OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Flashing lights pierced the black of night, and the big white letters made clear it was the police. The woman pulled over was a daycare worker in her 50s headed home after playing dominoes with friends. She felt she had nothing to hide, so when the Oklahoma City officer accused her of erratic driving, she did as directed.
She would later tell a judge she was splayed outside the patrol car for a pat-down, made to lift her shirt to prove she wasn't hiding anything, then to pull down her pants when the officer still wasn't convinced. He shined his flashlight between her legs, she said, then ordered her to sit in the squad car and face him as he towered above. His gun in sight, she said she pleaded "No, sir" as he unzipped his fly and exposed himself with a hurried directive.
"Come on," the woman, identified in police reports as J.L., said she was told before she began giving him oral sex. "I don't have all night."
The accusations are undoubtedly jolting, and yet they reflect a betrayal of the badge that has been repeated time and again.
Very long article, so much more to the story available by clicking the link. Didn't want to copy the whole text due to the length.
Sigvatr wrote: So basically, so far, we know nothing about the case since it hasn't gone to court yet. He could be a sex offender, she could be a liar.
I think it's becoming clear it's a matter of "when" that nationwide police bodycams are mandated. It can't happen soon enough - it's good for the police, it's good for the people.
The best thing any of these victims can do is IMMEDIATELY go to the hospital and get a DNA swab. I'm willing to bet that about .001% of the officers doing this are actually gonna throw on a condom before receiving oral sex. If even that many. The proof will be on the swab. Which it sounds like this woman had checked, so she did the right thing. If this officer is guilty, it'll show on her medical records.
Without a police cam, it's impossible to see what actually happened: maybe she offered oral, then accused him of rape after. Or maybe he raped her. But if the evidence is found, he still did his job poorly. One is just bad policing, the other is rape. So he's kinda up the creek if there's any proof. I guess we'll see, since it sounds like she went immediately to the hospital.
timetowaste85 wrote: The best thing any of these victims can do is IMMEDIATELY go to the hospital and get a DNA swab. I'm willing to bet that about .001% of the officers doing this are actually gonna throw on a condom before receiving oral sex. If even that many. The proof will be on the swab. Which it sounds like this woman had checked, so she did the right thing. If this officer is guilty, it'll show on her medical records.
Without a police cam, it's impossible to see what actually happened: maybe she offered oral, then accused him of rape after. Or maybe he raped her. But if the evidence is found, he still did his job poorly. One is just bad policing, the other is rape. So he's kinda up the creek if there's any proof. I guess we'll see, since it sounds like she went immediately to the hospital.
I am wondering myself if she offered. Who would geab someone then stick their private in a place that can be bit off...... Seems wierd to me, thats like saying i am raping you wrap this rope around my neck while i do you.
The officer in Oklahoma City has a pretty long and damming list of victims, so he doesn't seem to be the smartest tool in the shed. It's bad enough that there wasn't even an attempt at using the blue wall to protect him by the department.
And that is just that one officer and doesn't even touch the rest of the nation.
timetowaste85 wrote: The best thing any of these victims can do is IMMEDIATELY go to the hospital and get a DNA swab. I'm willing to bet that about .001% of the officers doing this are actually gonna throw on a condom before receiving oral sex. If even that many. The proof will be on the swab. Which it sounds like this woman had checked, so she did the right thing. If this officer is guilty, it'll show on her medical records.
Without a police cam, it's impossible to see what actually happened: maybe she offered oral, then accused him of rape after. Or maybe he raped her. But if the evidence is found, he still did his job poorly. One is just bad policing, the other is rape. So he's kinda up the creek if there's any proof. I guess we'll see, since it sounds like she went immediately to the hospital.
I am wondering myself if she offered. Who would geab someone then stick their private in a place that can be bit off...... Seems wierd to me, thats like saying i am raping you wrap this rope around my neck while i do you.
Are you for real? Not only did he have a gun, which would certainly have a chilling effect on resistance, but forced oral sex is an extremely common sexual assault with very few cases of biting. Are you going to blame allllll the victims?
It just seems like a pretty bad idea. I think if I got mine bit off I wouldn't be in any position to further restrain someone. That would have to be the most intense pain ever.
Generally, it isn't something a rapist does until he is sure there won't be any (more) resistance. Unfortunately, I've known enough survivors to have some idea how and why resistance is abandoned typically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: It just seems like a pretty bad idea. I think if I got mine bit off I wouldn't be in any position to further restrain someone. That would have to be the most intense pain ever.
I'm not sure. Shock or adrenaline could delay the pain. Also, there are fewer nerves in the shaft, so the pain might actually be relatively small, with the severed nerves sending no sensation. The pain might not be crippling, but it would certainly motivate an attacker to new heights of brutality, which is an awful huge risk compared to the alternative.
I've heard that merely the act of resisting is often enough to deter an attacker, its just that most rapes aren't resisted or reported. I think if everyone fought back the numbers would be better.
LordofHats wrote: Fifteen posts before we hit Blaming the Victim. Actually reasonably impressed.
It is certainly not unreasonable to consider both sides of the story. You may be upset to hear that when resolving a conflict half of that process usually includes "victim blaming" as both sides of the story or thought about and looked into.
Are they blaming the victim? Or are they merely questioning the possibility of something else going on?
I would say victim blaming is saying someone dived into the bullet rather than saying did the person provoke the bullet.
Grey Templar wrote: I've heard that merely the act of resisting is often enough to deter an attacker, its just that most rapes aren't resisted or reported. I think if everyone fought back the numbers would be better.
And the number of dead people who would otherwise have been living rape victims would also be higher.
Grey Templar wrote: I've heard that merely the act of resisting is often enough to deter an attacker, its just that most rapes aren't resisted or reported. I think if everyone fought back the numbers would be better.
And the number of dead people who would otherwise have been living rape victims would also be higher.
