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!
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!
So just to clarify, if a police officer has someone arrested and says “perform sexual favors or I’ll make your punishment more severe potentially affecting you life and livelihood” that to you is the same as a bribe?
If you’d have read the article, you’d know that’s not what happened.
People in police custody cannot legally consent to sex. Regardless of how willing she was, she was still being held against her will. That, by california law, is still rape.
By your reasoning, would threatening a woman until she has sex with you still count as rape? Because you seem to be saying that everything is fine and dandy as long as the woman eventually consents, regardless of circumstance.
Coerced consent is not consent, so sex after threats is rape, yeah, I agree with you there. But that’s not what happened in this case. I don’t think the two scenarios are the same.
The cop still committed a crime, I just don’t think the crime is rape.
According to California law it’s literally rape. So you’re quibbling over fine line definitions for no reason. In addition, the woman would not have had sex with him if not for his position and authority. The fact that she didn’t scream and complain is irrelevant. It’s the same as if a woman doesn’t fight off an aggressor because shes afraid of more or worse violence. The lack of physical resistance is not consent.
No, because they then would coerce the victim.