On September 28, attorney Michael David filed notice of a claim against the New York Police Department, the City of New York, and two unnamed police officers, referred to as John and Jim Doe. These plainclothes cops, alleged the claim, “brutally sexually assaulted and raped” his 18-year-old female client. David told me that within a day, he needed to amend the claim: The officers had been identified by police in the press as Brooklyn South narcotics detectives Richard Hall and Edward Martins.
“What was strange,” said David, “was that within only two or three hours of me filing, there was a story leaked to the New York Post saying that the detectives were claiming that the sex they had with my client in custody was consensual. They hadn’t even been named yet.” The attorney told me that he believes “the police were trying to get ahead of the story.”
At a time of elevated public awareness about police violence and sexual assault, these detectives’ apparent defensive tack raises troubling questions about the way cops approach these national plagues. Let us be clear: Someone in police custody cannot give consent, in any meaningful sense of the word, to the officer holding them.
Someone in police custody cannot give consent, in any meaningful sense of the word, to the officer holding them.
Claiming to have received consent, whether it is based in any truth or not, betrays a policing culture that refuses to recognize its own outsized power over those it alleges to protect and serve. The Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office is currently investigating the case to determine whether the claim of consent is credible under law, but the fact that consent seems to be on offer as a defense at all speaks to how the police themselves view rape — a dynamic that needs immediate redress.
The accusations against Hall and Martins detail brutal rape in no uncertain terms. The young woman, who goes by the name “Anna Chambers” on social media but is withholding her legal name, says that on September 15, she and two male friends were driving near Brighton Beach. They were pulled over by the undercover detectives for being in a park after closing time, and their car was searched. The police found drugs in a bag next to Chambers; one friend was also found with pills on his person. The cops handcuffed only Chambers and drove her away in an unmarked van.
The teen alleges that the police drove to a nearby Chipotle parking lot and then, while she remained handcuffed, forced her to perform oral sex on them. One officer, she said, then raped her before leaving her on a street corner near the 60th Precinct. According to her attorney, she went to a hospital that night and was given a rape kit. Law enforcement sources told the New York Post that DNA found on Chambers matched the two officers, a fact confirmed by the teen’s attorney.
“I’m so hurt by this situation,” Chambers told me via Twitter direct message, before referring me to her lawyer. David said, “She’s devastated, She doesn’t leave home, she’s extremely depressed, and has been victimized again by these cops saying it was consensual.” He added, “This was a kidnapping, and this was rape.”
An NYPD spokesperson said on Wednesday that both officers have been suspended and that the Internal Affairs Bureau is working with the district attorney in the ongoing investigation. The New York Post reported Wednesday evening that a grand jury has been convened to hear evidence against the two officers. The detectives “should have been arrested that night,” said David.
Chambers’s attorney was keen to stress that his client was a petite teenager. “She looks about 15 years old,” the lawyer told me. Chambers’s social media accounts show her partying and posing for the camera — not unusual for a teen. The New York Post opted to illustrate some of its coverage of the case with pictures of her pouting in a tiny bikini.
The victim’s diminutive stature and young appearance may be important in the legal case — perhaps speaking to the cops’ attitudes and assumptions — but the possible condition of consent here should not be predicated on her size, appearance, or attitude. Likewise, being handcuffed throughout the ordeal, as she claims, could prove crucial in a criminal trial. But even had she been released from the cuffs at some point, the condition of police detention is its own restraint — such is the power imbalance and the impossibility of consent.
“The idea that you can’t give knowing and voluntary consent to answering questions, but you could to sex would be risible if it weren’t so horrifically nauseating.”
“The reason you have Miranda warnings is precisely because of the coercive effect of being in custody,” New York-based civil rights attorney Moira Meltzer-Cohen told me. “The idea that you can’t give knowing and voluntary consent to answering questions, but you could to sex would be risible if it weren’t so horrifically nauseating.” Yet our current legal statutes fail to recognize this inherently coercive effect when it comes to on-duty rape claims.