I'm missing your point.
The point is resisting is what you should do. Don't just roll over and let them win.
Because being a brutalized corpse is better than being a living rape victim? Right. When someone who is armed with a firearm, a canister of pepperspray, a tazer, and a billy club has indicated the intent to rape you, there is the very real, and very human, fear that active resistance is going to be all the perpetrator needs to use any of the tools of violence at their disposal.
As far as going to the hospital and getting tested with a rape kit? Well, as is currently making the news-rounds, we see that those rape kits, in many communities, go unchecked for years.
Grey Templar wrote: I've heard that merely the act of resisting is often enough to deter an attacker, its just that most rapes aren't resisted or reported. I think if everyone fought back the numbers would be better.
And the number of dead people who would otherwise have been living rape victims would also be higher.
I'm missing your point.
The point is resisting is what you should do. Don't just roll over and let them win.
Psienesis wrote: Because being a brutalized corpse is better than being a living rape victim? Right. When someone who is armed with a firearm, a canister of pepperspray, a tazer, and a billy club has indicated the intent to rape you, there is the very real, and very human, fear that active resistance is going to be all the perpetrator needs to use any of the tools of violence at their disposal.
As far as going to the hospital and getting tested with a rape kit? Well, as is currently making the news-rounds, we see that those rape kits, in many communities, go unchecked for years.
We are talking in general terms here. And no, being a corpse isn't better than being a living victim. But given the high suicide rates among victims I don't think either is preferable from their perspective. If you resist you have a chance of being neither.
Are you advocating that any victim should capitulate immediately?
Innocent people who get beaten or killed by the police are at fault because they resisted instead of complying, people who get raped by the police are at fault because they didn't resist and complied.
Meanwhile police are the real victims because YouTube makes it hard to be a cop.
Psienesis wrote: Because being a brutalized corpse is better than being a living rape victim? Right. When someone who is armed with a firearm, a canister of pepperspray, a tazer, and a billy club has indicated the intent to rape you, there is the very real, and very human, fear that active resistance is going to be all the perpetrator needs to use any of the tools of violence at their disposal.
As far as going to the hospital and getting tested with a rape kit? Well, as is currently making the news-rounds, we see that those rape kits, in many communities, go unchecked for years.
We are talking in general terms here. And no, being a corpse isn't better than being a living victim. But given the high suicide rates among victims I don't think either is preferable from their perspective. If you resist you have a chance of being neither.
Are you advocating that any victim should capitulate immediately?
Victims who are already at the mercy of a police officer because they committed some sort of crime, who are forced to sexually gratify the person with a gun and complete power over the situation, are not exactly in the best position to fight the assault.
Unless you are suddenly advocating violence against police officer excercising unjust power.
Psienesis wrote: Because being a brutalized corpse is better than being a living rape victim? Right. When someone who is armed with a firearm, a canister of pepperspray, a tazer, and a billy club has indicated the intent to rape you, there is the very real, and very human, fear that active resistance is going to be all the perpetrator needs to use any of the tools of violence at their disposal.
As far as going to the hospital and getting tested with a rape kit? Well, as is currently making the news-rounds, we see that those rape kits, in many communities, go unchecked for years.
We are talking in general terms here. And no, being a corpse isn't better than being a living victim. But given the high suicide rates among victims I don't think either is preferable from their perspective. If you resist you have a chance of being neither.
Are you advocating that any victim should capitulate immediately?
Unilaterally advocating that victims should resist is irresponsible. Factors like percieved agressiveness and likelyhood of victory would have to be weighed in individual cases - which it would be reasonable to assume is what is already happening.
Plus, its a really easy thing for some guy to say from behind their keyboard, which is much harder to do in reality.
Grey Templar wrote: I've heard that merely the act of resisting is often enough to deter an attacker, its just that most rapes aren't resisted or reported. I think if everyone fought back the numbers would be better.
I wouldn't say they aren't resisted, so much as that the game is rigged to defeat resistance before it gains momentum. Most of the survivors I know we're raped when they were too drunk to resist effectively, or by a family member and/or trusted babysitter, which is a much more complex situation. I know a woman who was pulled off her bike and raped, and she says she was too confused to know what was happening until it was essentially too late to find leverage. Another woman was raped by a gang of teenagers, and was quickly overpowered and beaten just enough to get the point across that it would get worse if she resisted further.
Typically, rape prevention classes stress that a woman should be aware of her situation and essentially cause enough trouble early on for a rapist to give up before he is committed. If a rapist has already achieved power over her, either with a weapon, surprise, violence, or the power of the law, resistance is going to look like a much more risky option. Rapists try to stack the deck so that resistance isn't an option.
Grey Templar wrote: I've heard that merely the act of resisting is often enough to deter an attacker, its just that most rapes aren't resisted or reported. I think if everyone fought back the numbers would be better.
And the number of dead people who would otherwise have been living rape victims would also be higher.
I'm missing your point.
The point is resisting is what you should do. Don't just roll over and let them win.
Resisting a police officer? Doesn't work out so well for some people.
Grey Templar wrote: I've heard that merely the act of resisting is often enough to deter an attacker, its just that most rapes aren't resisted or reported. I think if everyone fought back the numbers would be better.
And the number of dead people who would otherwise have been living rape victims would also be higher.
I'm missing your point.
The point is resisting is what you should do. Don't just roll over and let them win.
Resisting a police officer? Doesn't work out so well for some people.
Again, I was talking in general. Of course the specific situation will inform your decision.
That is not victim blaming. As much as you'd probably like it to be. Resisting when appropriate and being aware of your situation would go a long way towards solving the rape problem.
Advocating for techniques that can help people not be victims is I think better than just saying "lay there and be a victim and we can solve the issues afterwards!"
Grey Templar wrote: That is not victim blaming. As much as you'd probably like it to be. Resisting when appropriate and being aware of your situation would go a long way towards solving the rape problem.
