Speaking of Cops, Strippers, and Defense Attorneys

Tuesday, February 13th, 2007 · 69 Comments »

Read this.

*****

Via Twisty.

Filed under: Rape · Tags:

69 Responses to “Speaking of Cops, Strippers, and Defense Attorneys”

  1. will says:

    “But Park testified it was consensual sex – initiated by the woman to get out of a ticket.”

    I am curious as to what larger point you are seeking to make with this case.

    Apparently, the jury chose to believe the officer.

    Is his version beyond the possibility of belief? More importantly, do you believe her version over his “beyond a reasonable doubt”? If so, why? Or more importantly, how do you make that determination without actually seeing the people testify?

    Don’t get me wrong. It wouldnt surprise me if her version was true. But, it also wouldnt surprise me if his version was true.

    Moreover, police officers are human and certainly capable of lying.

    This is a good time to look at the difference between a civil suit and a criminal. In a civil suit, the standard is lower. (More probable than not.) In her case, she received a pretty decent settlement. In the criminal case, the burden is higher, and he was aquitted.

  2. will says:

    I will add that I do not think that it is ever appropriate for the police officer to engage in any sexual activity while on duty, even if allegedly consensual. So this officer should have been fired immediately even if it was consensual.

    Police officers have entirely too much power.

  3. Violet says:

    More importantly, do you believe her version over his “beyond a reasonable doubt”? If so, why?

    Maybe because every single shred of evidence, including that from the police dept itself, indicates that this guy is a sexual predator who was stalking the woman? And that the only reason he got off was because she worked as a stripper and the defense attorney pulled the old “she’s a lying slut who was asking for it”?

    Ginmar was right all along: you really are an MRA troll.

  4. will says:

    Wow. A troll because I discussed the standard of proof and the differences between civil cases and criminal cases?

    Or a troll because I asked how you decide who to believe when you were not present at the trial?

    Or a troll because I said a police officer should never engage in sexual activity while on duty?

    Or a troll because I said this officer should have been immediately fired?

    I guess for you, a jury is correct when they find a man guilty and wrong when they aquitt him? Personally, I am not smart enough like you to divine who is telling the truth

  5. will says:

    “every single shred of evidence”

    Did you review the transcript? What evidence are you talking about?

    I thought we decided that the media is not to be trusted? Did you do anything more than read one newpaper article? Is the newspaper article “evidence”? Or are you suggesting that the article the you linked to was absolutely objective and did not have a viewpoint?

    The last time I checked a newspaper article is not a trial.

    If you would rather me not post here, simply tell me.

  6. gordo says:

    Will–

    Quite frankly, you’re being an idiot. This guy got caught in several lies. But you’re saying that he has as much credibility as the stripper? Exactly what would have to happen before you stopped giving this guy the benefit of the doubt?

  7. Tom Nolan says:

    I see no need to ask Will to leave.

    Violet can do what she did in Paul’s case: declare the offender to be a caricatural *fiction* invented by some anonymous pro-feminist as a way of ridiculing the beliefs of MRAs and antifemiinsts.

    Alternatively, she can take him at his word, assume that he is not an unreconcilable ideological enemy, and answer his questions.

  8. Paul Tergeist says:

    Sorry I missed this or don’t remember it. As you know, I am violently pro-cop because I believe that most cops will do the right thing regardless of temptation or potential corruption. This one didn’t.

    Because he was on duty, he carried the force and authority of the government with him and used it to his advantage. He should have been fired and convicted. Because he wasn’t, justice got a black eye.

    Will shouldn’t leave.

  9. will says:

    Gordo:

    No. What I am saying is that a jury heard her testify and then heard him testify. After hearing all of the evidence, a jury found that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Why should I be so arrogant as to say that I can determine credibility better than the people who saw both people testify? Also, please remember, in a criminal trial, a jury must acquit even if they find her more believable than him if they have a reasonable doubt.

    I will repeat that since everyone agreed that there was some kind of sexual activity, that he was rightfully fired. I also said that in a civil case, the burden of proof is much lower. Thus, the police agreed to a settlement with her.

    But, contradicting herself from the last thread, VS wants to convict him based on a newspaper article.

    I didnt hear the evidence and neither did any of you. And I am not defending him at all. I am in favor of having police cars have video taping all encounters to protect citizens from the police. The police have entirely too much power. Go see http://www.theagitator.com for some examples.

  10. Paul Tergeist says:

    “I am in favor of having police cars have video taping all encounters to protect citizens from the police.”
    -Will

    And vice-versa.

  11. cicely says:

    Will, I think the larger point is that jury’s are made up of ordinary people who are soaking in societies values about police and strippers, and Stokke was willing and able to call forth those values in the minds of the jury of 11 men (many in their 50′s and 60′s) and one woman.

    At some point, I don’t know whether in or out of the courtroom, Stokkes is quoted as having said:

    “She got what she wanted. She’s an overtly sexual person.”

    While the prosecuting lawyer was quoted as having said:

    “Park didn’t pick a housewife or a 17 year old girl – he picked a stripper. He picked the perfect victim.”

    Reasonable doubt and all that – yes, well, the $400,000.00 payment to make a civil lawsuit go away speaks volumes about what the likely outcome of that would be, based on the facts.

    A different jury, with a different set of beliefs, might well have convicted Park at the criminal trial.

  12. fluffy angel says:

    fta: “No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.”

    A person engaging in a sex act with someone who he has power over by the authority of his position is using coercion and cannot by definition be consentual. We live in a society that just said coercion is ok -as long as it’s a good for nothing dirty whore.

    Will, would you be equally willing to exonerate the cop if he had shit on a homeless man, or is it only whores you dislike?

