So, did he or didn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

In that context, I couldn't care less what it will do to his career.

---

and this is the problem. Even if he is legally cleared, his personal and career life is fucked. Not much he can do about it either, its the fucked up way society works. These things hover over you for life, you're no longer as innocent as you used to be.

I don't care who you are, or what you do. Its a dick thing to claim that its ok that someone's life is basically over as they know it because justice has to run its course to find someone innocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Let's not confuse search engines with background checks. The Duke Lacrosse team is a particularly good example of how false accusations WILL eventually be proven and legally adjudicated.

---

Do you think businesses don't run social checks? That lacrosse team is going to carry that event with them till the day they die. There is far more to life then the legal aspect. These people, and their history, thats a distraction thats going to be to great for some things.
Just like the school teachers who are pushed out of the system after its discovered they did porn 15 some years ago.

He may not be politically viable for public offices, but with his credentials and skills there are endless job opportunities for him within the least moral private industries, such as oil or manufacture and sale of weaponry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I would agree that not every scandal should automatically be discarded as a complot. You'd be indeed putting yourself in a corner where I don't care to be. Neither seeing the entire world as the playground of illuminati nor seeing 'the elite' incapable of doing bad things is my way of looking as things.

Still, I can't help myself thinking in this particular case that this was really a convenient scandal to break. Too convenient? I don't really know.

And of course this type of damage should not be a reason not to raise an accusation against the guilty. But I also think we should come down a lot harder on people who falsely accuse somebody, given the extensive damage this does and keeps doing. GGT is behaving like a stupid ass acting as if a not-guilty in court alone is enough to get back your life. All I need to do is point out how people think about the not-guilty verdict that came at the end of the case against O.J. Simpson. If there is anybody who truly believes he didn't do it, I still have to meet that person.
It has already been suggested in this thread by Loki that the same could happen to DSK just because he can afford the best lawyers.

All that given, I do believe that giving any sort of higher level of credence to a person who claims to be a rape victim gives the accused (especially the falsely accused) a deal way too bad to consider it justice.

---

I'm the stupid ass here? :rolleyes: You're the one who's already decided her accusations are false, maybe even a conspiracy. You're the one suggesting DSK should have special treatment because he's a VIP global banker/politician, and NYPD should be sensitive to his reputation and career. You're the one who's trashed the maid's character, without any evidence or proof, using just your "gut feeling". You're the one who immediately dismissed the notion of justice, or a fair trial, because it's in America. You're the one 'rushing to judgement' on all fronts, including DSK's future career.

I've already said police detectives and DA have a duty to flush out false allegations and collect evidence, but it's not their job to act as judge and jury, or gag the press for what they print, or protect the accused from the media (unless they're a minor).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Wiggin, the only thing I was concerned with in my posts to GGT is her casual dismissal of the possible effects of a rape accusation on a person's life just because he happens to be rich and powerful. I certainly think that if there is cause to charge him then that's what should be done. I just don't like the way GGT and much of the media ignores the impact of these things. The innocent have nothing to fear etc.

---

I'm not casually dismissing false accusations, or the damage they can do to innocent people. I'm being objective (and non-emotional) --- our legal system has some problems, but it also has recourse for the falsely accused. They can file civil counter-charges for libel or slander. Officials should be focused on collecting evidence and taking facts to court, where innuendo is flushed out; status and reputation of the accused shouldn't even be a factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Still, I can't help myself thinking in this particular case that this was really a convenient scandal to break. Too convenient? I don't really know.

---

Still don't get this logic. It's irrelevant if it was convenient or not. It's likely that if this were to happen a few years earlier when he was in the running for the top IMF spot, people would say the same thing. Coincidences do not imply a vast right wing conspiracy.

Quote:

---

And of course this type of damage should not be a reason not to raise an accusation against the guilty. But I also think we should come down a lot harder on people who falsely accuse somebody, given the extensive damage this does and keeps doing. GGT is behaving like a stupid ass acting as if a not-guilty in court alone is enough to get back your life. All I need to do is point out how people think about the not-guilty verdict that came at the end of the case against O.J. Simpson. If there is anybody who truly believes he didn't do it, I still have to meet that person.
It has already been suggested in this thread by Loki that the same could happen to DSK just because he can afford the best lawyers.

