The investigators also asked Hair for permission to check his uniforms for semen.

“I don’t know my rights. Do I have to?” the former officer asked. “I don’t think I want to do that.”

I plead the right to no blacklight searches!

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

        • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sure buddy, whatever. Love the thin veiled ad hominem though. Really underlines your argument.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              You claim I’m naive so you dismiss my argument. You’re literally contradicting yourself here.

              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.

              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.

      • Trofont@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.