    ———-

    Violet, have you noticed that mra and other pro-rape sites do not allow feminists to post? Why then, are you willing to offer to them MORE THAN what they offer to you? What benefit, if any, do you receive by this?

  13. Paul Tergeist says:

    Will, would you be equally willing to exonerate the cop if he had shit on a homeless man, or is it only whores you dislike?
    -Fa

    Will didn’t say anything like that; in fact, he said exactly the opposite.

  14. will says:

    “She got what she wanted. She’s an overtly sexual person.”

    Cicely: If it was consensual, what is the problem with that statement?

    “A different jury, with a different set of beliefs, might well have convicted Park at the criminal trial.”

    I agree completely. But, how do you know what the beliefs of the jury are? Why does a jury have to think that the woman was a flithy whore to have a consensual encounter? Does a woman not have the freedom to choose to have a sexual encounter? I thought you advocated for women’s rights to have sex whenever they want?

    Or a different jury with the same set of beliefs might have acquitted him again.

    This jury judged how each person testified and decided the case based on the facts. The people here are only reading newspaper articles and making judgments without the benefit of very important information. That strikes me as incredibly arrogant.

  15. will says:

    “Will, would you be equally willing to exonerate the cop if he had shit on a homeless man, or is it only whores you dislike? ”

    Fluffy:

    That is a ridiculous statement.
    I didnt exonerate the officer. The jury did. Please tell me about how the woman tesified. Please tell me how the man testified. Did you get to see any of it? I am interested in how you can divine the truth about this case since you were not there.

    Please go read the actual words that I wrote. Short version. Jury decides. They determine who is credible. Cop should have been fired. Settlement probably makes sense.

    Violet: Please tell me what was wrong with anything that I wrote.

  16. ehj2 says:

    Will,

    The problem is that when all the power is on one side, the notion of consensual is meaningless — it doesn’t exist and cannot exist.

    By way of example (and it’s a poor one, but a clear one seems to be needed here), a child has no power and cannot be reasonably considered in a consensual relationship with an adult.

    If I already know that my lifestyle makes me uncredible in this culture, and my style of dress makes me uncredible in this culture, and my being a woman means my very sex has only had very limited amounts of real power for a very short time, and you not only have the law on your side but you actually represent the law, and you have the guns and the cuffs and the say-so …

    .. consensual just is not in the picture.

  17. ehj2 says:

    Will,

    The issue of power and how it is used and perceived is really important.

    In government service, we must act so that everything we do and say and write could appear on the front page of the nation’s major newspapers. At the State Department, every person is required to attend an annual ethics class where the following is underscored again and again:

    We must absolutely avoid, not only every real transgression of our office, but every potential appearance of transgression.

    While I’m only directly familiar with the ethics programs in the cabinet-level agencies, I’m certain this ethical standard applies to every form of government service throughout the land.

  18. will says:

    “The problem is that when all the power is on one side, the notion of consensual is meaningless — it doesn’t exist and cannot exist.”

    Ehj2: Those are great ideas and great concepts. I completely understand the power of the uniform.

    But the question in this case was whether the defendant was guilty of the specific crime that he was charged with. There are statutes that make it a crime to engage in sexual activity with those people under your power and control. (in jails, schools, etc.) Those statutes say what you are saying: consent cannot be consent due to power imbalances.

    If that was a crime where this case was tried, then this man would have been found guilty.

    I think it is a great idea to make it a crime for a on-duty police officer to engage in any sexual activity. Call your legislator. Until the, your idea is simply an idea.
    Are people not reading what I wrote? Where have I said that he should be able to do what he did?

  19. will says:

    “We must absolutely avoid, not only every real transgression of our office, but every potential
    appearance of transgression.”

    Ehj2: I agree completely. What, specifically, have I said that makes you think I do not agree with that statement or do not understand that statement?

    You do understand the differences between a criminal case, a civil case, and the decision regarding whether your employer fires you, don’t you?

    Those are different things. I will repeat that I am absolutely in favor of the police not being allowed to have sexual activity while on duty. Make it a criminal law. Convict anyone who does it.

    It is bad news even if the woman begs for it.

  20. fluffy angel says:

    fta: “No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.”

    A person engaging in a sex act with someone who he has power over by the authority of his position is using coercion and cannot by definition be consentual. We live in a society that just said coercion is ok -as long as it’s a good for nothing dirty whore

    Oh, and will. I understand you feel teachers having consensual sex with a student should be acceptable, yes?

  21. fluffy angel says:

    If will is willing to convict a cop who shits on a homeless man, than why is Will not willing to convict a cop who cums on a whore?

    1)Is shit bad, but cum ok?

    2)Is a homeless person ok, but a whore is bad?

    3)Is a man ok, but a female bad?

  22. will says:

    ” I understand you feel teachers having consensual sex with a student should be acceptable, yes?”

    No fluffy. It is not acceptable. Do you not read what I write?

    I said that some jurisdictions have made it a crime for a teacher to have sex with a student or for a jailor to have sex with an inmate, even if the person with less power (student/inmate) was the active aggressor or initiator. That is the correct approach. Then, a prosecutor doesn’t have to worry about consent defense.

    I would suggest that you read about the difference between crimes, civil suits, and employment. Or you can just pretend that I said things that I didnt say.

    “A person engaging in a sex act with someone who he has power over by the authority of his position is using coercion and cannot by definition be consentual. We live in a society that just said coercion is ok -as long as it’s a good for nothing dirty whore”
    Sounds like a nice inflammatory statement.If you want that to be the standard, get your legislative body to make that the law.
    When a cop stops you and asks if he can search your car, most people say yes. They do not feel like that they have a choice bc of his power. But courts almost always find that to be consensual. I do not like that rule either.