---

This is probably the first reasonable thing you've said in this thread. I agree, mostly - false accusations (however uncommon) do need to be appropriately punished. (And GGT is wrong on this one.)

Quote:

---

All that given, I do believe that giving any sort of higher level of credence to a person who claims to be a rape victim gives the accused (especially the falsely accused) a deal way too bad to consider it justice.

---

This I'm not so much in agreement with. By your own sources, there's somewhere between a 98 and 92% chance that a given rape accusation is real (and some ridiculous number of rapes are never even reported, to boot). Given the large societal stigma attached to being a rape victim, it's not unreasonable to make a culture of immediate acceptance of accusations (but NOT guilt) rather than default skepticism - otherwise, you have a decent chance of scaring away a lot of legitimate accusations to protect a proportionally smaller population from embarrassment and scandal.

While I don't want to disincentivize rape reporting any more than it already is, I do think we should disincentivize fabricated accusations as above. Some stricter punishment regime is not uncalled for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Wiggin, the only thing I was concerned with in my posts to GGT is her casual dismissal of the possible effects of a rape accusation on a person's life just because he happens to be rich and powerful. I certainly think that if there is cause to charge him then that's what should be done. I just don't like the way GGT and much of the media ignores the impact of these things. The innocent have nothing to fear etc.

---

Okay, fair enough, I agree GGT was unreasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OG

and this is the problem. Even if he is legally cleared, his personal and career life is fucked. Not much he can do about it either, its the fucked up way society works. These things hover over you for life, you're no longer as innocent as you used to be.

I don't care who you are, or what you do. Its a dick thing to claim that its ok that someone's life is basically over as they know it because justice has to run its course to find someone innocent.

---

As above, I don't really agree. I don't see a viable alternative other than taking rape accusations very seriously, and vigorously prosecuting cases with enough evidence. In that context, it's regrettable that the occasional accusation is a fabrication, and we should try to discourage such behavior - but I don't think we should pursue such accusations less forcefully because of this small chance.

It's not 'OK' that some people's public lives are ruined by such false accusations, but it's very much more not 'OK' for rapes to go underreported and unpunished because the accusation is met with a collective yawn on the part of law enforcement and our justice system.

Out of curiosity, what would be a sensible way to deal with 1. false rape accusations and 2. ones that don't end with a conviction, due to insufficient evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Out of curiosity, what would be a sensible way to deal with 1. false rape accusations and 2. ones that don't end with a conviction, due to insufficient evidence?

---

See that's a problem, because that's not a LEGAL distinction. The only legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Insufficient evidence is a prosecutorial determination made in advance of laying charges. The jury's deliberations are secret and with good reason, and they can find reasonable doubt from any number of valid *or invalid* factors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Out of curiosity, what would be a sensible way to deal with 1. false rape accusations and 2. ones that don't end with a conviction, due to insufficient evidence?

---

For 2, there's nothing to do. Our justice system has a lot of protections of the accused built in which make conviction difficult. If the evidence isn't there (but we have no evidence of a fabricated story), we have to leave it as is and recognize no system is perfect.

For #1, that's tougher. Currently it's possible (at least in America) to the sue the false accuser of defamation and make it stick (e.g. Tawana Brawley), but I am not aware of any other legal recourse for the vindicated defendant - that is, I don't believe falsely accusing someone of an assault is itself a criminal matter.

There's obviously a lot of difficulty in sorting out #1 from #2 (e.g. the legitimate false accusation as opposed to merely not having sufficient evidence for a conviction), and I'm not sure how best to approach it. Possibly a civil judgment is all we can hope for, but perhaps we could also use the court of public opinion in some manner that would both rehabilitate the falsely accused's image and in some manner disincentivize future false accusations by embarrassing the accuser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

See that's a problem, because that's not a LEGAL distinction. The only legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Insufficient evidence is a prosecutorial determination made in advance of laying charges. The jury's deliberations are secret and with good reason, and they can find reasonable doubt from any number of valid *or invalid* factors.

