Bad article about a local officer accused of rape

[Ghel]

So this is going on local to me. A local police officer is accused of "penetrating" an underage girl while off duty.

I feel like I need a bingo card for stories like this. It's so common, it's pathetic.

• The accused is a police officer.
• What he's accused of is referred to by the legal definition, "third-degree criminal sexual conduct while in a position of authority", rather than calling it what it really is: rape.
• The accused was placed on paid administrative leave. So, basically, he's been on paid vacation since October.
• The girl had a "relationship" with a different man in his 30s, so it's ok. (Why isn't that guy being charged with the same crime?)
• The girl gave the court a list of her "relationships" but didn't include the accused, so no crime occurred? (according to the accused's attorney)
• "witch hunt"
• The credibility of the girl is up to jurors to decide. (aka b*tches be lyin')

The accused is trying to get the charges dropped, primarily because the grand jury wasn't told that the girl had a "relationship" with another man in his 30s. (I put "relationship" in quotes because of the age differences - it's statutory rape and there's no way the guy isn't taking advantage of her.) I'm glad to see that the prosecutor pointed out that (according to the article) "evidence of an alternate perpetrator [is] not material or relevant to the case".

The whole thing is so disappointing and disheartening. This is the sort of thing I have to point to when people try to tell me there's no rape culture in the US.

[Canarr]

Okay, a few things:

1. If the crime is, by legal definition, "third-degree criminal sexual conduct while in a position of authority" and not "rape", which is a different crime, then why is it bad for an article on the subject to actually use the correct legal definition?

2. Only the accused's attorney is bringing in the Alternative Perpetrator Defense, which is apparently valid under Minnesota law - he's doing his job to try and get his client acquitted. Both the judge and the prosecutor have pointed out that this defense isn't applicable, which means they are doing their job, so your "rape culture" accusation doesn't really have merit.

3. Yes, the credibility of an accuser is for the jury to decide. Why is that a problem? That's the point of a trial, isn't it? To decide whether or not someone is guilty? And if the question of guilt and innocence is dependant on witnesses instead of physical evidence, then the witnesses' credibility is an important part of the trial.

Honestly, you're making mountains out of molehills. You're taking the defense attorney's tactics as evidence of a "rape culture" trying to get the accused off, and completely ignoring that nobody else seems to be on board with the defense's attempts.

[s_stabeler]

the accused is a moron for demanding the charges be dropped due to the Grand Jury not being told of the "relationship"- there is actually no right for the defendant to defend himself at Grand Jury proceedings, since it is solely to figure out if the prosecution have a case based on the evidence they supply. ( it's not a determination of the facts of the case- just that there is a case to answer)

on the other hand, there IS a reason why it's paid administrative leave. The leave is not a punishment, it is a precaution until the matter is resolved. As such, it's not fair to stop the pay of the officer until it'd adjudicated if they have even done something wrong.(I'm not saying that "third-degree sexual conduct while in a position of authority" should not be a crime. I'm saying that it must be officially proven before he is punished)

as for the witch-hunt argument, i think it boils down to an argument that he was not actually in a position of authority over the underage girl at the time.(basically, it boils down to him not disputing the rape as such, but disputing that it was done while in a position of authority. Effectively, he's arguing he might be a rapist, but he's not a rapist who abuses his authority to commit said crime)

[Kheldarson]

[*]The girl had a "relationship" with a different man in his 30s, so it's ok. (Why isn't that guy being charged with the same crime?)
The accused is trying to get the charges dropped, primarily because the grand jury wasn't told that the girl had a "relationship" with another man in his 30s. (I put "relationship" in quotes because of the age differences - it's statutory rape and there's no way the guy isn't taking advantage of her.)

None of this is exactly what they're saying. The issue at hand is whether or not he was considered as being in a position of authority when the rape occurred. Basically if he counts as a public official even when out of uniform. Which is why they're bringing up the other man because he could be taken as another person of authority.

If the defense wins, it means they'll have to charge the officer on something else.

They're basically quibbling semantics, which is what lawyers do.

[Ghel]

Canarr:

Legally, the state may not define it as rape, but ethically, it's rape. A teenage girl cannot consent to have sex with someone who's twice her age.

The Alternative Perpetrator Defense doesn't apply, as the prosecutor stated. In this case, it just means there's a second perpetrator who should be charged and tried in addition.

