Quantcast

Eff da po-lice some more

rockofullr

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,342
924
East Bay, Cali
Last edited:
mykel

mykel

closer to Periwinkle
Apr 19, 2013
5,483
4,211
sw ontario canada
:twitch::eek::wtf::panic:


Who the Fuck wrote the rules that allow a LEO to have sex with somebody in his/her custody?
What were they thinking, seriously what is the reasoning behind this? Teacher student relationships between age appropriate consenting adults are a huge no-no, but cop arrests you, which has to be one of the largest imbalances of power that can exist - and this is ok. ..

So...uh...ya...I'll just slip into the backseat with you for a few minutes to collect some evidence, and hey, ...maybe we can make a deal....

Seriously... And this is legal in 35 states.

What. The. Fuck.

:butcher:
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,108
10,671
AK
mykel said:
:twitch::eek::wtf::panic:


Who the Fuck wrote the rules that allow a LEO to have sex with somebody in his/her custody?
What were they thinking, seriously what is the reasoning behind this? Teacher student relationships between age appropriate consenting adults are a huge no-no, but cop arrests you, which has to be one of the largest imbalances of power that can exist - and this is ok. ..

So...uh...ya...I'll just slip into the backseat with you for a few minutes to collect some evidence, and hey, ...maybe we can make a deal....

Seriously... And this is legal in 35 states.

What. The. Fuck.

:butcher:
Click to expand...
Ok, that's a distortion of the truth here:

But Anna didn’t know that in New York, there is no law specifically stating that it is illegal for police officers or sheriff’s deputies in the field to have sex with someone in their custody.
Click to expand...
No one "wrote" that it's ok for an LEO to have sex with someone in their custody, it's a loophole and there's nothing specifically prohibiting it. Above, you are implying that someone specifically went out of their way to allow people to get raped by writing some law. No.

But that isn't even the issue here. The issue is they raped her. There's also no law saying that a person can't have a relationship with a like-aged female, and even if there was, rape would be a totally different issue. Being prohibited from having a relationship with someone in their custody would be an administrative rule that would be grounds for firing. Raping someone is criminal. It is NOT legal in 35 states. Just because in this case the entire prosecution/law enforcement side is corrupt doesn't mean that rape is not criminal, it means they didn't pursue a crime and the DOJ needs to get involved.

And many Universities have no rule prohibiting teacher-student relationships if they are like-aged, we did not. Depending on the circumstances, it may be looked down on, but in many others there was no issue (grad student teaching and higher-level student, etc.).
 
JohnE

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,545
2,167
Front Range, dude...
Jm_ said:
Ok, that's a distortion of the truth here:



No one "wrote" that it's ok for an LEO to have sex with someone in their custody, it's a loophole and there's nothing specifically prohibiting it.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Common decency states that it is prohibited, and that does not need to be elucidated via writing. Why the fuck does simple human decency have to be outlined and directed via written statute?

But more to the point, I was always taught that the second that you contact an individual on the street (As an LEO) that you are responsible for that persons health and welfare. Moreover, you are responsible for the safety and well being of the public as a whole. NYC police recruits are required to take this oath of office, which in itself prohibits very simply this type of behavior- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of police officer, according to the best of my ability;"

I am pretty sure that nowhere in the constitutions of the United States or the state of NY is rape or sexual contact with an apprehended subject permissible.

These 2 are the worst kind of scum imaginable, and what has and is happening to Anna is shameful.
 
Pesqueeb

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
41,793
19,104
Riding the baggage carousel.
JohnE said:
Wrong. Common decency states that it is prohibited, and that does not need to be elucidated via writing. Why the fuck does simple human decency have to be outlined and directed via written statute?
Click to expand...
What your talking about is "cultural or social norms", and those officially died Jan 20, 2017. It's all going to have to be written into law, from now on.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,108
10,671
AK
The problem isn’t whether there’s a rule prohibiting relations, it’s that the freaking cop raped someone, that’s criminal whether or not there’s a rule prohibiting relations. The “issue” here is not pursuing criminal charges for a crime. Has nothing to do with whether there’s a loophole allowing relations. I’m not saying that their ethical/work rules shouldn’t be updated, but that’s not the issue. A crime happened and there are already rules that cover it. Not pursuing is criminal in of itself. This is like requiring a law that prevents cops from murdering people. It’s already illegal to murder someone for christ’s sake.
 
stevew

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
41,152
10,093
so maybe all those kids should march on the sheriffs office and string up the sherrif and the four chickenshit cops who hid behind their cars
 
Westy

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
55,966
22,011
Sleazattle
johnbryanpeters said:
Albuquerque has a somewhat scary edge to it in general...
Click to expand...
Stayed in ABQ for a friends wedding a few years back. There were at least two bail bonds offices on each block in the proximity of our hotel.

As an out of town guest I was invited to the rehearsal dinner. Wore nice but casual clothes. Got laughed at by the brides family for being fancy, they were all wearing sweat pants. :rofl:
 
johnbryanpeters

johnbryanpeters

Hero
Sep 27, 2001
36,800
18,346
Making moss sad in New Haven, Vermont
Westy said:
Stayed in ABQ for a friends wedding a few years back. There were at least two bail bonds offices on each block in the proximity of our hotel.

As an out of town guest I was invited to the rehearsal dinner. Wore nice but casual clothes. Got laughed at by the brides family for being fancy, they were all wearing sweat pants. :rofl:
Click to expand...
Stayed there with a friend last year in a cheap motel. Some of the guests seemed, ah... seedy, but the latino staff were wonderful. Lots of very aggressive drivers. Returning this year if we can get our act together...
 
JohnE

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,545
2,167
Front Range, dude...
Damnit, sniped by the Kiwi...came here to post just that article. While you can only fault the sheriff so much for following the law, it is a stupid, antiquated law that needs to change if Abalama is ever to be considered a modern, functioning member of society. Or, they can remain a bunch of backwards ass inbred fvcktards...
 
JohnE

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,545
2,167
Front Range, dude...
Jm_ said:
I kept reading it, police was giving guy commands to stop reaching, guy was reaching for a gun, not sure what the issue is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I pulled the posting trigger (See what I did there...) too quickly on that one. The more I read it, the more it sounded like a good shoot to me...
 
rockofullr

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,342
924
East Bay, Cali
Interesting...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/04/03/ariz-woman-survives-police-shooting-but-supreme-court-says-the-officer-is-immune-from-her-lawsuit/?utm_term=.46c561633be4

A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that an Arizona police officer who shot a knife-carrying woman four times outside her home could not be sued on claims that he used excessive force, marking the latest in a series of high court decisions shielding officers from such lawsuits.

In an unsigned opinion, the court found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that says police are immune from excessive force lawsuits as long as they don’t violate “clearly established” rights that a “reasonable person would have known.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that the ruling “sends an alarming signal to law enforcement and the public.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom