom Gilbert hasn't updated his blog since May. *single tear runs down my face*

Avatar
#36 Jonathan Willis
August 11 2009, 09:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

jcbel wrote:

Another twist in the story… http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/760115.html

"When all this is put into perspective," [Kane's lawyer] Cambria said, "it's going to appear vastly different than the first impression."

That's interesting. The cabbie had no license and has had previous DWI convictions. I wonder what other new facts will come to light.

As one possible (hypothetical) example: it turns out that Patrick Kane's cousin inflicted the beating on Radecki.

The point is that we don't know the whole story, and forming definite conclusions before we do would be foolhardy.

Avatar
#37 scorecoff hemmercules
August 11 2009, 09:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Wanye Gretz:

I'm eagerly awaiting your articles, at least you make them funny. I understand that writers are going to write about Kane and this incident over and over and over and over until its resolved but I can go to any newspaper or hockey website and read 3 or 4 writers opinions on the subject. Didn't expect to see so much of it here. Personnaly, I've heard enough already and its only day 2 of the "greatest scandal ever to hit the NHL".

Avatar
#38 Jonathan Willis
August 11 2009, 09:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Chaz wrote:

The fact he was charged shows he and his Cuz did something wrong. No DA would ever charge someone, let alone someone with money and influence, unless they knew something criminal occurred.

Than why even have trials? We could simply rely on the DA's discretion.

Avatar
#39 Chris.
August 11 2009, 09:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

It's almost BETTER if Kane is somehow completely innocent. Being unfairly trashed will be WAAAY more frustrating... Let's remember that the Oilers are competing with the Blackhawks for one of eight playoff spots. I also hope a Tavarres stars in a Paris Hilton style video featuring himself and Kane's sister the day after the inevidible out of court settlement...

Avatar
#40 Chaz
August 11 2009, 09:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

Than why even have trials? We could simply rely on the DA’s discretion.

Good question. In my non-lawyer opinion I would say we have trials to ensure the accused has an opportunity to defend themselves and the Prosecution does their best to justify the charges.

That being said, in the vase majority of charges we don't even have trials and the cases are in fact decided by the discretion of the DA along with the defense lawyers. This case will be no different and the facts will not come out. That's why waiting to pass judgement will do us no good, and ~ it's time to burn him at the stake~.

He made a bone-head drunken mistake and I don't find anything wrong with calling him out on that.

Avatar
#41 GLoKz0r
August 11 2009, 09:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Chaz wrote:

MattL wrote: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Oh, you mean like OJ? The fact he was charged shows he and his Cuz did something wrong. No DA would ever charge someone, let alone someone with money and influence, unless they knew something criminal occurred. Sorry JW, but I’m with Gregor on this one. The guy’s a scum-bucket and if we wait to pass judgement we won’t get a chance as this will be swept under the carpet and the facts will likely never get out. Just my 20 cents…

I sincerely hope this was a form of parody, rather than honest sentiment.

Avatar
#42 Jonathan Willis
August 11 2009, 09:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Chaz:

I don't have any particular problem with fans calling him on that; we don't have thought police yet, after all ;)

What I don't like is when credible journalists clobber him in print, or on television, or wherever. People tend to take journalists at their word, and if the story twists some people will end up looking rather foolish.

Avatar
#43 forsoothed
August 11 2009, 09:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

we simply don't know all the facts.

maybe kane's cousin started beating up the cabbie and kane heroically stopped him? just because he's the famous one means he's automatically guilty?

to be fair, the opposite may be true & maybe kane's a total D. the point is we don't know.

let's put this into perspective. we all know someone who has a story about a hockey player beating someone up/ doing drugs/ ripping someone off/ etc and nothing ever coming of it. my cynical self thinks that in edmonton this kind of incident would've just been covered up quickly and never reported.

Avatar
#44 RossCreek
August 11 2009, 09:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I like how some people think that because the cabbie's lawyer said it was blown out of proportion that that must be true. The lawyer's not an idiot. He says it got blown up a bit and Kane writes a cheque and this mess is over. And the cabbie not having a valid license or being convicted of driving drunk in the past, doesn't mean its ok to beat him.

Avatar
#45 Ender the Dragon
August 11 2009, 10:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

What I don’t like is when credible journalists clobber him in print, or on television, or wherever. People tend to take journalists at their word, and if the story twists some people will end up looking rather foolish.

~And you can bet most of those journalists will of course print a retraction and apology the next day.~

Avatar
#46 Racki
August 11 2009, 10:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

There's two sides to every story. Really want to hear more from the Kanes. But I'm pretty sure that the cabbie left some key details out. His lawyer is either a moron or realizes that it's a battle not worth fighting (likely because the details were exaggerated or some were left out).

Avatar
#47 King Mob
August 11 2009, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Jason Gregor wrote:

...to just shrug and say “we need all the facts” is a sad state on how you look at things.

dude, c'mon.

Really? I mean... REALLY?

Avatar
#48 Jonathan Willis
August 11 2009, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

RossCreek wrote:

I like how some people think that because the cabbie’s lawyer said it was blown out of proportion that that must be true. The lawyer’s not an idiot. He says it got blown up a bit and Kane writes a cheque and this mess is over. And the cabbie not having a valid license or being convicted of driving drunk in the past, doesn’t mean its ok to beat him.

Both true. However, when the victims lawyer downplays things, and the victim turns out to be driving illegally and to have a criminal record - all within one day of the story breaking - it seems fair to say that some caution is needed before labelling Kane with any particularly vile epithet.

Avatar
#49 Zamboni Driver
August 11 2009, 10:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

To me the funniest thing is defenders of all things hockey player related because....well they're hockey players so they're all good boys.

Shall we enter into a discussion of the alleged freak-show that is a junior hockey bus and/or hotel? These are rich little boys raised mainly without parents nearby, nor anyone to tell them no.

Sources close to me tell me that Kane is generally a spoiled @sshole - doesn't bother to stand up for interviews, doesn't look reporters in the eye, etc. Now people come out and say "No no, he tips $30, so he couldn't POSSIBLY have beat the snot out of a cabbie over 20 cents."

and yet we defend them because.....because why?

Sure, innocent until proven guilty, but c'mon, blind faith because they're hockey players?

Please.

Avatar
#50 Librarian Mike
August 11 2009, 10:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Racki wrote:

There’s two sides to every story.

Like Comrie, Pronger, Heatley, etc...Whether we actually hear the other side is another matter.

Comments are closed for this article.