Not putting genitals into non-consenting orifices helps a little though...
Grey Templar wrote: That is not victim blaming. As much as you'd probably like it to be. Resisting when appropriate and being aware of your situation would go a long way towards solving the rape problem.
Not putting genitals into non-consenting orifices helps a little though...
Well duh, of course we should prosecute the offending parties to the fullest extent of the law. And I think Rape should have much steeper punishments as well(up to and including the Death penalty depending on the situation). We should also train and educate people so they can prevent themselves from becoming victimized, both through education on looking for warning signs for bad situations and being equipped to defend yourself.
Grey Templar wrote: That is not victim blaming. As much as you'd probably like it to be. Resisting when appropriate and being aware of your situation would go a long way towards solving the rape problem.
Not putting genitals into non-consenting orifices helps a little though...
He is merely saying if something bad were to happen it may be worth resisting.
If that is victim shaming to you then I think you need to have a serious think about the value of prevention when dealing crime and how it can help a victim.
Grey Templar wrote: I've heard that merely the act of resisting is often enough to deter an attacker, its just that most rapes aren't resisted or reported. I think if everyone fought back the numbers would be better.
Grey Templar wrote: That is not victim blaming. As much as you'd probably like it to be. Resisting when appropriate and being aware of your situation would go a long way towards solving the rape problem.
This is literally the definition of victim blaming, that victims have a responsibility to "solve the rape problem". It is implying that at least some of the fault lays with the victims for not fighting back hard enough.
Grey Templar wrote: And I think Rape should have much steeper punishments as well(up to and including the Death penalty depending on the situation).
No. As much as I like the idea of dead rapists what allowing the death penalty for rape really means is that you might as well kill the victim too and leave no witness. After all, the punishment for murder is no worse than the punishment you're already getting if you get caught, so why take the risk of leaving the victim alive?
Grey Templar wrote: That is not victim blaming. As much as you'd probably like it to be. Resisting when appropriate and being aware of your situation would go a long way towards solving the rape problem.
Not putting genitals into non-consenting orifices helps a little though...
He is merely saying if something bad were to happen it may be worth resisting.
If that is victim shaming to you then I think you need to have a serious think about the value of prevention when dealing crime and how it can help a victim.
He did not say it was her fault at all.
And resisting a cop that is raping you will never end well for the criminal that is already in trouble. Since cops are the particular perpetrators in this story we should keep that in mind when we talk about how people being raped should attack the officers so that they get raped less.
No, its really not. Saying that they can do things to make the situation better or avoid it completely is not saying its their fault.
If I deliberately crash into someone's car and kill them, its not suddenly their fault if they weren't wearing their seat belts. But they should still have been wearing them.
All I am advocating for is empowerment of potential victims to help themselves not be victims.
Grey Templar wrote: And I think Rape should have much steeper punishments as well(up to and including the Death penalty depending on the situation).
No. As much as I like the idea of dead rapists what allowing the death penalty for rape really means is that you might as well kill the victim too and leave no witness. After all, the punishment for murder is no worse than the punishment you're already getting if you get caught, so why take the risk of leaving the victim alive?
What perhaps you don't realize is that GT is an enormous fan of the death penalty. So the idea of a dead victim isn't a problem for him ideologically:
Spoiler:
Grey Templar wrote: But locking an innocent man away for life is no better than executing him. In a way its worse because he's being confined indefinitely.
And no, the possibility that he'll get exonerated isn't an upside. He'd still have lost potentially decades of his life. You might as well have killed him.
You've also exposed him to the criminal elements in prison, now he's more likely to actually become a real criminal.
The possibility of executing someone who is innocent is low enough that its an acceptable risk. yes, the justice system needs reform. cutting the death penalty isn't part of that.
Ouze wrote:
This is literally the definition of victim blaming, that victims have a responsibility to "solve the rape problem". It is implying that at least some of the fault lays with the victims for not fighting back hard enough.
Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote: And I think Rape should have much steeper punishments as well(up to and including the Death penalty depending on the situation).
No. As much as I like the idea of dead rapists what allowing the death penalty for rape really means is that you might as well kill the victim too and leave no witness. After all, the punishment for murder is no worse than the punishment you're already getting if you get caught, so why take the risk of leaving the victim alive?
I think i understand his general intent though, correct me if i'm wrong? We live in a society where justice isn't necessarily going to happen, and sometimes the victim or potential victim *is* the only one that can do anything about it. Its not an easy call to make though, do you risk more rapes with a lighter potential punishment, or more murders with a higher potential punishment? Where should the line be drawn?
Grey Templar wrote: And I think Rape should have much steeper punishments as well(up to and including the Death penalty depending on the situation).
No. As much as I like the idea of dead rapists what allowing the death penalty for rape really means is that you might as well kill the victim too and leave no witness. After all, the punishment for murder is no worse than the punishment you're already getting if you get caught, so why take the risk of leaving the victim alive?
I doubt too many people consider the potential punishment when deciding if to commit a particular crime.
After all, if deterrent based punishment doesn't work then you just make the punishment fit the crime. And Rape definitely is one where Death is a punishment that should be on the table.
If deterrent based punishment does work then making the penalty stiffer will reduce the numbers.
Alternately, if you don't want death then I'd consider castration to be a fitting punishment as well.
Grey Templar wrote: And I think Rape should have much steeper punishments as well(up to and including the Death penalty depending on the situation).
No. As much as I like the idea of dead rapists what allowing the death penalty for rape really means is that you might as well kill the victim too and leave no witness. After all, the punishment for murder is no worse than the punishment you're already getting if you get caught, so why take the risk of leaving the victim alive?
I doubt too many people consider the potential punishment when deciding if to commit a particular crime.
After all, if deterrent based punishment doesn't work then you just make the punishment fit the crime. And Rape definitely is one where Death is a punishment that should be on the table.