---

Sorry, I was thinking of "reasonable doubt" :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

For 2, there's nothing to do. Our justice system has a lot of protections of the accused built in which make conviction difficult. If the evidence isn't there (but we have no evidence of a fabricated story), we have to leave it as is and recognize no system is perfect.

[...]

There's obviously a lot of difficulty in sorting out #1 from #2 (e.g. the legitimate false accusation as opposed to merely not having sufficient evidence for a conviction), and I'm not sure how best to approach it. Possibly a civil judgment is all we can hope for, but perhaps we could also use the court of public opinion in some manner that would both rehabilitate the falsely accused's image and in some manner disincentivize future false accusations by embarrassing the accuser.

---

You've mostly answered my question. I asked because the threat of being sued for slander etc. may serve as a deterrent to false rape allegations, but has to be balanced against the risk of scaring off people from reporting real rapes because they're afraid that they won't be believed, that they won't get a conviction, AND that they may instead end up getting shafted by a lawsuit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Still don't get this logic. It's irrelevant if it was convenient or not. It's likely that if this were to happen a few years earlier when he was in the running for the top IMF spot, people would say the same thing. Coincidences do not imply a vast right wing conspiracy.

---

True, but it still doesn't mean it couldn't have happened like that just because some people would always suspect foul play.

Quote:

---

This is probably the first reasonable thing you've said in this thread. I agree, mostly - false accusations (however uncommon) do need to be appropriately punished. (And GGT is wrong on this one.)


This I'm not so much in agreement with. By your own sources, there's somewhere between a 98 and 92% chance that a given rape accusation is real (and some ridiculous number of rapes are never even reported, to boot). Given the large societal stigma attached to being a rape victim, it's not unreasonable to make a culture of immediate acceptance of accusations (but NOT guilt) rather than default skepticism - otherwise, you have a decent chance of scaring away a lot of legitimate accusations to protect a proportionally smaller population from embarrassment and scandal.

While I don't want to disincentivize rape reporting any more than it already is, I do think we should disincentivize fabricated accusations as above. Some stricter punishment regime is not uncalled for.

---

So that means we actually agree in essence. I want to see severe punishment for false accusations before I am willing to give more than average credence to alleged rape victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

For #1, that's tougher. Currently it's possible (at least in America) to the sue the false accuser of defamation and make it stick (e.g. Tawana Brawley), but I am not aware of any other legal recourse for the vindicated defendant - that is, I don't believe falsely accusing someone of an assault is itself a criminal matter.

---

A few years ago there was a case where a celebrity couple (Neil and Christine Hamilton) was accused of molesting someone. They got investigated etc and eventually it was determined the person making the accusation was lying and seeking to get money from it. She was charged and went to prison.

"Wasting Police time" is a criminal offence here that covers false allegations, is it not a crime there?
"Perverting the course of justice" is another criminal offence here.
Also if it goes to court and its found they lied, there is potential perjury charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

True, but it still doesn't mean it couldn't have happened like that just because some people would always suspect foul play.

---

Yes, but we have no a priori reason for suspecting a false accusation.

Quote:

---

So that means we actually agree in essence. I want to see severe punishment for false accusations before I am willing to give more than average credence to alleged rape victims.

---

'Severe' punishment? I think there should be some disincentive, but the issue (as above) is that it's very hard to prove an actual lie as opposed to a simple 'he said she said' lack of conviction. If you could prove malicious intent, though, perhaps some serious consequences are reasonable. I suspect this would be a vanishingly small proportion of cases, though. (As I understand it the 8% number for 'false' rape accusations actually refers to rape cases where culpability is unproven - but that doesn't mean a rape didn't occur. The actual number of provably false cases is probably quite small.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

A few years ago there was a case where a celebrity couple (Neil and Christine Hamilton) was accused of molesting someone. They got investigated etc and eventually it was determined the person making the accusation was lying and seeking to get money from it. She was charged and went to prison.