Under New York penal law, there can be no consensual sex between corrections officers and prisoners in their charge, nor between a patient committed to a hospital and those charged with their supervision. Yet there is no such law for the police. While, as the NYPD spokesperson told me, “it is against department policy to have sex on duty,” the law does not preclude consensual sex between an arresting officer and a person in their custody.
“It seems wholly appropriate to point out the inadequacy of the law in this case,” Alex Vitale, a professor of sociology at Brooklyn College and author of “The End of Policing,” told me. “It seems clear that it was the intent of the legislature to protect people in police custody, but the wording now says the protection only kicks in when you get to the station house. This should be changed.”
Even if the laws around on-duty rape were expanded, there’s little doubt that police could continue to presume the levels of impunity to which they are accustomed. In the case of the claim that Hall and Martins “brutally sexually assaulted and raped,” Chambers’s attorney said such “brazen” conduct suggested a presumption that there would be no consequences.
Officers have been convicted for committing rape while on duty. Former Oklahoma police officer Daniel Holtzclaw was convicted of multiple counts of on-duty rape against over a dozen women in 2015 and sentenced to 263 years in prison. It was a rare moment in a criminal justice system inclined to enable police violence and disbelieve victims.
Another serial rapist cop, Anthony Rollins, was sentenced to 87 years for his rape convictions. As in Chambers’s case, Rollins stated that he had violated policy by having sex on the job, but claimed the encounters were consensual; his attorney said he had “sinned” but did not break the law. The jury and judge disagreed — but based on the facts of the case, not because consent was legally and notionally impossible.
No other women appear to have made accusations against Hall and Martins, according to publicly available records. Chambers’s claim of rape has to stand alone against two officers asserting that she consented. If the letter of the law won’t recognize such a defense as untenable by virtue of the power structures at play, then the hope is for a judicial process that will uphold this young survivor’s credibility. But this case should not be about whether a rape occurred; in an environment with a critical view on policing’s coercive power, the officers’ admission to sex would be read as an admission of rape, and Chambers would have to prove nothing at all.
Top photo:Protesters march on the sidewalks to Coney Island in protest of the alleged rape of a woman going by the name of Anna Chambers by two NYPD officers in New York on Oct. 17, 2017.
taking aside the horrific nature of the accusations, I will have to disagree with the author….. A person can give consent (depending on the situation) also an arrested person can be the one who initiated the sexual part of the encounter
There have been quite a few occasions when woman, and on occasions, men who are being arrested for various offenses, actually offer sexual services to cops in exchange for “being let go”……
What I am missing in this case is, what are the two guys that were with the victim saying about what happened?? She says the drugs were “In a bag close to her”…. so whose were they, and who are those two guys ? Where are they?
another thing ( and yes I know how teenagers function) the victim’s lawyers should have done a better job with the family, it really doesn’t look good if her mother is going public saying that the girl is “Depressed” , “doesn}t go out”..;. basically paints a picture of a victim still dealing with what happened to her…. while the girl keeps posting pictures of her going out, having fun and, generally, acting as any normal person her age…… Although it is basically indicative of the mother’s mindset and it has nothing to do with what happened ( hey, if the girl was a porn star it would still make no difference, an attack is an attack) The defense lawyers of the cops are going to have e field day with that… especially with the bikini pictures posted after the incident— I mean, if you are going to go after the NYPD, better make sure you have no loose ends in your story, or that there is no possible way for them to spin it otherwise….
Here is a scenario of how is it going to go….. first thety will claim the sex was “consentual”…… then, they will start claiming that it was the girl who initiated it (Let me go officers and I will make it worth your while)…. they will use her social media against her and against her mother’s statements in order to paint them both as opportunists who are trying to getsomething out of the fact that the kid was arrested while high, then they will drag itout as much as possible and make it as humiliating as possible for the victims… until they simply give up
The simple solution seems to be to require cops wear body cameras. If they had body cameras while the alleged rape occurred it should be fairly easy to see what actually happened. If they were supposed to be wearing cameras and both cops turned them off then that would imply that they were intentionally hiding something and wouldn’t reflect well for them.
Though, if they escape criminal charges then the civil suit against the NYPD will be so bad that NYPD will never let it happen again.
