190
San Diego officer resigns after locking himself in patrol car with woman he arrested
(www.sandiegouniontribune.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
190 points (98.5% liked)
THE POLICE PROBLEM
2475 readers
168 users here now
The police problem is that police are policed by the police. Cops are accountable only to other cops, which is no accountability at all.
99.9999% of police brutality, corruption, and misconduct is never investigated, never punished, never makes the news, so it's not on this page.
When cops are caught breaking the law, they're investigated by other cops. Details are kept quiet, the officers' names are withheld from public knowledge, and what info is eventually released is only what police choose to release — often nothing at all.
When police are fired — which is all too rare — they leave with 'law enforcement experience' and can easily find work in another police department nearby. It's called "Wandering Cops."
When police testify under oath, they lie so frequently that cops themselves have a joking term for it: "testilying." Yet it's almost unheard of for police to be punished or prosecuted for perjury.
Cops can and do get away with lawlessness, because cops protect other cops. If they don't, they aren't cops for long.
The legal doctrine of "qualified immunity" renders police officers invulnerable to lawsuits for almost anything they do. In practice, getting past 'qualified immunity' is so unlikely, it makes headlines when it happens.
All this is a path to a police state.
In a free society, police must always be under serious and skeptical public oversight, with non-cops and non-cronies in charge, issuing genuine punishment when warranted.
Police who break the law must be prosecuted like anyone else, promptly fired if guilty, and barred from ever working in law-enforcement again.
That's the solution.
♦ ♦ ♦
Our definition of ‘cops’ is broad, and includes prison guards, probation officers, shitty DAs and judges, etc — anyone who has the authority to fuck over people’s lives, with minimal or no oversight.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.
② If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.
③ Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.
④ Please don't dox or post calls for harassment, vigilantism, tar & feather attacks, etc.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
It you've been banned but don't know why, check the moderator's log. If you feel you didn't deserve it, hey, I'm new at this and maybe you're right. Send a cordial PM, for a second chance.
♦ ♦ ♦
ALLIES
• r/ACAB
♦ ♦ ♦
INFO
• A demonstrator's guide to understanding riot munitions
• Cops aren't supposed to be smart
• Killings by law enforcement in Canada
• Killings by law enforcement in the United Kingdom
• Killings by law enforcement in the United States
• Know your rights: Filming the police
• Three words. 70 cases. The tragic history of 'I can’t breathe' (as of 2020)
• Police aren't primarily about helping you or solving crimes.
• Police lie under oath, a lot
• Police spin: An object lesson in Copspeak
• Police unions and arbitrators keep abusive cops on the street
• Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States
• When the police knock on your door
♦ ♦ ♦
ORGANIZATIONS
• NAACP
• National Police Accountability Project
• Vera: Ending Mass Incarceration
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
While under arrest. Even if she didn't explicitly suggest quid pro quo, it's still an unbalanced power dichotomy where true consent is impossible.
That's like saying a 12 year old in foster care consented to have sex with their foster parents. All statements made by the rape victim were made under duress and do not mitigate the crime.
I think it’s a little different than straight up rape. Rape is forcing a sexual encounter on someone. In this case, the woman was not forced to have sex, she tried to use sex to get out of legal trouble. This is the definition of bribery. Here is a thought experiment - if the woman offered money instead of sex, would you say the officer robbed her? I doubt it. The woman offered a bribe, the officer accepted it. The officer is corrupt, not a rapist. Let’s not absolve the woman for offering bribes just because what she offered was sex instead of something else of value.
Now, if the woman was not in legitimate legal trouble and the officer fabricated a charge and threatened her with it unless she had sex with him, that is rape and blackmail. Doesn’t seem to be what happened in this case though. The woman was in legitimate legal trouble.
How is it not force when placing someone under arrest, putting them in the back of a locked police car, and driving them to the police station for booking?
If a police officer took money in exchange for their detainee's freedom, then yes that is absolutely robbery. There is always the implicit threat of violence and imprisonment when someone is under arrest. To refuse a police officer while in custody is to risk your own safety and life. Under those conditions, there can be no version of consent thatmitigates the crime.
You’re basically saying if anyone commits a crime and an officer arrests them for that crime, but the person offers money or sex to get out of it, and the officer accepts, then that person was robbed or raped. So, all any criminal needs to do to become a victim is convince the officer to take their bribe.
Don’t you think there is nuance in how both parties behaved?
If the officer was going to execute their duties fairly, but gave in to temptation and took the persons offer; that is bribery and corruption.
If the officer fabricated or embellished the charges and used that to make a threat against someone in order to pressure that person to give something of value, then that is rape/robbery, and blackmail.