"Wasting Police time" is a criminal offence here that covers false allegations, is it not a crime there?
"Perverting the course of justice" is another criminal offence here.
Also if it goes to court and its found they lied, there is potential perjury charges.

---

To be honest I'm not familiar enough with these laws to determine whether they exist in the US. It might not be a bad idea, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

To be honest I'm not familiar enough with these laws to determine whether they exist in the US. It might not be a bad idea, though.

---

Mostly misdemeanor offenses. For culturo-legal reasons our system tries to encourage people to report crimes rather over deterring false accusations particularly in those spheres, like sexual assault, where research has indicated crime is significantly under-reported. And yeah, part of the logic is that a false accusation can be refuted and won't result in a conviction. That may/will still inflict harm on the accused. There is a definite societal harm being done there. Unreported crime creates similar problems. The current determination generally made is that remedying that latter is more pressing than the former. Maybe that determination is incorrect. Personally, I doubt that it's incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

(And GGT is wrong on this one.)

While I don't want to disincentivize rape reporting any more than it already is, I do think we should disincentivize fabricated accusations as above. Some stricter punishment regime is not uncalled for.

Okay, fair enough, I agree GGT was unreasonable.

As above, I don't really agree. I don't see a viable alternative other than taking rape accusations very seriously, and vigorously prosecuting cases with enough evidence. In that context, it's regrettable that the occasional accusation is a fabrication, and we should try to discourage such behavior - but I don't think we should pursue such accusations less forcefully because of this small chance.

It's not 'OK' that some people's public lives are ruined by such false accusations, but it's very much more not 'OK' for rapes to go underreported and unpunished because the accusation is met with a collective yawn on the part of law enforcement and our justice system.

---

I can't be 'wrong' and 'unreasonable' regarding false accusations, when you basically said the same things I did. Please show me where I said it was 'OK' for peoples' lives to be ruined by false accusations. :donkey: It's not unreasonable or wrong to state the two ways false accusations are handled:

(1) At the onset of a complaint---police detective work, forensics and evidence flushing out lies from facts, nothing to support filing a charge or prosecuting a case because the claims are obviously false. When there are questionable or conflicting evidence and statements, and it's not obvious who's lying but the victim's claims could be true, it's taken to court for jury decisions.

(2) During/after a trial---the defense showing reasonable doubt, presenting evidence the accuser is lying, challenging consent, proving a conspiracy, etc. The accused could be (incorrectly) found guilty, but still has the option of appeal. If found not guilty, there's legal recourse to address the false accusations that may harm their reputation or career, with counter-suits for defamation of character, libel or slander, falsifying testimony, perjury, etc.

Those are just the facts. How we personally feel about this is a totally different topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Sorry, I was thinking of "reasonable doubt" :noob:

You've mostly answered my question. I asked because the threat of being sued for slander etc. may serve as a deterrent to false rape allegations, but has to be balanced against the risk of scaring off people from reporting real rapes because they're afraid that they won't be believed, that they won't get a conviction, AND that they may instead end up getting shafted by a lawsuit.

---

In other words, pretty much what I've said. :bored: If I didn't ooze sympathy for the falsely accused, or post my emotions to your satisfaction, too damn bad. After reading Hazir's early and unfounded 'verdict' from his 'gut feelings' with appeal to emotion and outrage....I've tried to be objective and factual where he wasn't. Sure, I could go on about my feelings surrounding sexual assault, my sensitivities for victims of all kinds, but then you'd say I was penis-posting. :donkey: Or others would say I'm just ranting or going off on tangents....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Mostly misdemeanor offenses. For culturo-legal reasons our system tries to encourage people to report crimes rather over deterring false accusations particularly in those spheres, like sexual assault, where research has indicated crime is significantly under-reported. And yeah, part of the logic is that a false accusation can be refuted and won't result in a conviction. That may/will still inflict harm on the accused. There is a definite societal harm being done there. Unreported crime creates similar problems. The current determination generally made is that remedying that latter is more pressing than the former. Maybe that determination is incorrect. Personally, I doubt that it's incorrect.