I was arrested, not in NY, for missing a court appearance and I was told regardless of how stupid the reasons, that once arrested then I have to show up at the jail processing center and the officer had to call in every 5 minutes or so on current location. Officer said it wasn’t that important when arresting men, but it is important for transporting women to prevent possibility of sexual assault complaints.
you bozos must think your wag will support your stag..the angels are gonna tear your asses apart genitalmen……good luck hades isnt funny.
Though the actions of the police are reprehensible, so is your headline. Your “teen” is an 18-year-old woman. Way to clickbait.
Who is still a teen.,
Hopefully they put these guys in the general population so they can experience what this lady went through. Maybe they can get the Freddie Gray treatment on the way to prison so they can get that experience too.
This story made me want to vomit. I’m so sorry that it happened, but since the DNA matched, these pigs are going away for a long time. Since the young lady was never taken to the station, that makes this all the more egregious. There’s no amount of money to stop the nightmares that she must be having, but let’s hope she ends up with millions while these two police mutants are sent down river.
The whole good cop/bad cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone’s anecdote about his Uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop. We need only consider the following: (1) a cop’s job is to enforce the laws, all of them; (2) many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked; (3) therefore every cop has agreed to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked. There are no good cops. ~Robert Higgs
Then get the laws that you don’t like or agree with changed. Enforcing the laws on the books doesn’t make the officer bad as they are merely doing their job. You seem to have an agenda to disparage Law Enforcement. If someone committed a crime against you and the police didn’t arrest them because the law seemed cruel and wicked to them, would you feel the same way?
The fact that they let her go after raping her shows they had no legal cause to arrest her in the first place. That shows intent. The whole purpose of taking her into custody was to sexually assault her. Since there’s no report from her friends about the cops discussing taking her away, they’ve likely done this before. Wouldn’t surprise me if many more victims of these 2 rapists come forward.
And here you are men , men trying to explain and justify rape. Can you imagine being forced, physically forced ,to anything. You probably have been before , maybe in a fight or show of strength against someone and then you lost. Then imagine that person decides to forcefully proceed to sexually assault you , use your body when you can’t fight them off, that is rape.This is not about consent , which I as a woman don’t believe is applicable , because I hear the rape victim. Hear that word rape. Rape is the biggest fear women have, and here you are men having a debate, as usual. Drowning the voice of the woman who spoke against her assaillants. I hope for you , your mothers , or sisters or daughters do not “consent ” in these situations. I hear it sounds more human to you when it hits close to home.
I’m a man. I think that forcible rape should be a capital crime qualifying for the death penalty. I think what these cops did was disgusting and they should spend the rest of their lives in prison and die behind bars. Don’t make this about men, just about these pieces of garbage and their lawyers.
Are you saying that their lawyers shouldn’t defend them?
Rape is wrong, cops raping people is wrong, but the banner “kill all rapists” is truly disturbing. Especially coming from anarchists. (which the banner holders are) In the anarchist scene the definition of rape is watered down as to have no real meaning. In their scenes the accusation is the proof. To have a banner and chant calling for the execution without trial of people accused of an undefined crime is just plain sick. I love the intercept, but please don’t give uncritical publicity to Maoist/anarchists who want to execute people.
“In their scenes the accusation is the proof.”
Do you have any proof for your accusations Robert?
Hi bwog,
A zine called the broken teapot (a quick google search will bring you to it) from a few years back is written as a response to some of the tendencies within the anarchist/maoist scene in the US. Their scene has only gotten more regressive since it was published.
And again, rape and abuse are wrong. My main reason for commenting is that I am also against executions without even a trial. Especially when they have such a loose definition of the crime they want to execute people for.
Why do you feel the need to comment about that zine here?
What does an anarchist zine have to do with the law that lets police officers get away with rape by claiming that consent is possible with a person in police custody?
Is the trial over? Were they not convicted?
Another commenter has answered my question. I did not see the banner in the photo, as my display is very dark. I now see the context for your comments.
Tell me, how many rapes are acceptable to you with the way things are now?