If deterrent based punishment does work then making the penalty stiffer will reduce the numbers.
It depends on how you define deterrence though. Prison overcrowding and people avoiding jail due to this happens for a reason, once you start punishing all the criminals you can find, the system clogs up if there's too many of them. Some people know what they can get away with, and the risk doesn't outweigh the reward. In that respect, the death penalty would be a more pragmatic deterrent.
The punishment itself is its own reason to exist. In theory, its that you will prevent this person from committing these acts in the future. Deterrent does also exist, but only to a point as humans are not supremely rational beings. Particularly crimes of passion where the person is not thinking in a rational manner. A rapist is most likely not thinking about getting caught and what will happen, he's focusing on the terrible act itself. Same with someone who flys off the handle and kills someone in a fit of rage, they weren't thinking about the punishment. But the punishment is still important to have.
And some crimes are so heinous that the person who committed them should be removed permanently from existence. I think rape can definitely fall into that category.
Sadly, a lot of women do resist but it isn't enough, they still get overpowered. Guys who know they can not overpower a women, they resort to rendering the woman helpless. This could be by drugs, booze, or intimidation. To assume these women roll over and just take it is absurd. You were not there, hopefully, so you do not know if they put up a fight or not. I'm sure if you started asking these women or read accounts you would find they were unable to fight or were somehow rendered powerless to stop them.
Have you ever fought a cop? Have you ever tried to escape a cop? Police officers are trained to subdue people, to restrain them, and to use force when necessary. That is intimidating when the most resistant people she has faced are toddlers.
Grey Templar wrote: I doubt too many people consider the potential punishment when deciding if to commit a particular crime.
Then why have punishment at all, if it isn't going to prevent a crime?
Well, generally, not to prevent the initial crime. That's the problem. It deters initial crime by presenting example of what would happen were you to do it, and deters future crime by preventing those people from being able to do such things in the future. The second problem is that this also only happens in an ideal case. At the end of the day, people are crazy.
How isn't it? If you don't believe that punishing crimes prevents future crimes then all you're left with is petty vengeance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: Well, generally, not to prevent the initial crime. That's the problem. It deters initial crime by presenting example of what would happen were you to do it, and deters future crime by preventing those people from being able to do such things in the future.
Exactly, but which example would you rather set for a potential rapist? That they'll spend a long time in prison if they rape that person, and they'll be executed if they murder the victim? Or that they're going to be executed already if they rape the victim, so they might as well commit as many other crimes as they want? If you start imposing the death penalty for crimes that are less than murder then a criminal has nothing left to lose and "might as well murder all of the witnesses" becomes the obvious correct choice.
Is there something necessarily wrong with vengeance?
And again, you are assuming that the criminal is a perfectly rational person who is considering all the pros and cons when that is usually the exact opposite. Criminals aren't rational people, otherwise they probably wouldn't be criminals and would have found/chosen a better path. If people were perfectly rational we would have no need for laws and everyone would live in harmony.
Every rapist would realize that a moments gratification isn't worth 10-20 years in prison and forever being stuck on the sex offender registry, no matter the probability of getting caught.
Peregrine wrote: Exactly, but which example would you rather set for a potential rapist? That they'll spend a long time in prison if they rape that person, and they'll be executed if they murder the victim? Or that they're going to be executed already if they rape the victim, so they might as well commit as many other crimes as they want? If you start imposing the death penalty for crimes that are less than murder then a criminal has nothing left to lose and "might as well murder all of the witnesses" becomes the obvious correct choice.
That's assuming they spend a long time in prison after they get caught.
Grey Templar wrote: A rapist is most likely not thinking about getting caught and what will happen, he's focusing on the terrible act itself.
But at least some are, especially since they've probably had time to think about their crime in advance. You really don't want someone going into a rape determined to kill the victim as well. And even if it isn't perfect how many dead victims should be acceptable?
And some crimes are so heinous that the person who committed them should be removed permanently from existence. I think rape can definitely fall into that category.
Which is nice in theory, and I'm not disputing that rapists are horrible people. But the practical realities of saving future victims have to take priority over our desire to see bad people punished.
Exactly, but which example would you rather set for a potential rapist? That they'll spend a long time in prison if they rape that person, and they'll be executed if they murder the victim? Or that they're going to be executed already if they rape the victim, so they might as well commit as many other crimes as they want? If you start imposing the death penalty for crimes that are less than murder then a criminal has nothing left to lose and "might as well murder all of the witnesses" becomes the obvious correct choice.
I have very little dog in the 'death penalty' vs 'no death penalty' fight, so I'm going to sidestep that and wait for people better informed than myself to step in on that one. If I had to say something, then I would point out that it seems to me that it's pretty easy to kill someone for something you suspect based upon 'evidence' and still be wrong. At the end of the day though, you can exonerate someone from prison, or whatever the legal term is for it. I'm still not aware of a means to bring someone back to life.
Personally though, and paradoxically, I feel like if you gave me the choice between dying and suffering life in prison, I'd rather die. I personally see imprisonment more intolerable, though I recognize most would say the opposite.
And again, you are assuming that the criminal is a perfectly rational person who is considering all the pros and cons when that is usually the exact opposite. Criminals aren't rational people, otherwise they probably wouldn't be criminals and would have found/chosen a better path. If people were perfectly rational we would have no need for laws and everyone would live in harmony.
No, I'm assuming that a criminal at least has the minimal level of intelligence to know that if we make a big show of executing rapists they could be next, and so there's no reason to care whether or not the victim lives. And that's just considering the practical question of removing witnesses, do you really want a rapist deciding that they might as well see how much fun it is to kill someone because they've got nothing left to lose?
Every rapist would realize that a moments gratification isn't worth 10-20 years in prison and forever being stuck on the sex offender registry, no matter the probability of getting caught.