  23. will says:

    Fluffy:

    You are an idiot. You havent read anything that I have written, nor do you apparently care what the facts are.

    I didn’t convict anyone.

    Please tell me why you think you know more about this case than the jury did.

  24. fluffy angel says:

    Women have had the legal status of cattle for 5000 years. This is a little bit too long to be anything other than what it is: a generalized indicator of how men feel about women.

  25. fluffy angel says:

    fta: “No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.”

    A person engaging in a sex act with someone who he has power over by the authority of his position is using coercion and cannot by definition be consentual. We live in a society that just said coercion is ok -as long as it’s a good for nothing dirty whore

  26. fluffy angel says:

    So if we are in agreement that what this cop did was wrong, then where is the conflict?

    You seem to be repeatedly making excuses for why we shouldn’t be outraged that this cop was not prosecuted for his crime.

    Just for clarification, do you think what this cop did was wrong? For clarification purposes, a yes or no answer would suffice.

  27. will says:

    Fluffy: You seem to enjoy calling her a goodfornothing whore. Apparently, in that jurisdiction, there is not the law that you want.

    If you actually read anything I wrote, you would understand that you and I both agree on what the law should be.

    If that was the law, the jury would have been instructed that they had to find him guilty if 1.he was on duty 2. a sexual encounter occurred.

    Nothing else would have mattered. That is what the law should be.

    But, you like writing “dirty whore” and other words so keep on no matter what anyone says

  28. Infidel says:

    Will,
    It sounds like your saying there is something wrong with the justice system. It should have laws against behaviour like this, and if it did then the officer probably would have been guilty as charged. It also sounds like he wasn’t charged with something the Jury could agree he did beyond the shadow of a doubt.
    -phone records
    -gps shut down
    -vehicle records search
    -DNA
    -Confession
    -testimony
    What was the asshole charged with?, that they couldn’t manage a conviction?

  29. will says:

    “So if we are in agreement that what this cop did was wrong, then where is the conflict?”

    Bc you cannot read or want to understand the dif bt a crime, a civil suit, and continued employment.

    Do you understand that something can be wrong and not be a crime?

    Mocking a developmentally delayed person is wrong, but it is not a crime.

  30. will says:

    Infidel:
    Apparently, in that jurisdiction, it is not per se illegal for a cop to engage in sexual activity while on duty. If that were the case, he would have been found guilty.

    Apparently, an on-duty cop can engage in sexual activity in the other person wants to also. Fluffy and others want to say that it is never consensual to have sx activity with an on-duty cop.

  31. fluffy angel says:

    “When a cop stops you and asks if he can search your car, most people say yes. They do not feel like that they have a choice bc of his power. But courts almost always find that to be consensual. I do not like that rule either.”

    In your example, the driver has the option to refuse, and the courts will uphold the driver’s decision.

    When a cop “requests” a handjob from a hooker, why would a hooker feel she could deny that request? The cop has already shown that he has no respect for the law since a cop requesting a handjob from a hooker isn’t exactly following procedure.

    Do police manuals say it’s ok for a cop to request handjobs during traffic stops?

  32. will says:

    “Do police manuals say it’s ok for a cop to request handjobs during traffic stops?”

    Crime, civil suit, employer. Please educate yourself on the difference.

    The better question is does the law say that it is illegal for an on-duty cop to get a hand job, no matter who initiates the sexual activity?

  33. fluffy angel says:

    Thank you infidel, you put that much better than I.

    The jury didn’t convict because requesting handjobs from off-duty strippers is acceptable behavior for cops; and off-duty strippers can never be coerced into sex acts, no matter what the circumstance.

    oh baby, I can’t wait to be pulled over by a cop. He better have a camera running the whole fucking time. With audio.

  34. cicely says:

    will says:

    quoting me: “She got what she wanted. She’s an overtly sexual person.”

    Cicely: If it was consensual, what is the problem with that statement?

    Nothing wrong with the statement at all if it was consensual. My question would be, ‘if it was consensual, why did the woman report it as a sexual assault?’ And then I’d look at the rest of the evidence around the incident, which appears to be overwhelmingly in the accusers favour. I feel sure people have been convicted by juries in criminal courts on less circumstantial evidence than this.

    I actually posted that quote as an illustration of Stokkes tone that seemed similar to – women who are overtly sexual – who dare to have their own appetites, deserve to be sexually assaulted or raped. Maybe not exactly accurate here because what Stokkes is suggesting, rather, if you look at things he said , is that the accused was hanging out for sex (‘you had a buzz on that night, didn’t you?’) and that she seduced this disciplined cop – turned him into a mere man – with her slutty skills and wanton desire – and then to top it all off, dobbed the poor helpless slob in as a sex offender.

    “ me: A different jury, with a different set of beliefs, might well have convicted Park at the criminal trial.”

    Will:I agree completely. But, how do you know what the beliefs of the jury are?

    I don’t, absolutely. I do know that the jury was made up of one woman and eleven men – many in their 50′s and 60′s – a demographic not noted for it’s feminist awareness – and that a highly skilled lawyer made blatant appeals to the negative attitudes that are prevalent in our society about women’s autonomous sexuality, and particularly about women who earn an income doing sex work. All he had to go on really was ‘Can you believe her?’, as opposed to all the information around Park’s behaviour – including his having been warned to stay away from the strippers he’d taken too much interest in. Out of his jurisdiction? GPS switched off? phone call after the incident pretending to be someone else? And so on. Oh, and I note he ‘finally’ admitted the incident took place at all, so he must have been denying it at first. The jury ‘knew’ that *he’d* lied.

