So, did he or didn't he?

[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.

[GGT]

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?

[Hazir]

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.

[Hazir]

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.

[Aimless]

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

[RandBlade]

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.

[GGT]

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

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.

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?

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!

[GGT]

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?

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.

[GGT]

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.

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.....

[Loki]

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

[Aimless]

they could make money on books and on the lecture circuit

[GGT]

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

Because the police detectives (and Internal Affairs) would be the first to have access to the video tape, showing their entry into her apartment. Three times in one night, while on duty. First time escorting a drunken woman to her home, okay that sounds kosher on face value (but don't ask people arrested for public intoxication what they think of that )

Second time meaning....they made a follow-up visit the same night? Is this SOP for NYPD? I doubt it.

Third time meaning.....what? There's probably no SOP justifying a 3rd visit to anyone trying to find their way home, while intoxicated, after they've already been helped home. The cops had options, like arresting her for public intoxication, or calling 911 to get her medical care for possible alcohol poisoning. But that's not what they did, is it.

[GGT]

they could make money on books and on the lecture circuit

Clever minx, conflating DSK with NYPD?

[Aimless]

Clever minx, conflating DSK with NYPD?

Then I suppose suspension with pay is the way to go

[GGT]

Then I suppose suspension with pay is the way to go

Only if there are claw-backs. But what do we do with corrupt or unethical Civil Servants who've spent those paychecks while being investigated? Perhaps spending every paycheck down to its last cent, laughing at the system trying to find a drop of blood in a dried up turnip?

[GGT]

Then I suppose suspension with pay is the way to go

Is this how the IMF views criminal charges against their chairman? I'm guessing not, and that's why DSK resigned. He knew better than to mix money with politics, but only after it was too late.

His trial could take a couple of years, and who wants to pay him for doing nothing in the interim? Especially if it contributes toward his first-class Tribeca NYC lifestyle at around $200,000/month, while awaiting trial?

[Aimless]

Clever ggt, conflating DSK with NYPD?

[GGT]

Hazir did that, all on his own.

[Hazir]

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.

Bullshit, you are making social mores the equal of criminal charges. What they were found guilty of was going into her home three times. Nothing more and nothing less. Not that this matters to people like you. You already decided you know better than the jury and judge. Same for GGT. And for the peoply who are supposed to uphold the law and make such a travesty of it.

[Hazir]

Is this how the IMF views criminal charges against their chairman? I'm guessing not, and that's why DSK resigned. He knew better than to mix money with politics, but only after it was too late.

His trial could take a couple of years, and who wants to pay him for doing nothing in the interim? Especially if it contributes toward his first-class Tribeca NYC lifestyle at around $200,000/month, while awaiting trial?

DSK resigned, which is not the same as being sacked. But it sure is enlightening to see that even with non-rich people you want to see them bleed before being found guilty.

[GGT]

Bullshit, you are making social mores the equal of criminal charges. What they were found guilty of was going into her home three times. Nothing more and nothing less. Not that this matters to people like you. You already decided you know better than the jury and judge. Same for GGT. And for the peoply who are supposed to uphold the law and make such a travesty of it.

No, you are the one making social mores superior to criminal convictions. Do the Dutch really need a judge and jury to tell on-duty Police they shouldn't end up in bed with women wearing only a bra? The same women that called Civil Servants for help finding their way home?

[GGT]

DSK resigned, which is not the same as being sacked. But it sure is enlightening to see that even with non-rich people you want to see them bleed before being found guilty.

Poor Hazir. You just can't make a cogent argument about the accused or the accusers, the innocent or the convicted, the haves or the have-nots, the Europeans or the Americans.

All you can do is post about how awful things are when powerful European men or NYC policemen are held accountable for their actions in a court of law.

[RandBlade]

Bullshit, you are making social mores the equal of criminal charges. What they were found guilty of was going into her home three times. Nothing more and nothing less. Not that this matters to people like you. You already decided you know better than the jury and judge. Same for GGT. And for the peoply who are supposed to uphold the law and make such a travesty of it.

He confessed on the record in court to lying in bed with her while she was naked. Did you miss that?

[GGT]

He confessed on the record in court to lying in bed with her while she was naked. Did you miss that?

He conveniently ignored or dismissed that, because it did not fit in his pre-conceived belief compartments. Main compartment: Americans are not to be trusted. Second compartment: US police and law enforcement is not to be trusted. Third compartment: women are not to be trusted, especially American women *or women in America* claiming sexual assault/abuse against European men *Or any men in positions of power, like police*

[GGT]

Hazir, I've been thinking about your posts the last couple of days. You hold what seems to be a minority opinion, especially regarding charges of rape or sexual assault. At first I thought this was your way of placing Europeans above Americans, because if this had happened in France or Italy you'd say it wouldn't have made the 5 o'clock news. I don't buy that, not at all.

Europeans are just as prone to gossip, reading tabloids, and using social networks for "News" as Americans. Indeed, that's pretty much what you've done this entire thread. How can you maintain this false moral superiority for DSK?

....especially after learning that victims can wait several years for their day of justice in the court room...

[Hazir]

He confessed on the record in court to lying in bed with her while she was naked. Did you miss that?

You know the difference between telling something during a trial and confessing?

[GGT]

You know the difference between telling something during a trial and confessing?

If it is not truthful, we call it perjury. What else did you have in mind?

[Hazir]

If it is not truthful, we call it perjury. What else did you have in mind?

Telling something in court is something different than confessing. You may hear this for the first time but those people in robes in the court room are not priests taking confessions. Talking about a non-crime you weren't charged with is not a confession. İn the case at hand telling about being in bed with a half naked woman would have to count as the 'İ didn't do it'

[Aimless]

Again, do you have to be convicted in court of a crime in order to lose your job?

[GGT]

Telling something in court is something different than confessing. You may hear this for the first time but those people in robes in the court room are not priests taking confessions. Talking about a non-crime you weren't charged with is not a confession.

You're trying to say that "utterances" aren't relevant? Perhaps not, but that's up to the judge to decide. Whether it's deemed hearsay, relevant, or whatever. Are you attempting to use the police testimony about 'cuddling' irrelevant?