Yes, but I think they can still understand the difference between 10-20 years in prison and death.
Grey Templar wrote: A rapist is most likely not thinking about getting caught and what will happen, he's focusing on the terrible act itself.
But at least some are, especially since they've probably had time to think about their crime in advance. You really don't want someone going into a rape determined to kill the victim as well. And even if it isn't perfect how many dead victims should be acceptable?
I don't think many rapes are planned in advance, but I'd love to see some numbers on that. And even if there is planning that doesn't prove that the person is thinking totally rationally. I would be more inclined to say they're just thinking about getting some and how to go about doing that. The plan is no more complicated than 1) Chat cute girl up at bar 2) slip her a roofie 3) take her home and have "fun". Nothing beyond that is considered. And anyone who does rationally consider the punishment and think its worth it is probably what you and I would call a psychopath of any number of various flavors, and wouldn't care about any consequences at all.
Sociopath more like it, psycopaths tend to have less grasp on reality, if this guy did it then he seemed to choose his victims with a bit of care (drug users) which helps mitigate any potential investigations. Of course, he could still be innocent who knows.
Grey Templar wrote: Then he clearly falls into the psychopath category, and definitely needs to be removed from the force and never see the outside of a cell again.
You're not going to get any disagreement from me here. But this guy is exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about. This wasn't a one-time event, he knew exactly what he was doing and did it over and over again. So that's plenty of time to think "maybe I should kill the next one", and for the death penalty to be a deterrent.
That, I think we can all agree on. I mean that he should be in prison.
I highly doubt a corrupt cop thinks about the potential punishment for his actions any more than the pope thinks about reincarnation: it's just not something that exists to him.
Well, if the penalty is death and he just decides to kill his victims doesn't that make it more likely that he'll get caught? And victimize less people overall?
We are basically choosing between 2 terrible options. Is it better that he victimize 10 women, and kill some of them, or it better that he victimize 30 but they all remain alive? I'm gonna say less victims is better. After all, if the punishment is less severe he might think he can get away with it more.
Maybe he wouldn't have raped any of them if the death penalty had been the rape deterrent? Disposing of bodies isn't the easiest of things, especially since his gps put him at the site of several encounters.
Aside from the old "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"? What does vengeance, alone, actually accomplish?
And again, you are assuming that the criminal is a perfectly rational person who is considering all the pros and cons when that is usually the exact opposite. Criminals aren't rational people
*PEOPLE* aren't rational people. Every member of the human race acts irrationally at times. Every member of the human race is a criminal, as at some point everyone has broken some sort of law, the prime differentiator between a "criminal" and everyone else is *which* laws they broke and *if* they got caught.
I mean, just looking over my own life, I don't think I've done anything particularly wild and out of the ordinary for anyone my age, however if caught and prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law for every misdeed I've ever committed, I'd certainly be a convicted felon, and so would almost every person on earth.
otherwise they probably wouldn't be criminals and would have found/chosen a better path. If people were perfectly rational we would have no need for laws and everyone would live in harmony.
This assumes that the rational choice is one that follows the law or that the law isn't irrational.
Every rapist would realize that a moments gratification isn't worth 10-20 years in prison and forever being stuck on the sex offender registry, no matter the probability of getting caught.
Lets also not forget how awkward definitions of rape can be too. In some places, an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is rape. Having sex while intoxicated can be prosecuted as "rape" (though typically only for a single party). Rape is a terrible, horrible thing, but lets also realize that our laws regarding rape are also not exactly terribly clear or well balanced either.
Seriously death penalty for rape? Whats next cutting of hands for stealing? I get it it is horrible and they should be locked up for life with out a doubt, also I am kinda in the boot of saying what you do to them should be done to you..... so throw him in a jail cell with buba with his hands tied for a hour or 2 and then lock him up?
BUTTTT i also believe if you should never kill anyone so I am bias. Committing a crime to punish someone for committing a crime doesn't make it justice. It contradicts my first statement but I just think to the extremes. Like you have to stop at death and dismemberment... or removing pieces of brain.
OgreChubbs wrote: Seriously death penalty for rape? Whats next cutting of hands for stealing? I get it it is horrible and they should be locked up for life with out a doubt, also I am kinda in the boot of saying what you do to them should be done to you..... so throw him in a jail cell with buba with his hands tied for a hour or 2 and then lock him up?
.
Nothing sends the message that rape is wrong stronger than sanctioning rape.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, if the penalty is death and he just decides to kill his victims doesn't that make it more likely that he'll get caught? And victimize less people overall?
We are basically choosing between 2 terrible options. Is it better that he victimize 10 women, and kill some of them, or it better that he victimize 30 but they all remain alive? I'm gonna say less victims is better. After all, if the punishment is less severe he might think he can get away with it more.
After seeing what you have to say about the importance of life on some of the abortion threads, I am completely stunned (but not at all shocked) to see that you support the death penalty -even where it results in more dead victims-.
The level of cognitive dissonance at play here is staggering.
Welcome to the Conservative Worldview TM. Love 'em while they're in the womb, forget about them once they sully themselves passing through a woman's naughty bits.
RE The Topic
Christ. It doesn't really surprise me that this happened, but it is bloody awful. Certain police departments in the US seem to have really toxic cultures. Good to see the Blue Shield is not protecting that one particular guy, but if this is a systemic problem that is really disgusting.
It's not always a case of, "This person is doing something to me I do not want. I could let them, or I could fight."
It's not even always about the potential of physical harm.
Someone shuts off your logic and reasoning by pulling you into a situation that you have little point of reference for. Perhaps they are acting in a way you thoroughly don't expect, or you're trying to catch up with what's happening. It is horrifically easy to find yourself blindsided and pushed along by actions of others without fear of being hurt.
