Cops at it again, 'protecting and serving'

Remove all ads!

Is there anything illegal about what the officer did? the kid had committed an offense, he used the scared straight method of arresting him and releasing him into his parents care - dont know about the US, but its perfectly legal here in the UK, a similar method is used regularly with drivers, they arrest them, give them a bollocking and then dearrest them.

 

What offense did the kid commit? Unless there are rather odd laws regarding teen sex in CA, a 15-year old having consensual sex with a 14-year old is not an offense.

EDIT: I take it back... from the article:

WTF? I know that most states have the age of consent set at 16, but if they are both underage, WTF?

 

I could be mistaken, but I think the age of consent thing applies only to minors. In other words, when you are 16, you can consent to have sex ... with other minors. So 16 - 17 year olds can have sex with each other, but an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is technically statutory rape.

It may sound silly for 18 year olds, but it sounds less silly for 48 year olds, and 18 year olds and 48 year olds are both in the same adult category.

I don't think underage sex itself being unlawful is a bad thing - you wouldn't want 11 year olds having sex just because they both agreed. And 16 is probably a good figure. You're not likely going to stop them after that point anyway.

Specifically on-topic, the cop placing the kid in handcuffs without cause is probably false arrest, the legitimate cause being if the kid was unruly and needed to be restrained (it doesn't appear that he was), or if the situation was potentially dangerous and those involved needed to be temporarily incapacitated for safety's sake until order could be restored (which doesn't appear to be the case either).

I agree that it was a minor case of abuse of authority, and it's probably not particularly relevant to what the larger problem might be, given that the cop's motives were apparently personal. (e.g., this was not a case of I will beat you down because I am a cop and I can and I think you are a dirtbag and need to be f***ed with and I don't like the way you were walking down the street, but I will f*** with you cop-style because I am a cop and you slept with my daughter.)

 

Well, he was put on leave pending investigation. The question is abuse of authority not if it was illegal. Nevertheless, we are a nation of laws not men. The law applies evenly to everyone. Notice that it appears his stepdaughter was charged as well, once the issue was raised with the DA's office. The odds are not much will happen to anyone in this case, because as I commented, it's really minor in the scheme of things. The part I found interesting was the "don't mess with a cop's daughter," which implies the rest of us are fair game. Since I'm "a cop's son," I can say I refrained from using that except in dire situations (and traffic stops, of course).

Yes, but do we want to put 14 year-olds in jail just for having sex? Seems a bit extreme to me.

 

I don't imagine underage consensual sex ever results in incarceration (or the juvenile equivalent) though, does it? Maybe if a particularly incorrigible minor engages in it in a predatory way over a period of time (causing pregnancies or STDs, etc.) ... I don't know. I doubt that a pair of 14 year olds caught fooling around on Lover's Lane will face any hard time though. They'll probably just be remanded to the custody of their parents.

 

No - that's wrong. The age of consent is when you can consent to sex with anyone. So an 18 year old is not committing statutory rape if he has sex with a 17 year old. Many states also have the so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws where if the two minors are within a couple of years in age it's also legal.

I guess my point was a lot simpler. In the case of two people under the age of consent, who is the crime being committed against?

EDIT: Just checked my home state of Maryland - 16 year olds can consent to have sex with anyone. Between the ages of 14-15, you can consent to sex with someone who is within 3 years of you age, provided they are at least 14 as well. So 14-17 is OK, 15-18 is OK, but 14-18 is not. Under 14 you cannot consent to sex with anyone.

 

I suppose it depends on local law, california I believe has strict laws concerning this, the age of consent is 18, as neither of them are 18 they are both guilty of having sex with a minor, regardless of whether they are a minor theirself.

 

Yeah, I confirmed something similar in my state as well (13 - 15 / up to 5 years older, 16 is age of consent = anybody). That's a bit creepy, honestly ... your 16 year old daughter could have a 60 year old boyfriend if she wanted to ... ?

Anyway, anything below 13 is statutory rape no matter what, as near as I can tell. Outside of 13 - 15 / 5, it's fourth degree criminal sexual conduct, punishable by up to 2 years in prison and/or a $500 fine (presumably for the elder).

 

I reckon that copper did the right thing. Yeah, he shouldn't have done it and yes it was an abuse of power but if I found Ashley (at 14, not 3!) haveing sex then I'd put the fear of God into him and his partner too!
Even if it's safe sex accidents can still happen and at 14 you aren't equipped to deal with the fall out.
Plus, when he's 14, I expect Ashley to still think that girls give you the lurgy and rather go out skateboarding! However, I suspect each succesive generation becomes more grown up earlier

 

God, I hope he's never like I was at 14. My mother should have beaten me!

 

Look at any profession -- any of them -- and you'll find that there are some imbeciles in it. Doctors humping patients. Lawyers breaking the law. Funeral directors throwing the bodies out back to save on burial costs. Teachers humping students. Bartenders watering down the beer. Celebrities acting like douchebags. I could go on . . .

That doesn't mean those professions are chock full of such nonsense. It just means that crap happens and that it is good to always be vigilant in terms of keeping the jerks of the world in line. When it comes to cops and other authority figures, there are some here with real anti-authority attitudes. Now a little questioning of authority goes a long way, but some authority is necessary or you have utter chaos. And not the cool chaos of Elminster or other fantasy fiction characters, but the utter freaking nightmare of Somalia, Rwanda, and other such places, where authority comes from whoever has the biggest gun or the most vicious attitude. There's just no comparison, and coddled Western youth who say "I'd be the biggest badass around, so such chaos would be cool!" are nothing more than immature, posturing fools.