A court and jury should review the case closely, but from the article, it sounds like the officer was doing his duty in arresting the woman on legitimate legal grounds, and then she offered sex to get out of trouble, which he accepted. I did not see any evidence that he threatened to escalate the trouble she was already in, in order to get sex out of her.
Yes, if an officer uses their position of authority to take money that doesn't belong to them, it is theft. If they use the threat of imprisonment to have sex with someone, that's rape. This isn't complicated. It doesn't matter if the bribe was offered or solicited, the officer is either using force to have non-consensual sex or taking something that doesnt belong to them. It doesn't matter if there was an actual quid pro quo agreement, or if the officer was planning to continue to deliver the detainee to jail. It doesn't matter at all if the detainee is guilty, and it's disgusting to suggest that it does so you should stop that.
It depends on the behavior of the officer. It’s the difference between these two statements:
“I’m going to make things worse than they should be for you if you don’t do what I want”
And
“Ok, I will not fulfill my duty because you offered me something to look the other way.”
In the first case, the officer IS using the threat of imprisonment to have sex with someone. In the second case, the officer is shirking his duty because the arrestee has offered a quid pro quo. These are two different scenarios and it comes down to who is instigating the act. In the eyes of the law, intentions matter. This is why there is a distinction between first and second degree murder.
No. Stop it. There is no difference between those two crimes because of the inherent power disparity between police and detainees.
almost arguable that the power dynamic goes the other way since women can get a lot done with just their boobs. I'm certain I can prove that men are mentally under performing when a girl starts seducing them to the point that they will lock themselves in their own car.
No one is saying he's not a piece of shit or that he didn't abuse his power or that he got off easy by resigning. This just does not meet the definition of rape.
Reverse the roles. Female cop, male prisoner. Guy makes the same offer, she accepts. Did she rape him, or is it more likely that the guy gets an additional sexual harassment charge?
Yes, in your hypothetical situation, she raped him. Rape is rape. It's nonconsensual sex. Detainees cannot give consent to sex because there is always the inherent threat of violence and imprisonment.
It's akin to slavery. Slaves cannot consent to sex, either.
You’re not wrong
Nice
There's been cases of underage students coercing teachers into sex and the teacher wouldn't get convicted of rape too. Or if you want to draw an even more extreme scenario, what if she was faking an emergency, the cop looks for her in the back and she forces herself onto her. Would you still argue he raped her because of power imbalance of his job and physical strength? We can go even further... Are all sexual acts of men onto women rape, because they're inherently stronger than women? Can men not get raped by women because of this?
The cop here clearly did abuse his power, but it was absolutely not rape. She was using his weakness against him. It's like accepting a monetary bribe, except that it was sexual favors instead. This is corruption, not rape.
That's not an argument in defense of rape, that's a reason to expand the legal definition to align with the reality of the situation.
Anyone who is empowered to take away all freedom from an individual cannot have consensual sex with that individual. Whether explicit or not, there is always the threat of force when a police officer has someone in custody. It is not possible to consent to sex under those circumstances. It is always rape.
They aren't able to just take away all freedom because they don't actually have that power. A cop can only hold you in custody for so long. A system can still only take away your freedom based on the crimes committed and that is still for a court to finally decide on whether you're found guilty of that or not. In this case the situation is that the cop can make you NOT go to prison by looking the other way or falsifying data. It's the opposite scenario of what you're describing. This is a quid pro quo situation where both parties would be benefiting from their underhanded deal that they've made.
Oh, you sweet summer child. Never change, the world needs your optimism.
Sure buddy, whatever. Love the thin veiled ad hominem though. Really underlines your argument.
That's not an ad hominem. I'm not dismissing your argument because of who you are. I'm saying you're being naive in your expectations of what the police can and will do. And if you actually do believe that an arresting officer who is willing to fuck a detainee will be constrained by legal limits to their power, then I really don't know how to respond to that.
You claim I'm naive so you dismiss my argument. You're literally contradicting yourself here.
What would he do? Put someone into his cellar? That would not be backed by his supposed power level of being a cop, that would just be an act of a criminal like any other, cop or not. Your whole argument is that it is rape because of the power imbalance and what he could have done to her if she refused, based on the power granted by his job. You're spinning one hypothetical scenario after another to make a point that just boils down to a black & white ACAB.
Yes you get due process, with a bias towards believing the system. People can often spend months in jail before the process progresses to the point where the charges get dropped. So yes a police officer doesn't have the power to put you in custody for your whole life, but they do have the power to put you at the mercy of a flawed system where you are rolling the dice with your future.