In the simplest of terms, think of any stage act where audience members are unwittingly dragged into the set and the performer has almost complete control. They are not going to get hurt, they could leave. They could certainly refuse. But there are suddenly dozens of pressures that are unfamiliar, confusing. Someone who would tell you to feth off to your face on the street, is suddenly allowing a stranger to direct them.
Some people simply unintentionally shut down to deal with it, even if they do understand what is happening.
What I'm saying is that I could tell you right now that I would fight off an attacker. But all bets are off when I'm not in a situation I comprehend.
Many, many years ago a raging drug addict kicked my door down when I was home alone as a teen. I was accused by one inexperienced police clerk of being too compliant, and perhaps I knew him?
Because if I didn't, why did I calmly stand up, close the door when he was done? I had no answer.
Without relevant training, I venture it's very very difficult to know what you'd do in extraordinary situations.
Ouze wrote: I think it's becoming clear it's a matter of "when" that nationwide police bodycams are mandated. It can't happen soon enough - it's good for the police, it's good for the people.
In Sunday's paper, there was a lengthy article concerning the $26 million that the Wauconda, il PD (Wauconda is the ass-end of Lake County, IL) paid out due to officer misconduct last year. Granted, that also includes 2 lawsuits concerning over-turned convictions due to gakky police work. Those two cases aside, imagine how much money the department would have saved with body cams (either firing dumbass cops, preventing dumbass cops from doing dumbass things, or proving that the "victim" was full of gak).
In Sunday's paper, there was a lengthy article concerning the $26 million that the Wauconda, il PD (Wauconda is the ass-end of Lake County, IL) paid out due to officer misconduct last year. Granted, that also includes 2 lawsuits concerning over-turned convictions due to gakky police work. Those two cases aside, imagine how much money the department would have saved with body cams (either firing dumbass cops, preventing dumbass cops from doing dumbass things, or proving that the "victim" was full of gak).
Do it.
Unfortunately the 'firing dumbass cops' part doesn't really save them too much money. The victims of the misbehavior/abuse will still sue the county/department. The real hope is it prevents some feth sticks from abusing their power. Of course, those guys should probably not be cops anyway...
In Sunday's paper, there was a lengthy article concerning the $26 million that the Wauconda, il PD (Wauconda is the ass-end of Lake County, IL) paid out due to officer misconduct last year. Granted, that also includes 2 lawsuits concerning over-turned convictions due to gakky police work. Those two cases aside, imagine how much money the department would have saved with body cams (either firing dumbass cops, preventing dumbass cops from doing dumbass things, or proving that the "victim" was full of gak).
Do it.
Unfortunately the 'firing dumbass cops' part doesn't really save them too much money. The victims of the misbehavior/abuse will still sue the county/department. The real hope is it prevents some feth sticks from abusing their power. Of course, those guys should probably not be cops anyway...
True, but you can get rid of them and prevent future cases.
Has anyone seen any figures out how much it would cost to outfit an average sized PD? I seem to recall that a figure of around $500k (but not entirely sure) or so for Cincinnati, and it's hard not to notice how much smaller a figure that is than $26M.
In Sunday's paper, there was a lengthy article concerning the $26 million that the Wauconda, il PD (Wauconda is the ass-end of Lake County, IL) paid out due to officer misconduct last year. Granted, that also includes 2 lawsuits concerning over-turned convictions due to gakky police work. Those two cases aside, imagine how much money the department would have saved with body cams (either firing dumbass cops, preventing dumbass cops from doing dumbass things, or proving that the "victim" was full of gak).
Do it.
Unfortunately the 'firing dumbass cops' part doesn't really save them too much money. The victims of the misbehavior/abuse will still sue the county/department. The real hope is it prevents some feth sticks from abusing their power. Of course, those guys should probably not be cops anyway...
Don't just fire, prosecute. In the instance of the cop flipping the high school girl out of the chair-charge him with battery on a minor.
My local PoPo are going to body cams. When Cedar Park, Texas is shifting to body cams EVERYONE should have them. We're practically Mayberry except with Tex Mex and Dell employees.
I am all for body cameras. As a teacher, I would be more than happy to have had cameras (and even microphones) in my classes, especially when dealing with difficult children. The extra back up to my word would have been invaluable.
I'm not massively pro surveillance generally, but I think when there is an exercise of state authority it is not unreasonable to want it on record, especially now that such recording is so cheap and could be installed without much hassle.
Da Boss wrote: I am all for body cameras. As a teacher, I would be more than happy to have had cameras (and even microphones) in my classes, especially when dealing with difficult children. The extra back up to my word would have been invaluable.
I'm not massively pro surveillance generally, but I think when there is an exercise of state authority it is not unreasonable to want it on record, especially now that such recording is so cheap and could be installed without much hassle.
Exactly. Its not a cure all, just an additional tool, but it has proven to be helpful.
cincydooley wrote: Has anyone seen any figures out how much it would cost to outfit an average sized PD? I seem to recall that a figure of around $500k (but not entirely sure) or so for Cincinnati, and it's hard not to notice how much smaller a figure that is than $26M.
Yes - the cost is often bandied about by detractors, but all it takes is a single adverse lawsuit to more than balance it out, costwise.
I also wouldn't have a problem with federal grants for smaller departments to offset the cost. I'd certainly feel better about something like that, which protects both the public and the police, then the usual assortment of automatic weapons, armored personnel carriers, silencers, grenade launchers, and other equipment the feds usually supply which have in part (in my opinion) fueled the need for body cams in the first place.
I'm all in favour of police body cameras, and I think even people who are usually anti-surveillance can get behind them. They help police where false claims might be made about their conduct, and they help victims of police misconduct by providing evidence.
They've started rolling them out in a few places over here (as well as dashboard cams), but they are by no means universal.
One thing I've heard about the cameras in America is that they don't work if the officer raises and aims a gun, as they get obscured by the arms. Seems like a design flaw, but less of a problem over here where its relatively rare for officers who aren't SWAT to carry firearms.