I'll reiterate -- I've known a few cops in my time. They were decent human beings. The only people who had trouble with them were disrespectful losers with no common sense and big mouths that their parents never trained them to control. I've met other cops, too, once under some really unpleasant circumstances. I could have mouthed off and acted like a bastard. I would have ended up in jail. I made the choice to be polite and respectful, and voila! nothing happened -- he gave me a well deserved lecture about acting like an idiot and sent me on my way. I was smart enough to learn from the experience. Perhaps if anti-authority people really looked at their own behaviour instead of trying to blame stuff on the cops, they would see that they themselves need to smarten the hell up and behave decently.

 

LKD - Yes, well you live in Canada. Note that most of the events of abuse cited are in the US. nevertheless, I'm happy for you that you are pleased with your particular police department. I wouldn't know what that's like. It must be nice.

 

I thought your dad was a cop??!! While I'm not blind to the faults of America, I find it difficult to believe that the cops there are that much different from those in Canada -- I don't believe that as soon as the 49th parallel is crossed the people turn into douche-a-saurii.

 

It seems I am constantly defending police against irrational attacks and assertions lately. I am always a bit skeptical when anti-cop threads are started by anti-cop people. I am all for keeping tabs on cops and punishing the ones who actually do wrong. But keep in mind that this is VERY VERY rarely the case. most of the time(as in the case of Rodney King) the cops are innocent and get railroaded.
Now it is possible that the cops who tased the old man in the OP were wrong. I will concede that. But I think it nearly as possible that they were not. If police are called to a scene where someone is threatening to "shoot himself" then they have to take that seriously. They have to assume the guy DOES have a gun and IS suicidal(two dangerous things for cops). And when the guy goes full ******* on them, they know they have to get that guy controlled as quickly as possible or we will be reading yet another headline where cops gave people the benefit of the doubt and ended up dead!

It is easy to look at just what you read or see in a news report and jump to a conclusion that jives with your own presuppositions. In order to get a better grasp I think one has to take an HONESTLY skeptical approach and say "Okay...I may be completely wrong in my initial suspicions. let me look for evidence that contradicts my initial hunches and reasons WHY this may have gone down as it did...".

---------- Added 0 hours, 7 minutes and 34 seconds later... ----------

+1! And yes, this applies to America too, despite what some would have you believe. There was a time when a much greater percentage of cops acted improperly and rude towards 'minorities'(and 'minorities' being everyone from mohawk-wearing punks to atheists to blacks, to Mexicans...etc.) but this has by and large not been the case for the last nearly 20 years. Cops are by and large good, polite, respectful, humble and non-violent(save for when some jackass is shooting at people or some such).

THAT is the actual truth that so many young, anti-cop Rage Against the Machine-listening, conspiracy theorizing people won't admit to.

---------- Added 0 hours, 28 minutes and 45 seconds later... ----------

So you have allegedly known "some cops..." who you believe were *******s and this means that anyone who thinks bad cops are an exception is nonsensical and does not have contact with cops?!

There is so much wrong with that I don't know where to begin.

I have lived my whole life(save for a year in FLA) in two of the most violent places in Washington state(Lakewood and Tacoma). Tacoma has since the 1980s been known as "Little Compton" and once boasted a per capita rate of violent crime that was second only to South Central LA. WE have for most of the last few decades I think had one of, if not THE largest rates of sexual assault/rape in the country. Lakewood use to be the bank robbery capital of the U.S.A.(pretty sure this has changed in more recent years).

Here in Tacoma we have had our share of "bad cops". Our own police chief famously murdered his wife and then shot himself in a grocery store parking lot back in the 90s(and he was guilty of far more crap before this incident).

My point being that you really cannot live in Tacoma without having contact with cops(one way or another) fairly regularly. Back in the 1990s I was one of the young anti-cop conspiracy theorists. I used to wear a Body Count "Cop Killa" t-shirt(which I still have) all over Tacoma hoping to tick off cops who saw it. Cops who were routinely attacked by gun wielding criminals(Hill Top Crips, East side Bloods etc.) and personally chastised in the media whether they deserved it or not.

And yet every time I came into contact with one, while being arrested or questioned or what have you, they were ALWAYS professional and respectful. They seemed to recognize that my "Cop Killa" t-shirt was a symptom of youth, subculture(I being a gutter-punk) and the culture that arose from the Rodney King nonsense.

So if I could not get any of THEM to act inappropriately...?

And no...I did not EVER live in any gated community or wealthy suburb. I had to fight and dodge bullets on my way from point 'A' to point 'B' too many times to count.

[/quote]

Yeah notice anything there? Like how it was FORMER officers who did this(seems like NO's screening process worked well enough to get the *******s off their force eh?)? And this occurred in the wake of a natural disaster that had everyone in panic?

You have to do better than this to make your case stick.

 

He is (or was, since he is retired now). So was my ex-brother-in-law, and one of my very best friends. Why do think I know so much about how they operate?

Well, we all have our favorite past times.

I've known all kinds of cops most of my life. You can continue to live in the fantasy world if it suits you that well.

Edit: I should have been a bit clearer regarding your take on that instance in NO -- they are "former cops" because they murdered two people, not because they were "filtered out" of the force....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38228986/38868700

 

I guess if you need your pet shot, just call the police:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39456534#39456534

You would think they could handle it better than that.

 

Seems to me the issue is more widespread than just the US....

 

Spread and frequency are not the same thing. A telling case about the perils of the promiscuous use of tasers, and their proliferation.

In a sense, the man can be lucky he was only tasered, which bad enough, is indeed, a less lethal variant of excessive force. It could have been so much worse.

 

The article seems to describe an unacceptable frequency in Austrailia as well (it hints at it at any rate). I think the main difference in reported use of violence by police in the US versus other countries is simply the "freedom of the press" we have here.