Hi Alex,
No rapes are acceptable.Zero. I thought I made that pretty clear. I think this is a good article even. Sorry that I the did not make that clear. I just want to also make clear that the protesters, that are included in the photo, are coming from a fringe group of anarchist/maoists that are calling for executions without trials. I would like to think that we can be against rape and abuse of power without calling for mob violence and murder. Bwog asked me to cite my source for my original comment, and so I referenced that zine, because it was easily accessible. I hope this was comment was clarifying.
Also, sorry for these typos! ugh.
I hope you are just as vocal about police killing unarmed civilians and getting off without any punishment as well.
I am not vocal in general. I do things. Besides, I wouldn’t call posting a couple comments on a website being all that vocal.
Did you read the story, Robert? It’s about the police’s abuse of power and the impossibility of consent while in police custody.
Anarchists/Maoist are not remotely in the same group. Aren’t these just some individuals trying to get attention with an extreme slogan.
What is the urgency anyway. Who cares about Maoists enough to comment on them? Are anarchists taking over power?
Back to the story: these men belong in jail while they are awaiting trial. No new law is needed for that. Apart from the hurt they brought onto this lady they reinforce the notion that the police is an occupying power in your community.
I wish these were ” just some individuals trying to get attention with an extreme slogan.” In the communique that protesters put out they reaffirmed they’re desire to execute rapists, and went on to say that they wanted to send them to “slaughterhouses.” Again, I think these police are morally repugnant and that rape and abuse of power is wrong. However, setting up an industrialized system to execute people of crimes as defined by the fringe left is also morally repugnant. Anarchists these days are VERY similar to Maoists, sad to say.
I wouldn’t associate a comment on the internet with urgency, even on a website as excellent as The Intercept. Again this is a good article, that brings police abuse of power to light, which is important. I think it is a mistake, however, to validate uncritically the ideology of the people in the photograph.
I scanned trough some of the very long discussions on that platform, but did not find confirmation of your accusations. If true, it would be off-the-scale-extreme.
It is “off-the-scale-extreme.” I don’t know which platform you “scanned.” I referenced the protesters’ communique that are pictured above. I also referenced a zine from a few years back. Both are long form writing, neither a conversation. We might be looking at different things. Towards the end of the communique is where you see the stated goals of “marching” accused rapists to the “slaughterhouses.”
Your accusations are not confirmed.
You could provide relevant quotations and links to them, so we can see if they are not taken out of context or misunderstood.
I totally misunderstood the kill all rapist banners and chants. Ok…
“Femmes, we are unified in our suffering. We are filled with rage. We love each other. We are dancing on the grave of Hugh Hefner. We are going to march the Harvey Weinsteins of the world to the slaughterhouse. We will not be dominated. Fuck the patriarchy! Fuck white feminism! Fuck the police! Fuck misogynists, racists, TERFS and SWERFS! In solidarity with sex workers, incarcerated people and all survivors of sexual violence, KILL ALL RAPISTS!”
I’m not linking to their websites, because I don’t want to lead malicious anarchist/maoist trolls here, but you can easily find the articles I’m talking about through search engines.
‘The broken tea pot’ is a good start if you’re really trying to understand what I’m talking about. If you’re just playing the internet comment game of shooting down everything I have to say…ok, you win. I’m done.
In that quote I read (clumsy) words spoken in anger. If that means something in practice we will hear about killing rapists in the news.
I am not defending anarchists or maoists, but when somebody says they are very similar, then I need more proof than you provided.
When someone complains about a lack of sources, and then says look at these groups they are really dangerous, ultimately pointing vaguely to a website (read this website?), my worry is that maybe some is game played to smear those groups.
So according to you police are not entitled to due process?
May be what the article is about, but the picture says “Kill all Rapists.” That is fair game for commentary, and in today’s climate it’s unfortunately necessary to point out people shouldn’t be executed before a trial.
I am so sick and tired of assholes who rape women and then claim it was “consensual.”