I'm absolutely opposed to mass surveillance, but I'm ok with body cameras. You're still being watched by the cop himself anyway, there's no violation of privacy.
LethalShade wrote: I'm absolutely opposed to mass surveillance, but I'm ok with body cameras. You're still being watched by the cop himself anyway, there's no violation of privacy.
Well... it does get sticky at some points, as to the very last item there. In public you have no expectation of privacy (in the US) but what happens to footage of when you go into someone's house for questioning or what have you? Those people are legally innocent. There are definitely some elements that needs to be worked out; but I think we need to do just that.
I would think that that would be covered by the Plain Sight Doctrine, baring the possibility of advanced computer programs that could latter analysis footage from the body cams and possibly notice things that a 'plain sight' human eye would not.
cincydooley wrote: Has anyone seen any figures out how much it would cost to outfit an average sized PD? I seem to recall that a figure of around $500k (but not entirely sure) or so for Cincinnati, and it's hard not to notice how much smaller a figure that is than $26M.
Yes - the cost is often bandied about by detractors, but all it takes is a single adverse lawsuit to more than balance it out, costwise.
I also wouldn't have a problem with federal grants for smaller departments to offset the cost. I'd certainly feel better about something like that, which protects both the public and the police, then the usual assortment of automatic weapons, armored personnel carriers, silencers, grenade launchers, and other equipment the feds usually supply which have in part (in my opinion) fueled the need for body cams in the first place.
Is that $500k quote fairly accurate? I'm having trouble tracking down info.
I just can't see how it's not a worthwhile expense. Protects the cops and the citizens, and keeps both honest.
LordofHats wrote: I would think that that would be covered by the Plain Sight Doctrine, baring the possibility of advanced computer programs that could latter analysis footage from the body cams and possibly notice things that a 'plain sight' human eye would not.
Such softwares already exist, to some extent. I saw a somewhat scary demonstration of a camera network/software able to recognize faces 100m away, follow someone though a crowded city (and log his path), analyze potential "threats" and call police by itself, and take Twitter/Facebook posts into consideration to find suspects. It probably doesn't work as well in real life, but...
(The speaker said such network was already in place in some cities, such as NY)
Such a system functional enough to work in real life will inevitably be created and probably in the near future. Be ready for the law to take a decade or two to catch up to it existing
Grey Templar wrote: Well, if the penalty is death and he just decides to kill his victims doesn't that make it more likely that he'll get caught? And victimize less people overall?
We are basically choosing between 2 terrible options. Is it better that he victimize 10 women, and kill some of them, or it better that he victimize 30 but they all remain alive? I'm gonna say less victims is better. After all, if the punishment is less severe he might think he can get away with it more.
After seeing what you have to say about the importance of life on some of the abortion threads, I am completely stunned (but not at all shocked) to see that you support the death penalty -even where it results in more dead victims-.
The level of cognitive dissonance at play here is staggering.
Its not cognitive dissonance. Its very logical actually.
An unborn child has committed no crime, unless we consider inconveniencing someone just by existing to be a crime(someone who 99% of the time had total control over the baby being conceived)
Someone who has done something so awful, such as rape or murder, has however committed a crime. They have proven they must be removed from society, death is sometimes the only appropriate punishment.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, if the penalty is death and he just decides to kill his victims doesn't that make it more likely that he'll get caught? And victimize less people overall?
We are basically choosing between 2 terrible options. Is it better that he victimize 10 women, and kill some of them, or it better that he victimize 30 but they all remain alive? I'm gonna say less victims is better. After all, if the punishment is less severe he might think he can get away with it more.
After seeing what you have to say about the importance of life on some of the abortion threads, I am completely stunned (but not at all shocked) to see that you support the death penalty -even where it results in more dead victims-.
The level of cognitive dissonance at play here is staggering.
Its not cognitive dissonance. Its very logical actually.
An unborn child has committed no crime, unless we consider inconveniencing someone just by existing to be a crime(someone who 99% of the time had total control over the baby being conceived)
Someone who has done something so awful, such as rape or murder, has however committed a crime. They have proven they must be removed from society, death is sometimes the only appropriate punishment.
Guess it's a good thing that our legal system is 100% right 100% of the time, huh? Or are those just acceptable deaths?
They are regrettable, you will never have a 100% perfect system. But that fact should not prevent us from using the correct and appropriate punishments where they are warranted.
Thats why our burden of proof is so high, to minimize the error.
So it is unacceptable to kill a child who has committed no crime, but "regrettable" (not enough to prevent it) to kill an adult who has committed no crime.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, if the penalty is death and he just decides to kill his victims doesn't that make it more likely that he'll get caught? And victimize less people overall?
We are basically choosing between 2 terrible options. Is it better that he victimize 10 women, and kill some of them, or it better that he victimize 30 but they all remain alive? I'm gonna say less victims is better. After all, if the punishment is less severe he might think he can get away with it more.
After seeing what you have to say about the importance of life on some of the abortion threads, I am completely stunned (but not at all shocked) to see that you support the death penalty -even where it results in more dead victims-.
The level of cognitive dissonance at play here is staggering.
Its not cognitive dissonance. Its very logical actually.
An unborn child has committed no crime, unless we consider inconveniencing someone just by existing to be a crime(someone who 99% of the time had total control over the baby being conceived)
Someone who has done something so awful, such as rape or murder, has however committed a crime. They have proven they must be removed from society, death is sometimes the only appropriate punishment.
I was focusing on the 'and kill some of them' bit of your statement. Those innocent rape victims you appear to be figuring as acceptable loss in catching and killing rapists. What happened to the sanctity of their life and the duty of the state to protect them?
I was focusing on the 'and kill some of them' bit of your statement. Those innocent rape victims you appear to be figuring as acceptable loss in catching and killing rapists. What happened to the sanctity of their life and the duty of the state to protect them?