---

That's what I've been saying, only you said it better. :up: There's also a logical assumption that detectives can and will weed out false accusations before they'd even lead to filing official criminal charges. Lawyers make those decisions with a "preponderance of evidence". When a Grand Jury agrees, it moves to trial. Redundancy is built into the trial itself, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In other words, Hazir, your gut feelings don't mean much, other than entertaining gossip and speculation. Your distrustful bias against US police or our justice system isn't really grounded in fact but what you've read in social media or seen on TV. At every step along the way, and from the moment the maid ran out of his hotel suite, DSK has been presumed innocent. He's been afforded innocent status through every legal hurdle we have, many steps that are designed to protect the accused from false charges. And if it's proven he wasn't....it could result in charges of prosecutorial misconduct, police collusion, tampering with evidence, denying the accused due process, etc.....and a mistrial.

And then we have the NYC criminal system, while not being able to convict 2 men of rape still acting as if they were. Not to mention their dismissal from the police. Who you are trying to fool GGT?

Who's to trust a system that won't give people a fair deal after acquittal and doesn't have a much better track record with people whose innocence was proven.

Um, they were convicted of lesser charges. And by their own admission, they slept in bed with a naked woman while on duty. Those are pretty damn good grounds for dismissal.

Even if the woman consented, I'd fire anyone I found out was lying naked in a bed while on duty. :bulb:

Apparently Hazir thinks that a policeman walking a drunk woman home and then getting into bed with her while she's naked is not grounds for dismissal (this is the story of the policemen).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Even if the woman consented, I'd fire anyone I found out was lying naked in a bed while on duty. :bulb:

---

Unexplored business idea? :o



What's this about policemen and drunk women?? I'm not sure I understand what you were saying in that post, Hazir

That is sick. Of course they should get fired.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/ny...l?ref=nyregion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

And then we have the NYC criminal system, while not being able to convict 2 men of rape still acting as if they were. Not to mention their dismissal from the police. Who you are trying to fool GGT?

Who's to trust a system that won't give people a fair deal after acquittal and doesn't have a much better track record with people whose innocence was proven.

---

Have I implied the US system is perfect, infallible, above criticism? No. I've acknowledged we have problems in almost every reply. :bored:

This thread seems to be a platform for you to hate on the US, using DSK's case as an example of our inferiority, compared to Europe. Or you were convinced this would prove how the US is rife with women making false sex charges, extorting money with the threat of ruining men's lives, innocent victims littered across our landscape. No man is safe, especially VIP European bankers or politicians. And no one gives a damn, especially not the NYPD or its DAs. In your mind they'll purposely turn a blind eye to this injustice in how DSK has been treated, maybe even join the conspiracy to smear an innocent man's reputation and career. Because that's how the US operates. :rolleyes:

You drew us in by asking, "So, did he or didn't he?", but that's a veiled question, with your contempt and distrust for the US wrapped around it. Who are you trying to fool, Hazir? :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/ny...l?ref=nyregion

---

Nice try, but not really. Because it was quite clear İ wasn't talking about the trial, but how the prosecutor actually tried to make it sound a sif the case was won on the main charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Even if the woman consented, I'd fire anyone I found out was lying naked in a bed while on duty. :bulb:

---

You actually know that happened while they were on duty? You even know it happened at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Nice try, but not really. Because it was quite clear İ wasn't talking about the trial, but how the prosecutor actually tried to make it sound a sif the case was won on the main charges.

---

The prosecutor can claim whatever he wants. Your claim was that these cops got fired purely because they were accused of rape, despite not being convicted of it. The reality is that they were fired for engaging in highly inappropriate behavior while on duty, according to their own words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

You actually know that happened while they were on duty? You even know it happened at all?