Let’s look at it another way. Say, hypothetically, the girl offered sex to the cops in exchange for letting her go. She does them and they let her walk. Guess what? It’s still rape and also malfeasance and bribery and the cops are still guilty. The proper response to such an offer would be for the cops to decline the offer and add the offer to the report, thus escalating the charges. Also, it is standard procedure when transporting a female suspect to call it in to dispatch, noting the time of the arrest. But…watch a shyster lawyer (I know that’s redundant) argue that the girl was never formally arrested. So, what, exactly, constitutes an arrest? Do you have to actually be told that you are under arrest for it to be a custodial arrest? I say, if the officer restricts your freedom of movement (handcuffs qualify I should think) then you are in a custodial arrest and as such you cannot “consent” to anything in the normal meaning of the term “consent.”
I’m surprised the article says the victim was forced to perform oral sex, and then was “raped.” The former is rape — at least under Ohio law and I assume every state’s.
At first, this reminds me of Q in the Bond flicks. An agent must use every mean at their deposal, INCLUDING SEX to get information. If there’s no law that prevents cops from having sex with a suspect, I wonder how these cops deal with that and then going back home to their partner? How was your day? Not much. Just f****d another suspect.
Tom, I say this with sincerity — it is really interesting to see how the media we consume shapes our minds, how it bends and refracts the stories we see so that we don’t have to go near the deeply unsettling realities we encounter every day.
At second, what as your thought? Was it, “wow, that has NOTHING to do with reality! Maybe I’ll share it, lighten up the mood in here”?
No question these officers were out of line and should face consequences — as Lennard states anyone in police custody’s consent can potentially be coerced.
I’m also not so quick to believe “Chambers'” version of events — there are plenty of manipulative people out there who would trade sex for a chance to put police in a bad light. Any insinuations that these two officers are guilty of rape should be saved until after an investigation.
Dude, it’s clear that this was rape and not merely a manipulation. Why else would the cops arrest and take away only the 18-year-old girl and not the other kid who had drugs? Even if she offered sex to get out of a bad situation, this was nonconsensual. Officers should not be allowed under law to being having sex with anyone under their custody PERIOD as they are ON DUTY AND NOT BEING PAID WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS TO F*** THE POPULACE. If anyone is under their custody, that means they are on duty. DUH. Also even if they had just released her, they’d still have been on duty and in a powerful position with regard to her, having just HAD her in their custody. This is similar to but considerably worse than a psychotherapist sleeping with their client – which, while not illegal, will get them blacklisted from the profession for life. If these police officers are not blacklisted from the police force or any related field for life, even WITHOUT an accusation of rape, that speaks volumes to the state of how those fields are being run. Police not giving a F about the power imbalance. In therapeutic fields this power imbalance is taken very, very seriously. These fields are run by respectable people, unlike the police force.
I don’t know why the cops did that – neither do you, and neither do you know if it was rape. That it was consensual seems improbable and you’re right there are plenty of issues surrounding that, but it is a possibility however distant and that’s why a responsible journalist would not propagandize the alleged victim (and TI would not use a graphic for the header that says “Kill all Rapists”).
You, and Lennard, are trying to make this part 2 of something like BLM. In so doing you both are potentially undermining women who have been raped (a la Rolling Stone Erdely).
It’s automatically rape, if she can’t give consent. Not that I believe for a second that she gave consent.
WTF is wrong with you? They literally admitted they had sex with her. They need to be thrown in prison immediately.
I would agree if the officers are found guilty of rape (not by you – by a judge/jury) then they face the clink.
Any officer who trades sex for any reason w someone in custody is in violation of NYPD policy and should be fired. They should be suspended w/o pay while process plays out.
1. It’s hard to avoid insinuations that you’re a rapist when you’ve been publicly accused of it.
2. I love all these comments talking about Chambers like she’s some kind of criminal mastermind when she’s a fucking teenager who got caught with drugs in a park at night. The fact that she was arrested at all is dumb as fuck.
It is ok, because CrookdClintons established that OS is not sex, just a back Rub?
I’m sorry. Does this article mention the Clintons? I’ve read it several times and can’t find it.
It’s terrible how Satan is using people in government position to destroy others..JESUS IS COMING BACK TO REDEEM OUR BROKENNESS..
For them to this comfortable with it shows that this isn’t the first time they did this to someone
this story made me ill.
emblematic. and at one level, a vile metaphor for authoritarianism.