Also, I want some referencing on that 99% stat.
Duty of the state? Really? I suggest if you truly believe it is up to the gov't to protect folks from violent crime such as rape you must be pretty damned disappointed with their utter failure to do so.
The chance it still there. And there's no reason it needs to be. We really don't need capital punishment. Life w/o parole works fine. And (IIRC) it's cheaper in the long run.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The chance it still there. And there's no reason it needs to be. We really don't need capital punishment. Life w/o parole works fine. And (IIRC) it's cheaper in the long run.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The chance it still there. And there's no reason it needs to be. We really don't need capital punishment. Life w/o parole works fine. And (IIRC) it's cheaper in the long run.
There is also a chance that I'll win the lottery while getting oral from Celine Dion.
Your opinion is that we don't need it and that life W/O parole works fine. My opinion differs from yours. Don't confuse opinions with facts, please.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The chance it still there. And there's no reason it needs to be. We really don't need capital punishment. Life w/o parole works fine. And (IIRC) it's cheaper in the long run.
There is also a chance that I'll win the lottery while getting oral from Celine Dion.
Your opinion is that we don't need it and that life W/O parole works fine. My opinion differs from yours. Don't confuse opinions with facts, please.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The chance it still there. And there's no reason it needs to be. We really don't need capital punishment. Life w/o parole works fine. And (IIRC) it's cheaper in the long run.
There is also a chance that I'll win the lottery while getting oral from Celine Dion.
Your opinion is that we don't need it and that life W/O parole works fine. My opinion differs from yours. Don't confuse opinions with facts, please.
That's the only reason I'd consider dropping it. My fiscal nature is clashing with my "kill the fether" instinct.
Touche, sir.
It actually isn't an opinion that life without parole works just as well as the death penalty. In both cases the convicted person is removed from the general population, preventing repeat offending. The death penalty, however, is more expensive. The only other possible reason beyond petty vengeance to keep it is if you think it acts as a deterrent, which lots of studies have found is not the case.
So it is no more effective at protecting the general population than life without parole, despite the bigger cost.
curran12 wrote: So it is unacceptable to kill a child who has committed no crime, but "regrettable" (not enough to prevent it) to kill an adult who has committed no crime.
curran12 wrote: So it is unacceptable to kill a child who has committed no crime, but "regrettable" (not enough to prevent it) to kill an adult who has committed no crime.
This is the exact argument he has made.
<--- Is pro-choice, before you get out the pitchforks.
In the above example, one gets no say in the matter while the other has 16.7 years of appeals time to get the verdict over-turned.
How many times in the last 50 years has a person been executed by the state but was innocent.
The possibility is still there. It's also astounding how vigorously prosecutor's offices fight to keep these cases on death row even when presented with overwhelming evidence that the person could not have committed the crime.
We also don't really have data on how many innocent people were executed because nobody in the penal, judicial, or prosecutorial systems have any desire to research such information, it has basically no upside for them to support such.
curran12 wrote: So it is unacceptable to kill a child who has committed no crime, but "regrettable" (not enough to prevent it) to kill an adult who has committed no crime.
This is the exact argument he has made.
<--- Is pro-choice, before you get out the pitchforks.
In the above example, one gets no say in the matter while the other has 16.7 years of appeals time to get the verdict over-turned.
Well, it's just not in the case of people who are arrested and executed by the state (which is OK even if innocent, sometimes). One of the hypothetical "acceptable losses" arguments made (in this thread) was it was better to have 10 rape victims (with some of them dead), then have 30 rape victims with none of them dead. Or something crazy like that.
OKLAHOMA CITY – After listening to several weeks of testimony and four days of deliberating, a jury has found a former Oklahoma City police officer accused of sex crimes guilty on 18 counts.
Daniel Holtzclaw is accused of sexually assaulting 13 women while on duty as an Oklahoma City police officer.
In August 2014, the state charged Holtzclaw with 36 felony counts of rape, sexual battery, indecent exposure and forcible oral sodomy after the 13 women came forward, claiming the officer assaulted them while they were in custody or inside his police car.
In all, the jury heard 13 accusers’ stories of assault.
Throughout the trial, state prosecutors talked about skin cells found inside and outside Holtzclaw’s pants, around the zipper area.
As detectives spoke with various accusers in their investigation, they explained to the jury they took DNA samples, trying to find a match to those skin cells.
Prosecutors say that match ultimately came from a then 17-year-old girl, who testified she was raped by the former officer outside her mother’s home.
Forensic analysts discussed how there was more DNA found near the zipper as well, but not enough to find a second full match.
The state rested its case Wednesday, Dec. 2, just before 3 p.m.
The first and only witness up for the defense was the former girlfriend of Holtzclaw.
The woman testified that Holtzclaw regularly read her Bible scriptures. She said that in a year of dating, she had never noticed any odd or sexually aggressive behavior.
Early on in the investigation, detectives discussed how Holtzclaw claimed he had tried to have sex with his former girlfriend, hours after he was accused of assaulting a woman.
That accuser was the first to come forward to police in the summer of last year.
The former girlfriend has denied this sexual attempt ever took place, but testified she had taken a sleeping aid hours before, and it’s possible she simply doesn’t remember this sexual encounter.
After calling just one witness, the defense rested its case, despite listing 74 witnesses.
Holtzclaw waived his right to testify.
Jurors heard closing arguments Monday, Dec. 7.
After four days of deliberating, the jury found Holtzclaw guilty on 18 counts.
They recommend he be sentenced to a total of 263 years
Well, can't be too hard on the attorney. I mean, put yourself in his shoes, this is the case you're handed. Overwhelming evidence of extreme misconduct that seemed to grow daily.
What the heck do you do other than throw the Hail Mary (pun intended)?
Blaming the Victim 