    As the defence lawyer said – he picked the perfect victim. On another night it would have been one of the other strippers he’d taken such an interest in.

    It seems to me that it’s never – ‘just the facts’ – in a trial like this, Will, if it is in any criminal trial. It’s about perception and context too – wouldn’t you agree?

  35. Infidel says:

    If it was consensual it was a gift.
    If it was slightly coerced it was a bribe.
    If it was heavily coerced it was rape.(penetration not withstanding)

  36. cf4 says:

    This case seems to me like a miscarriage of justice. The little things — the GPS, the looking up strippers on the DMV, the fuzzy nature of the traffic offense — the most credible explanation for the cop’s behavior is that he wanted to pull a stripper over and extract something from her.

    One quibble with this statement, though: A person engaging in a sex act with someone who he has power over by the authority of his position is using coercion and cannot by definition be consentual

    By that definition, Bill Clinton’s interaction with Monica Lewinsky would be considered non-consensual (i.e. rape).

    Not trying to hijack the thread; I’m just saying that, IMHO, power differential in sexual relations is a lot more complicated than fluffy’s definition allows. I’ve known several couples who met when one was working for the other, and I wouldn’t characterize their interaction as rape.

  37. will says:

    Cicely:
    He could have been denying it bc he knew it would get him fired even if it was consensual.

    ” My question would be, ‘if it was consensual, why did the woman report it as a sexual assault?’”

    With regard to this question, is $400,000.00 a reason to report that it was assault instead of consent?

    On a theoretical level, if someone is willing to engage in sexual activity for money, why would it be shocking that she might claim that it wasnt consensual in order to get a settlement from the police?
    Isnt that a huge reason for her to lie?

    Once again, since I wasnt there, I do not know whether she came across as a liar or how he came across. But those are legitmate questions for the jury.

  38. will says:

    “I’m just saying that, IMHO, power differential in sexual relations is a lot more complicated than fluffy’s definition allows.”

    I agree with Cf4. However, I believe that the law should make a bright line for police officers.

    Employers are in a much different position, although huge power imbalances can still exist. (Paying the mortgage is a huge incentive to give a blow job so you dont get fired.)

  39. Infidel says:

    Theoretically one could not count on being stopped by an officer that wouldn’t be hung out to dry. Theoretically one could not count on a $400,000.00 offer with the confidence one might have if the officer hadn’t turned off the gps, looked up other strippers records, and hadn’t been warned to stay away from strippers….ah hah! it was a set up, an inside job, the police commander that warned the jerk, set the whole thing up for a cut of the pie and the stripper was a part of the plot- a player… what a brilliant con!

  40. will says:

    Infidel: The question is not whether she set him up. But, an equally plausible scenerio could be that he stalks her, thinking that she is easy. She agrees. Then, thinks, “I could get a lot of money from this!”

    That is where reasonable doubt comes in. She certainly has a reason to say it was assault, not consensual. From what I have read, her story seems more believable than his, but that does not mean that there wasnt reasonable doubt.

    Plus, credibilty has to be determined by a jury.

  41. Infidel says:

    So what makes your theory any more credible than my grandious conspiracy theory?

  42. Infidel says:

    ..and she didn’t set him up, it was the commander, it was his plan, she was a mere pawn, in fact he had all the strippers in on the plot so if any one of them had been stopped the trap would have been sprung.
    I apologize about the credibility question I asked- you did say “equally plausible scenerio”

  43. Violet says:

    But, contradicting herself from the last thread, VS wants to convict him based on a newspaper article.

    There are many, many, many differences between this case and the Duke case, but one rather enormous difference, and one which I would think would kind of jump out at a lawyer like yourself, is that the Duke case has not gone to trial. We in the public do not know what the prosecution’s evidence is. Even the most accurate newspaper story (and there have been some) can’t tell us much more than what the defense attorneys have chosen to share as part of their pre-trial media blitz. Yet on the basis of those defense attorney press releases, you have felt confident in saying that you think the men are innocent. I have consistently argued that it makes sense to wait for the trial and see what the prosecution’s evidence is.

    In this case, we see what the prosecution’s evidence is. That’s because the case has actually gone to trial. While the jury chose to aquit, it seems pretty clear that the evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelming. We can attribute the same degree of objectivity to the newspaper reporters in this case and in the Duke case, and still conclude that a) in the Duke case it’s too soon to know anything, and b) in this case it sounds like there was a miscarriage of justice.

    “She got what she wanted. She’s an overtly sexual person.”

    Cicely: If it was consensual, what is the problem with that statement?

    The problem with that statement is that it is based on nothing but the age-old myth that women who are raped are sluts who were asking for it. “Why were you wearing that short skirt? You were just asking for it, weren’t you?” “You’re not exactly a virgin, are you? You’ve had sex before, haven’t you? Lots of sex, with lots of men. This time was no different — you wanted it, didn’t you?”

    It’s not based on evidence. It’s just a ploy, a shameful sexist ploy to turn the tables on the victim by playing upon the old Potiphar’s wife myth in people’s minds.

    I suppose if your daughter is ever raped, and it happens that she was wearing a short skirt at the time, and the defense attorney turns to the jury says, “She’s a sexual person! She wanted it to happen! Just look at what she was wearing!” — then you, in all your objective wisdom, will think to yourself, “You know, he could be right. Maybe my daughter is a slut who was asking for it!”

    I am interested in how you can divine the truth about this case since you were not there.

    None of us can do that, but you have a pattern of keeping your mind open in one direction, no matter what the case — the direction that “maybe the woman is a lying slut.”

    Duke case, no trial yet, don’t know the prosecution’s evidence: Will says it looks like the woman was lying.

    Irvine case, trial, overwhelming prosecution case, only defense is a recourse to the slut-paradigm of rape victims: Will says hey, the woman sure could be lying, let’s keep our minds open.

    Chicago case, videotape of woman being raped: Will says maybe the defense is right, she really asked for it.

    You pretend to be objective but you’re not at all. Your consistent theme is “let’s keep our minds open to the possibility that rape victims really are lying sluts who were asking for it.”

  44. will says:

    “Chicago case, videotape of woman being raped: Will says maybe the defense is right, she really asked for it.”

    Go back and read what I said. My comments came at the time of a hung jury.

    I said the jury heard the evidence. I have always said the jury decides issues of credibility and that they are in a better position to judge the actual facts. I have never claimed to be so arrogant that I know the facts better than a jury. A second jury convicted. Did I suggest that jury was incorrect? Absolutely not. Please tell me where I have second guessed a jury or called any woman a slut or a whore?

    On the other hand, you do not care what an actual jury thinks about credibility. Apparently, you can decide credibility better than the people who heard the actual witnesses testify. Personally, I cannot.

    Where have I EVER said that a woman was “asking for it”? I havent.

    But why let the actual facts get in the way of your argument?

  45. will says:

    “Yet on the basis of those defense attorney press releases, you have felt confident in saying that you think the men are innocent”

    I said, if you care, that the information seems to indicate that it didnt happen. Once again, that was in the context of asking why you were so confident that a crime had been committed. I also repeatedly said that a lot more will be known at trial and that the jury gets to decide, not me.

    So, please do not change the facts to fit your position about me. Has there ever been a case where a man was acquitted and you agreed? Or do juries always get it wrong?

  46. will says:

    “In this case, we see what the prosecution’s evidence is. That’s because the case has actually gone to trial. While the jury chose to aquit, it seems pretty clear that the evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelming. ”

    Does it seem clear to you? Please tell me about how each person testified? Have you read the transcripts or were you there? Bc I am not sure how you make that statement based on a newspaper article? I’ve always defered to those who have more information than I do. You must be a lot smarter than I am not to have to do that.

  47. Paul Tergeist says:

    Women have had the legal status of cattle for 5000 years.
    -Fa

    Oh, surely longer than that!

    This is a little bit too long to be anything other than what it is: a generalized indicator of how men feel about women.
    -Fa

    Only of you can find men who are 5,000 years old.

  48. cicely says:

    On a theoretical level, if someone is willing to engage in sexual activity for money, why would it be shocking that she might claim that it wasnt consensual in order to get a settlement from the police?
    Isnt that a huge reason for her to lie?

    Will – Can you hear yourself asking the exact question, ” On a theoretical level, if someone *is willing* to build houses for money, why would it be shocking that he might claim a fire he’d deliberately lit on a fire insured property he’d built was an accident?’

  49. Violet says:

    Will – Can you hear yourself asking the exact question, ” On a theoretical level, if someone is willing to build houses for money, why would it be shocking that he might claim a fire he’d deliberately lit on a fire insured property he’d built was an accident?’

    Echoing Cicely’s comment above because I agree with it. Will, I think you are blind to your own prejudice. The idea that sex workers do the jobs that they do because they’re oversexed or like giving sexual favors for money or have some yen to manipulate men sexually is a relic of the 19th century. (I’m sure some do, but probably about the same as the percentage of people who work in can factories because they really, really like working in a can factory.)

    What the settlement in this case tells me is that the cops’ brother officers knew perfectly well he was guilty. Shit, they didn’t even wait for the criminal trial. One gets the impression they were surprised he was acquitted.

  50. will says:

    VS:
    civil case = more probable than not that he did it
    criminal case = beyond a reasonable doubt

    cicely or someone asked what motivation she had to say it wasnt consensual. I responded that it could have been consensual, then she realized that she could make some money. If you are willing to do it for money, why not barter?

    That could create reasonable doubt.

    Is it shocking to you that someone would be willing to exchange sexual favors to get out of possibly going to jail? Voluntarily? Or even at her suggestion?

    Her version sounds more plausible. But that is from far away, without seeing either testify.

    Is anyone here suggesting that reading a newspaper article is better than actually seeing and hearing the person testify? I really would like to hear an answer to that question. Bc that is all we are disagreeing about.

  51. will says:

    As I see it, here is what we agree on:
    1. cop was justifiably immediately fired
    2. civil settlement was the correct thing to do.
    3. there should be a law that makes it illegal for on-duty police officers to engage in sexual activity, even if it done with agreement of both parties.

    What we disagree on:
    1. I think a jury is better suited to determine credibility than we are.
    2. VS thinks there is enough in the newspaper article to make his story false, beyond a reasonable doubt.
    3. VS thinks I think strippers are dirty whores who “deserve it.”
    4. I do not think that anyone is a dirty whore who deserves any sexual assault.

  52. Sam says:

    If you are willing to do it for money, why not barter?

    Since when is the threat of arrest and jail a “thing” that gets bartered like I used to trade cupcakes for Twizzlers in grade school? Fear of arrest and jail is a straight-up threat, not a trade good, and sex coerced under threat is rape.

    Y’know, many times I rolled my eyes when you wrote stupid “Violet Socks is fuckably hot” innuendo all over this blog but didn’t say anything because if she wants to banter sexily back and forth with you like that it’s her business. But from me to you, your sexist lunkhead vibes have accumulated to the point my Sammi Senses are tingling overtime. You really are much more sexist in a lot more ways than you think you are.