Rape is rape,period. This is disgusting. We need to hire an entirely new police force and sack these sick bastards before they commit murder with impunity. Oh shit! They do that any.
Reminds me of the protester in France who declared he had been sexually assaulted by the French police. Doctors stated he has been penetrated by a hard object and the officer involved declared the suspect had somehow ran into and got stuck on his baton while resisting his arrest.
Nothing removes your ability to consent. Rape is a real world issue, not nonsensical legal gibberish. She either consented and there’s no problem, other than her conspiring to commit fraud and have someone falsely arrested, or she was actually raped.
So your argument is that if men with guns kidnap you off the street, with the full power of the state, and demand that perform oral sex on them…. and you do so, to avoid being SHOT by these armed agents of the state, that you ‘consented’ to that blowjob?
Are you kidding? Do you know what duress means? This isn’t complex legal jargon…as mentioned in the article we had an entire SC case and now Mirandize suspects, but apparently you think that if you’re 18 years old, handcuffed, facing drug charges, and are in the custody of two men with guns twice your size you’re perfectly capable of making a sound decision.
Fucking idiot, I hope you don’t have a daughter.
No, we have statutory rape laws for a reason. If a 15 year old comes on to you (assuming you are an adult), it is your responsibility to refuse their advances because there is an implicit power disparity that makes their consent impossible. This situation is similar: someone being arrested is not likely to be in a rational state of mind, and an arresting officer has all the power, so any offer of sex must not be acted upon.
Large power differences can definitely remove someone’s ability to consent.
At the most extreme, imagine if someone put a gun to your head and “asked” you to have sex with them. You’d probably say yes, since you can survive a rape, but a bullet to the head is a much more terminal affair. No one would say you consented to that sex, clearly you were forced. In fact, pretty much regardless of what you said, it probably wouldn’t be considered consent, since your assailant would have so much more power over you.
Now, in this case, the power gap isn’t quite that extreme, but the police do have a lot of power and control over someone in their custody. It’s very easy for them to ruin their captive’s life, or not, depending on how they’re feeling. There is an implicit threat of violence there, even if it’s not physical, and anything their captive says should be considered in that light.
And they wonder why people distrust them
Police culture will change only when they acknowledge that Blue Lies Matter.
Thanks for that one. It made my day.
I felt a bit annoyed for a moment after reading this article because I was wondering since a holiday trip to Egypt who are John and Jim. I did fantazise so much about them during that time and now finally I realize that it was just fiction.
Why isn’t this national news? They should be in jail with no bond.
If Holtzclaw was not half-japanese (fact always mentioned for some “mysterious reason”), and Anthony Rollins was not black, they would not be convicted either.
This was a premeditated crime. Aside from the rape, the Grand Jury should focus on:
1. No Miranda.
2. Only the woman was handcuffed and “taken into custody”.
3. They let her go.
She “consented” is a misdirection, aimed at focusing on the issue of consent (there isn’t one) and purposely ignoring the three items above.
Are you saying if you were in policy custody you would be unable to give consent? I could. The issue about consent is not settled, but it should definitely be investigated.
There is also an issue that some people will go to great lengths to make the police look bad.
Yes. That’s what we’re saying. If you are in police custody, you are unable to give consent.
If you are an officer that has sex with a suspect in handcuffs, you are a rapist.
Anything else is rape apologia.
You should change your wording to: “If you are in police custody, you are potentially unable to give consent.” Just because this involves an accusation against the villains of the day — police — we shouldn’t suspend logic.
In fact, as a journalist it’s irresponsible of Lennard to serve as a platform for the alleged victim while under-representing the voices of the alleged assailants. If Lennard wants to talk about police and rape/consent she should choose someone who has already been convicted after a full investigation.
This subject makes me think of the lyrics from the Red Hot Chili Pepper’s “Sir Psycho Sexy.”