---

The cops themselves claimed this. :bored: The only disagreement was over whether one of them actually had sex with the woman.

This could deserve a separate thread, but they really didn't/couldn't prove she was actually raped. There was some really poor misconduct and the officers were fired immediately after the verdict. But there was very little indication of a rape. The woman didn't even remember most of the night and didn't remember anyone having sex with her.

Yet maybe half a dozen people I know are at city hall protesting that they know more than a jury that spent two months on this. :rolleyes:

The point remains; they were acquitted for the rape and still, because they were convicted on minor charges they are being treated as rapists. To me that sounds guilty untill death. And probably now they'll go on some sex-offender list to ruin their lives for good.

Are you just trolling now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Are you just trolling now?

---

Absolutely not, they were found guilty of what appears to amount to tresspassing and yet will have to live with the stain of being seen as rapists. The DA's office made the first move when it started to tell they were happy with the conviction when everybody knew they had lost on the nain charges. Pulling an Al Capone so to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

The point remains; they were acquitted for the rape and still, because they were convicted on minor charges they are being treated as rapists. To me that sounds guilty untill death. And probably now they'll go on some sex-offender list to ruin their lives for good.

---

The officers were convicted of three counts of official misconduct for entering the woman’s apartment, but the jury found them not guilty of all other charges, including burglary and falsifying business records. The Police Department said the officers were fired Thursday.

People aren't placed on "some sex-offender list" for convictions of official misconduct. Stop bullshitting. :donkey:

So they were guilty of tresspassing, and then the 'these guys are disgusting' crowd kicks in and they are fired from their job. You really hold your NY policemen to astoundingly high standards compared to any other cop. Or maybe the difference is just that these guys were already found guilty of rape for no other reason than that that charge was brought against them and the pre-judgement is what stuck, not the actual verdict.

two people and three counts of misconduct, i'm guessing that lying in the same bed as a near naked drunk woman may be included in one of those counts, ie. that "simple" trespassing wasn't the only thing. Moreover, why shouldn't cops be held to precisely that standard? Their actions weren't just inappropriate, they were also distinctly uncoply and downright criminal. Fine, don't vilify them if you don't want to, but don't let them undermine the police by letting them stay on. The police have a hard enough time as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

So they were guilty of tresspassing, and then the 'these guys are disgusting' crowd kicks in and they are fired from their job. You really hold your NY policemen to astoundingly high standards compared to any other cop. Or maybe the difference is just that these guys were already found guilty of rape for no other reason than that that charge was brought against them and the pre-judgement is what stuck, not the actual verdict.

---

They were fired from their Civil Servant job because they violated their professional oath, and violated SOP and department ethics for on-duty behavior. Women who call for police assistance shouldn't awake to find themselves with a cop in their bed 'cuddling them', while wearing only a bra, with another cop standing around.

The rape couldn't be proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) because there was no DNA evidence, and she was so intoxicated she couldn't remember much of anything.

WTF is wrong with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

two people and three counts of misconduct, i'm guessing that lying in the same bed as a near naked drunk woman may be included in one of those counts, ie. that "simple" trespassing wasn't the only thing. Moreover, why shouldn't cops be held to precisely that standard? Their actions weren't just inappropriate, they were also distinctly uncoply and downright criminal. Fine, don't vilify them if you don't want to, but don't let them undermine the police by letting them stay on. The police have a hard enough time as it is.

---

I may be mistaken, but I doubt they were convicted of 'lying next to a naked woman'. Whether or not this happened again is a i 'he said he said' situation of two people trying to get out of a very bad place. If it actually happened has not been the subject of an investigation. That means they were indeed fired for something tantamount to tresspassing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

They were fired from their Civil Servant job because they violated their professional oath, and violated SOP and department ethics for on-duty behavior. Women who call for police assistance shouldn't awake to find themselves with a cop in their bed 'cuddling them', while wearing only a bra, with another cop standing around.

The rape couldn't be proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) because there was no DNA evidence, and she was so intoxicated she couldn't remember much of anything.