  53. will says:

    “Since when is the threat of arrest and jail a “thing” that gets bartered like I used to trade cupcakes for Twizzlers in grade school? Fear of arrest and jail is a straight-up threat, not a trade good, and sex coerced under threat is rape.”

    I have dealt with plenty of criminal defendants who do incredibly stupid things to avoid going to jail. This woman was supposedly fired that day for sexually inappropriate activity. Which is worse for her: handjob or jail? Which is worse for a prostitute: handjob or jail? I am betting jail.
    So, assume for a moment that it was a legitmate stop for a suspended license, if he arrests her, she is going to jail (shocking/stupid as that might be – jail for suspended license). Which is worse? For many people, the handjob. But, not for everyone.
    I’ll repeat: criminal cases get decided based on how people testify. He was wrong, should have been fired. period.that doesnt necessarily mean it was proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

  54. will says:

    Sam:
    As far as innuendo, I thought it was clearly a joke since I dont have any idea who she is, what she looks like, nor do I care. She and I had enjoyed a bantering dialogue. However, since someone else made the same comment as you, I stopped. (VS had never complained, even though she had ever opportunity in emails and here.)
    I am a liberal guy who has been very involved in reproductive rights. If you actually read the words that I write on these issues, you will see that my views are very close to VS’s on almost every issue.

  55. will says:

    Sam:
    Finally, please explain how I am incorrect about this case. With which comment do you disagree?

  56. Sam says:

    I already pulled one quote out and this gem was pointed out by VS and cicely,

    “On a theoretical level, if someone is willing to engage in sexual activity for money, why would it be shocking that she might claim that it wasnt consensual in order to get a settlement from the police?”

    How many more women telling you your bias is bleeding all over the place will it take before you concede, as you did with the jackular comments about Violet, that maybe you’re wrong to persist with the anti-woman line of reasoning you’re using?

    There’s also this,

    “So, assume for a moment that it was a legitmate stop for a suspended license

    Why on Earth would we drop everything that’s known about the case to pursue this flight of whore-blaming fantasy? That serves no one but the defendant, his lawyer, or another rape-dismissive assholes.

    In case you need more proof that you’re being a jerk regarding a woman who works as a stripper, there’s also this,

    “Which is worse for her: handjob or jail? For many people, the handjob. But, not for everyone.”

    Look at how your prejudice decides that while “many” people would find being sexually assaulted by a police officer worse than a trip to jail, you’re willing to extend an incredibly patriarchal benefit of the doubt that it’s probably not the case for her because her ho-seal has already been broken.

    There’s people that’ll bribe cops and people that won’t, and you’ve taken everything we know about the case to suggest it’s plausible this woman, because she is a stripper, is more likely to be in the ‘would try to bribe a cop’ category than the ‘wouldn’t try to bribe a cop’ one. That’s sexist and it’s wrong.

    You display this attitude further with “push poll” prejudice here,

    “Once again, since I wasnt there, I do not know whether she came across as a liar or how he came across.”

    As a linguist I learned that language is never accidental. Even screw-ups, like spoonerisms, can be explained if you know the rules and what you’re looking for.

    I have an arrogant pet theory that linguists like syntax man Noam, George of the Frame Jungle, and moi can use our training to see the socially-loaded minutia of communication better than most people not because we’re smarter than the average bears but because we’ve learned the rules and what to look for.

  57. will says:

    Sam:

    I will write this again for you. This was a criminal trial where a jury has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the jury thinks her testimony is more believable than his, if they have a reasonable doubt, then they have to find him not guilty.
    The jury saw the testimony and felt that there was a reasonable doubt.
    Why are you so arrogant that you know better than them when you didnt see them testify?
    I gave some examples of possibilities.
    Have you read the transcript of the case? If not, then you must be brilliant and a truth diviner to know so much. Or just plain arrogant and know nothing about criminal trials.

  58. will says:

    You love to use the word whore. I do not.

    If they had found him guilty, I wouldnt be saying that they shouldnt have found them guilty. I would be saying the same thing: the jury decides issues of who to believe bc they actually see the people testify.

    Please show me where I have said that a jury was wrong in deciding who was credible. VS can look through her archives. I have consistently said that you cannot criticize a trial unless you heard ALL of the evidence and saw the testimony.

    Otherwise, you are simply relying on newspaper reports and arrogantly think you know more than you do. The bias is with you: no matter what happens, the man was wrong.
    Me? I dont have a preconceived notion about every single case involving men and women. Men lie. Women lie. It happens. Period.

  59. Violet says:

    I was not here yesterday, so I’m just now re-joining this singularly unpleasant thread.

    Let me quickly address one tangential point: while I disagree with Will about as much as it is humanly possible to disagree with someone on this case, his occasionally flirtatious commentary on other threads is not an issue for me. If I were brutally honest here I’d say that just about everybody who comments on my blog occasionally squicks me out one way or another, but I’m sure I occasionally squick you all out too.

    Will, you are incredibly biased on this issue. Calling the women (but, I notice, not the men) who disagree with you “idiots” who “know nothing” and are “arrogant” is not helping.

    The bias is with you: no matter what happens, the man was wrong.

    No, if Sam has a bias it’s the perfectly normal one of assuming that a crime victim is probably telling the truth, since the overwhelming majority of crime victims are telling the truth, including sexual assault victims.

    I have no doubt that you employ this same bias in everything apart from rape cases. If someone tells you he was mugged or his car was stolen, I’m sure you’re biased towards believing him. There’s always the chance that the person is lying, but that’s such a small percentage of cases that it makes sense to go with a working assumption that a criminal report is true.

    Except when it comes to sexual assault, at which point you suddenly become “objective” and pretend that there’s at best a 50% chance the woman is telling the truth. What’s sad is that you really do seem to think you’re being objective. You can’t see your own bias.