Um, not really. Perhaps you have an argument where it comes to consent for a search, consent to perform field sobriety tests, consent to answer questions; but consent to have sex? Gee Bill, is there any police action you could conceivably take a dim view of? Or is this just a principled argument saying that equal coverage of the voices of the “alleged assailants” (not alleged, they admitted to the act, just not the characterization) must be given (a novel way to say you can’t publish this story because we know the “alleged assailants” aren’t going to talk about this with the press)? So would your acceptable news coverage of Dachau circa 1943 read along like “…the escaped prisoners report of horrific conditions in the camps including alleged death factories including mass gas chambers. However, the Nazi Command states that the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, and other criminal inmates, due to their perspective of their conditions, give their voluntary consent daily to march into the “showers.”
Populism. Fake news. When the right is accused it’s all-hands-on-deck. When those support the left and I point it out its Nazi analogies.
What I’m saying is simple: if you are in police custody you can still potentially give un-coerced consent, however unlikely or rare this may be. I’m not saying this is the case here – I would doubt it – but it is possible and should be investigated further.
A separate issue is whether police should be doing this on-the-job, and the answer to that is blatantly obvious. There’s no question these officers broke policy in their contract and should face the appropriate consequences. Whether or not they are guilty of rape can be determined after an investigation and trial.
I’ll stand by what I said before: using a case that has not been adjudicated to talk about the criminal offense of rape is irresponsible journalism, and so is a colorful emphasis on what the alleged victim alleges mixed with broad strokes about how all police view rape and phraseology like brutal rape of a diminutive woman. That is blowing the populist anti-police dog whistle to TI readers and irresponsible/sloppy journalism.
“Hands up, don’t shoot!” The phrase of Black Lives Matter was born in fake news when the media repeated – without question or confirmation – that a witness to the Mike Brown shooting said Brown had his hands up when he was shot. It turned out later in the trial that the evidence did not support this claim.
The kidnapped girl didn’t have to do anything to make the police look bad. The fact that two detectives had sex on duty with an 18 year old girl who is handcuffed in their custody makes them look bad enough. Even if she didn’t cry rape they should be charged and fired. Are you saying that police should be allowed to have sex on duty if consent is given. Name me another job in government where you’re allowed to have sex on duty. I’m sorry but defending these police on any level whatsoever is completely wrong. Name me one thing the police did correct in this whole situation.
Uh…it seems the president had consensual sex on duty…with an intern. The hypocricy burns…
Why should I take you serious when you start out by saying she was kidnapped even though no one has been convicted of this? Do you believe in the basic legal concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Or is innocent until proven guilty in the media good enough for you? A lot of innocent people have been murdered because of the mob mentality it seems you’ve adopted.
Calling for an investigation is not “defending these police;” it should actually be one of the first things any logical and sane person should advocate. You are even more off your rocker when you think that means I’m saying it’s okay for police to engage in sex acts with people in custody.
By the way, you’re demeaning this young woman when you refer to her as a “girl.”
Trust me, the police don’t need any help from anybody else in making them look bad. Especially with the legions of true believers who willingly volunteer to defend every police action, no matter how far beyond the pale.
It points to a sad state of logic and justice how when I say there should be an investigation your response is “…legions of true believers who willingly volunteer to defend every police action…”
Are you saying if you were in police custody and you DIDN’T give consent the police would be honest about your refusal?
No I’m not saying anything here about police honesty or the lack thereof. Calling for an investigation before judgment is passed and assumptions are made in the media.
This ain’t fare, we gave her a donut.
Also, there should be kidnapping charges applied. By not taking their “arrestee” to the police station, they committed kidnapping. And it was preconceived, because they didn’t arrest the males who were also with her and in a car with pills.
This report goes along with yesterday’s story about the sixteen year old American citizen killed at an Israeli checkpoint in Palestine. According to the Israeli soldiers, the death of the sixteen year old was “consensual” since he supposedly tried to stab them in the head. While they wore helmets. While they held guns. The powers that be have obviously decided to flex their muscles. It’s time to make non-violent examples of any within our grasp.
Okay. We get it. You hate Israel. You don’t need to bring it up on every single Intercept story.
Actually, firstpersonetc’s post was relevant, first because it showed how similar the US police are to the Israelis when it comes to people who are not their ‘kind’, and second because it reminds us of how the US is hiring the Israelis to teach our cops how to deal with people who are not ‘our kind’. In both cases people who are not their ‘kind’ are marginalized and dehumanized.