WTF is wrong with you?

---

I could as the same of you; she never claimed that cuddling half naked thing ever happened. She claimed she was raped while lying on her bed face down. You and other people try to make these people guilty of a crime that never was proven in court. Not to mention that cuddling is not exactly the same as rape.

Quote:

---

They insisted no rape occurred, with one allowing only that he snuggled with her while she wore nothing but a bra.

---

from the nyt. do you have to be convicted of snugglerape in order to be fired, if you confess? being fired doesn't require a conviction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

So they were guilty of tresspassing, and then the 'these guys are disgusting' crowd kicks in and they are fired from their job. You really hold your NY policemen to astoundingly high standards compared to any other cop. Or maybe the difference is just that these guys were already found guilty of rape for no other reason than that that charge was brought against them and the pre-judgement is what stuck, not the actual verdict.

---

WTF?

You hold your cops to an outstandingly low standard if you think its OK for them to get into bed with a naked, drunk woman (even if they don't rape her) while on duty.

Hazir, stop the bullshitting. What the hell do you mean by

Quote:

---

If it actually happened has not been the subject of an investigation.

---

The entire investigation was trying to sort out the truth of what happened. :donkey:

Rape could not be proven by evidence. Claims of rape were rejected. There was 'reasonable doubt'. The he said/she said resulted in not-guilty of rape verdicts.

But the officers entered her home three times, with surveillance camera and time stamp confirmations corroborating facts of Trespass. In addition, one cop admitted under oath he was 'cuddling' [comforting] a highly intoxicated woman wearing only a bra.

Why would you be complaining about this, when your premise is that men are being convicted of sexual assault crimes they didn't commit? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

WTF?

You hold your cops to an outstandingly low standard if you think its OK for them to get into bed with a naked, drunk woman (even if they don't rape her) while on duty.

---

Exactly! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I could as the same of you; she never claimed that cuddling half naked thing ever happened. She claimed she was raped while lying on her bed face down. You and other people try to make these people guilty of a crime that never was proven in court. Not to mention that cuddling is not exactly the same as rape.

---

Once again, you are adding things to support your bias, when none of that is even factual. The COP said he was in her bed, cuddling her bra-only-otherwise-naked-body. While On Duty.

Now seriously, do the Dutch regard that kind of police behavior on-the-job acceptable? :donkey:

I think the activist anger about this are well-grounded in their "outrage". Whether it's about police conduct codes, police misconduct, or laws surrounding prosecution of....anyone taking advantage of highly intoxicated people. Take your pick. You don't even need to use a roofie or date-rape drug in their drink, if this is how it goes. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

This could deserve a separate thread, but they really didn't/couldn't prove she was actually raped. There was some really poor misconduct and the officers were fired immediately after the verdict. But there was very little indication of a rape. The woman didn't even remember most of the night and didn't remember anyone having sex with her.

Yet maybe half a dozen people I know are at city hall protesting that they know more than a jury that spent two months on this. :rolleyes:

---

I've only read the links in this thread, but I can see why people would be protesting at City Hall. The two policemen were placed on administrative leave with pay, awaiting the trial outcome. The incident occurred in 2008, so these cops have basically continued to get their paychecks. Even though the "evidence" involved CCTV of them entering her apartment 3 times, and admission that one of them was laying in bed with her, wearing only a bra.

Policies are confusing, but Internal Affairs should have busted these guys for violating police protocol and codes of ethics well before the trial, three years earlier. I'm not sure about the legalities surrounding chain-of-evidence or chain-of-command, or who controls what. "Jurisdiction" in these kinds of things can turn into beasts.

IMO it would have been better to suspend them without pay, pending trial outcome. If they were acquitted of all charges they would have been legally entitled to back-pay and re-instatement of all duties. Instead, we have two cops that admitted to really really bad judgement while on duty, and continued to get their paychecks for three years. Maybe department policy should have a harder stick/deterrant than that.....

If we assume that they did nothing wrong, how would you expect them to live for the last 3 years without getting a salary?