    Everyone else can see it very clearly.

    I would be saying the same thing: the jury decides issues of who to believe bc they actually see the people testify.

    Is it possible that you are wholly unaware of the history of rape in the American criminal system? We can all read this case and see it for what it is: a classic case where the defense has nothing, zip, and the evidence all points to the guy being guilty — but the defense pulls out the “she’s a slut, how do we know she didn’t ask for it?” and on the basis of that alone, the jury acquits. Are you unaware that this exact same scenario has played out in courtrooms for centuries?

    And don’t say “I’m just objecting to basing things on media coverage”; coming from someone who has vigorously argued that “everything points” to the Duke accuser as being a liar based on nothing but media coverage, it doesn’t wash.

  60. cicely says:

    First of all, apologies if the layout comes out strange and hard on the eye. I had to copy and paste this comment to ‘word’ because the site wouldn’t accept the security code when I tried to post it earlier.

    If they had found him guilty, I wouldnt be saying that they shouldnt have found them guilty. I would be saying the same thing: the jury decides issues of who to believe bc they actually see the people testify. Please show me where I have said that a jury was wrong in deciding who was credible. VS can look through her archives. I have consistently said that you cannot criticize a trial unless you heard ALL of the evidence and saw the testimony.

    But “why’ did they find Park and/or his lawyer more credible?

    I refer to my earlier question about criminal trials being as much about context and perceptions as about ‘just the facts’. You acknowledged a bit of this when you used the term ‘came across’ to describe reception of the accuser’s and the defendant’s court appearances, but here (and I could be wrong) you seem to be suggesting that juries are infallible, or at least wiser than anybody else could possibly be because they’ve heard all the (revealed) facts and testimonies, but there are other factors. Those factors in this case include the jury member’s current notions about strippers and police, (and I’ve mentioned the make-up of this particular jury), the skilled lawyer blatantly appealing to the most negative (and very common) notions about sex workers to make his case, the local and
    overall social climate and so on…

    On top of all that, a criminal trial by jury is a performance. The most ‘believable’ performances – before a panel of 12 ordinary people, unskilled themselves in the art of the performance (as are the accusers and the defendants), inform what is then considered a ‘just’ decision. Personally, I think it’s very often a joke and a bloody sick one at that. I would be appalled and terrified and hugely resentful at finding myself, as a wrongfully accused person or someone seeking justice for a crime (particularly a sex crime) committed against me, at the mercy of such a circus. Lindy Chamberlain, in the ‘dingo took my baby’ case here in Oz was famously believed by the jury to have lied – largely because, despite careful advice and/or coaching, she was unwilling or unable to project herself other than the way she actually was, to gain the jury’s sympathy and trust. As a result she spent some years in prison. She was later acquitted, but the damage was done.

    For the record though – within the limits of what facts I know, had I been on that jury I would have found beyond reasonable doubt that Park was guilty as charged – not least of all *because* he was reported and charged. (And, as Violet points out, the *vast* majority of complainants are telling the truth.) The suggestion, to explain the reporting, that the stripper could have set him up so she could get a cash settlement from the police (which she may not even have known to be a possible outcome), or to avoid prison for driving without a licence ( why report the incident to the police in that case – and possibly *still* go to jail…?) is laughable set against Park’s known behaviour prior to and surrounding the incident. Anyone prepared to believe that this *imagined* ‘set-up’ scenario, provides ‘reasonable doubt’ of Park’s guilt in an incident that DNA proves definitely happened despite his early denial, rather than that Park’s *actual* behaviour makes him guilty beyond reasonable doubt (which I take to mean ‘just short of absolute proof’) would likely never believe any stripper’s claim to have been sexually assaulted, without absolute proof and possibly even if they’d seen it with their own eyes.

    As I said before – I feel very sure people have been found guilty – as it happens sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly – by juries – on less circumstantial evidence than this.

    I’m not exactly sure what you’re defending here, Will, but it seems to me that you’re saying the jury was there, we weren’t, and so it’s not *right* for us to believe, from the facts presented in a newspaper report, and everything else we know, that the jury was manipulated, biased, misled or mistaken so that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

    If people didn’t voice opinions, criticise or even protest in these kinds of circumstances – just left things to the ‘experts’, and the juries, and accepted the results, there’d be no inquiry taking place here in Oz as to why a coroners report stated that a Queensland policeman caused the death of an aboriginal man in his custody, and then the Public Prosecutors Office decreed that there should be no investigation because it was an accident. An accident that left the mans liver split in half. Only after street protests and print protests by the Aboriginal community did the Queensland government agree to an inquiry, but appointed a man who’d participated in the appointment of the Public Prosecutor! More protests until finally someone neutral got the gig.

    Some people find it harder to get justice than others, Will, and that’s a fact. Most of us here are looking at this case with the certain knowledge that women, and sex workers in particular, who are sexual assault and rape victims, find it hardest of all. Maybe this is not obvious to you or something else is more important for you so that what you see front and centre is us ‘jumping to conclusions’ and being ‘unfair’ to the system (which you’re a part of?) and ‘unfair’ to the accused. Honestly, if you think you’re on the side of justice though, from my point of view, I’d ask you to think again.

  61. will says:

    “But “why’ did they find Park and/or his lawyer more credible? ”

    I gotten too worn down and already spent too much time to address the other issues, but I will quick address this one.

    They didnt necessarily find Park more credible. They can find her more credible and still have to find him not guilty.

    Someone please show me where I ever said that his story was more believable than her’s. I havent, because I cannot. I was simply pointing out the possible motivations and possible items that might cause a jury to have a reasonable doubt.