So in other words, criticizing Israeli military-police brutality = hating Israel.
Your comment says more about Israel than you probably intended.
@alkenethiol, Here’s what we get: Applying your twisted logic you also believe that anyone who criticizes the American cops’ unethical behavior must hate America? They are anti-Americitic?
Let us make believe that these officers both have daughters, and they learn that two cops stopped a car with their daughters in the car, and took them and did what they did. Now how do you think they would react towards the officers that did this to their daughters? End of story in regards to the right and wrong of this, and consent this and that. Plus the rule of no sex on duty not only shows but proves they do not follow rules and because of such would make the avg. person believe they very well take it further.
We can be sure that the prosecutor’s office will do due diligence and determine that it is within the purview of the officers’ authority to demand that anyone they detain perform whatever sexual acts they demand. Either that, or the officers will be placed on temporary suspension with pay until a Grand Jury of their fellow officers can fail to return charges.
Then, there will be some general statement lamenting the ever decreasing trust the police feel from the community. Following that, there will be an episode of NY PD Blue in which Tom Selleck’s character puts the proper spin on a duly fictionalized account, in which it is ultimately determined that the young woman involved is actually the reincarnation of Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong.
“Then, there will be some general statement lamenting the ever decreasing trust the police feel from the community.”
Indeed. Official public statements after abuses of all kinds, when admitted (rarely), are usually about “regaining trust” or “restoring confidence.” They are never about locking up the guilty, finding all other similar abusers and punishing them, compensating all victims, repenting, apologizing profusely (I favor the Yakuza method, not words), and making sure that the current and all other possibly related abuses are immediately terminated as well as interdicted for all eternity, if necessary by curbing powers. Applies to surveillance abuse, legal abuse, war, etc. just as much as to direct physical abuse as in this case.
With or without consent it shouldn’t happen.
Police are hated and feared fo good reasons.
This story is so disgustingly & putrefying horrible.
These cops aren’t believable.
Sick, abusive, predators.
I thought Democracy Now! said she was 17 – and it is possible that I didn’t hear it correctly, so at least there is that.
This is standard procedure in most departments- remember Celeste Guap who the Bay area LEO’s were pimping and using since she was 12 years old?
Headline: “Celeste Guap tried having sex with me, says arresting officer.”
http://kron4.com/2016/09/01/oakland-sex-scandal-celeste-guap-arrested-in-florida/
Ya know, it’s almost amazing how people continue to defend cops in general as these types of stories are constantly reported. The reason is clear: people are fearful (diplomatic term) and want cops to protect them, so they’re willing to put up with violent criminal behavior by cops.
These are not bad apples, they are the system. Even cops who don’t commit violent acts like this are responsible, because they don’t report this behavior on the part of their fellow cops. While I’m generally strongly opposed to ratting out other people, this should be a clear and obvious exception, because cops have enormous power and are responsible for enforcing the law, which among other things generally prohibits violence.
If all police officer are the same. Then all African American and Latinos are criminals. All Latino women get pregnant at 15. All Asians are smart and all white people are serial killers or mass shooters. Please stop being so ignorant. You too are the problem.
I never said all cops are the same. The fact that there are exceptions is irrelevant. I said “cops in general,” meaning as a whole. But maybe that’s too much for your cop-worshiping pea brain. You’re just another coward who wants cops to defend them. Grow a pair and quit worshiping damn cops.
And BTW, ALL cops are the same in that none of them are willing to rat out fellow cops, no matter how illegal or immoral the acts of those fellow cops.
Your first comment was ignorant, and your second confirmed it. You are intent on disparaging cops. No one despises a “bad cop” more than other cops.
Wow. Just … fucking … wow.
I can only hope that in this case a law gets passed the way a law usually gets passed in the U.S. Namely, first an ambitious prosecutor figures out a sneaky way to put someone in jail for a very long time for what people used to think was legal, then the legislature bans it to make it look like they’re relevant. In this case I don’t feel bad about the schmuck Does used to make that example.