    I have specifically avoided the discussion that her testimony might have been further hindered if she has a felony or a misdemeanor involving lying, cheating, or stealing. Even if she doesn’t, a citizen rarely wins over a police officer. I do not think that should be what happens, but it is.

    To repeat: change the law. If you want to do something, contact your legislature to make it a crime for an on-duty police officer to engage in sexual activity.
    My bias is not against strippers or women. My bias is that I think the standard to convict someone of a crime should be high: beyond a reasonable doubt. I am ABSOLUTELY against simply accepting the word of a police officer.

  62. PoolHabit says:

    The natural male/female relationship is the product of millions of years of evolution. Even 10 generations of feminism will fail to fully break the `traditional’ instinctive behaviour patterns. It will however continue to cause disruption and unhappiness to family and social life of any nation infected with it’s ideology, as women `aspire’ to something unnatural. So there!

  63. ehj2 says:

    Actually PoolHabit,

    There is no natural order. The entire history of every species is to find nature and the universe savagely unaccommodating and profoundly dangerous. As a consequence, every species does everything possible to overcome nature.

    We happen to be very good at this. If it’s too hard to carry something, we get a draft animal. Animals are too slow, we get wheels. The world’s not flat enough for wheels, we flatten the world. A flat world isn’t fast enough, we take the air. Meals are too inconvenient left running around on the hoof, we get refrigerators.

    And the history of every species is to leave those members that can’t adapt and move forward with history … in the dustbin.

    You almost know this. Because the technology you’re using to express your non-thought runs profoundly counter to everything actually in your natural experience. If you could wake up, you could realize that there is almost nothing in your world not completely remade by our species, and therefore utterly unnatural.

    The moment you stopped using that little piece of real-estate at the top of your nervous system, you joined the dinosaurs. All that remains in time is to kick a little dust over your corpse, and perhaps regret that 10,000 generations of accumulated knowledge were utterly wasted on you.

  64. Paul Tergeist says:

    and my being a woman means my very sex has only had very limited amounts of real power for a very short time,
    -Frenchie

    Wait a bit. You don’t SOUND like a woman and never have. Please take a close look in the mirror and report back to me because, if you are, I am even more impressed than I was before.

  65. diana christine says:

    Paul says “You don’t SOUND like a woman and never have…if you are, I am even more impressed than I was before.”

    Really, Paul, now why, if ehj2 has impressed you profoundly, would you be more impressed than ever if he is a woman?

    Just asking.

  66. ehj2 says:

    Dear Paul,

    Racially, I’ve always been proud to declare I contain them all — British, French, Native American, Black, German, Eastern European, etc. Those are just the strains that stand out brightly in the past few generations.

    Religiously, I’ve always claimed them all, including atheism and sciencism. The only parts of the various religions that make deep sense to me are the parts they all have in common. I know extremely little about the nature of the universe and our place in it, but I’m unafraid of not-knowing, and don’t need to cling to made-up stuff to sleep at night.

    So I find your question actually quite interesting. I’ve always stood with women, starting in first grade. In some ways I matured early, and through fifth grade I was always the most agile and physically competent person in any of my classes. I was simply unbeatable at running and many games. But I had no interest in playing baseball (at which I excelled) if the girls weren’t there. So I played dodgeball and soccer with the ladies, and nurtured my crushes on several of them.

    But I’ve never imagined I could say I was one, for some of the same reasons it feels like being an interloper even to claim to be a feminist.

    Between you and me, yeah, I’m half-girl. Unless I’m mistaken, half my genes are girl. And maybe that really is my best half.

    On old pirate ships, men and women dressed very similarly. I’ve always thought that was about the optimum in functional attire for both sexes. Those deep boots and big loose shirts might look gaudy and excessive, but they sure can hold and conceal a load of knives and guns. Compass. Pen and paper. A poetry book or something on the arts of war. Some gold coins. Jewels. You know. The usual stuff.

    When I look in the mirror I see a pirate. And with my hair done right and my eyes blackened, I doubt if you could tell if I’m a boy or a girl. With the muzzle of an ornate 60-caliber Italian pistol pressed against your ribs and a French cutlass at your throat, I imagine you’d be happy to back away without certainty.

  67. ehj2 says:

    Dear Diana,

    Paul is one of those persons who are generally only impressed by bigger guns. Please understand immediately, that is not a slight.

    My read on Paul is that he can respect and admire and find interesting all sorts of things, but he reserves his respect for firepower (in all its various guises).

    Most of us have forgotten how crucially important that is. But think back to when we were just small loose groups moving across the land, foraging and hunting. You cannot survive, let alone thrive, unless you have at least one member of your party, your team, your community, who is devoted to the tools of instant death. I’ve been in many places where this is not an abstract truth, and depended on people like Paul (some are women, who can, for obvious reasons, go undercover armed more easily) for my life.

    The smart way to look at this is the universe doesn’t care if you survive. Managing your risks is your problem, and if you’re going anywhere dangerous (and everywhere is dangerous) you’d better be prepared and accompanied by people who can help you equalize those risks.

    We all actually know this, which accounts in part for the continued success of movies with lone gunmen; we’re all strangers in a strange land, responsible for our own capacities and competencies.

    I’ll finish here with one of my favorite Quentin Tarantino quotes; this one spoken by Christian Slater (playing Clarence) in True Romance. Note that the expression is true about any capacity or technology, not just guns.

    “It’s better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.”

  68. will says:

    Ehj2 is Johnny Depp?

  69. ginmar says:

    Only of you can find men who are 5,000 years old.

    Cause, you know, none of those people ever wrote anything. Jesus H. Christ.