The problem isn't that the jury needs to decide whether the girl is credible. The problem is that the article seems to assume that the girl is lying. It happens almost every time someone is accused of sexual assault. Media outlets treat the victim as a liar. I'm so sick of it.

It's not any one thing that makes me consider this part of rape culture. It's all of it combined. It's that this sort of story is repeated again and again and again.

s_stabeler:

I would be fine with the paid administrative leave if the accused was required to pay it all back if he's found guilty.

Kheldarson:

Legally, it may matter whether an off-duty cop is still considered to be in a position of authority. Ethically, a 37-year-old almost always has more power and authority than a teenager. That the attorney is allowed to quibble semantics is part of the problem.

[Hyena Dandy]

Legally, the state may not define it as rape, but ethically, it's rape.

And in this medium, there's nothing bad that can be said. You're not a reporter attempting to report a factual representation of the events. Under the law, if a reporter says that, it can endanger the case, on the grounds that they are trying to sway the jury's view of the case. So it could endanger a conviction, forcing a retrial if there's any reason to believe the jurors had read the article. And if he's found not guilty, that opens the reporter and their paper up for damages. It's for the same reason that a reporter will always refer to 'Alleged' and 'Convicted' people. Because those are both facts.

An opinion piece could say 'This should be considered rape.' But a non-editorial shouldn't say 'He was accused of rape' if that's not what he was accused of, legally speaking, and the medium is one where you can reasonably expect to get an in-depth factual understanding of the events.

A defense attorney is attempting to defend a client. It is not only reasonable, but necessary, for a defense attorney to attempt to present any possible theory of crime which exonerates his client.

I don't see anyhting in the article to imply the girl is lying. The article presents what the defense's case is, which includes a claim that the girl is lying. But it also closes with a reminder that the defense attorney doesn't get to decide whether or not she's lying, and presents the proseuction's case as well - That a police officer is an authority whether or not he's in uniform.

To me, it seems to be that the reporter is presenting every fvailable fact about the case. One of these facts is that the witness is accused of lying, and another is on what grounds the witness is accused of lying. That's not unfair to do.

[Kheldarson]

Kheldarson:

Legally, it may matter whether an off-duty cop is still considered to be in a position of authority. Ethically, a 37-year-old almost always has more power and authority than a teenager. That the attorney is allowed to quibble semantics is part of the problem.

I agree. But the laws in Minnesota apparently have a spectrum for "criminal sexual conduct" and the lawyer is probably trying to drop his client from third degree to fourth or fifth. That's where semantics are important.

[s_stabeler]

I would be fine with the paid administrative leave if the accused was required to pay it all back if he's found guilty.

sorry, but NO- again, the administrative leave is not part of the punishment. During the administrative leave, the officer- since they are still employed by the department- can't exactly seek a new job, and the officer is still allowed to support themselves while under investigation. The appropriate response is that if the officer did do it, they get fired- THEN their paycheck stops coming.

also, i happen to agree that a 37 year old is always de facto in a position of authority, but the law draws a distinction between a random member of the public, and someone in a specific position of authority (parent, aunt/uncle, teacher, policeman, boss, you get the idea.) since the crime is more severe because of the abuse of the position of authority. it's not "the victim would usually defer to this person" it's "this person has the legal ability to order her to be punished, so the victim could fear punishment if they do not comply" ( basically, it's the fact that (in this case) the girl could have feared arrest on trumped-up charges if she refused)

[Canarr]

Canarr:

Legally, the state may not define it as rape, but ethically, it's rape. A teenage girl cannot consent to have sex with someone who's twice her age.

Ethically, journalists are supposed to report the facts of a story, without letting their own bias influence their reporting. It may very well be that the author of the story is of the same opinion as you are, but he is not supposed to show that. He is not supposed to interpret the facts, he is not supposed to guide his audience’s thinking by altering the facts.

In my opinion, this is actually a very good article. The author gives details and facts, clearly ascribes the different quotes to whoever stated them; and I cannot find a single sentence where he makes any kind of judgement about either the accused or the accuser. There is no undertone of “Bitches be lyin’” here.

The problem isn't that the jury needs to decide whether the girl is credible. The problem is that the article seems to assume that the girl is lying. It happens almost every time someone is accused of sexual assault. Media outlets treat the victim as a liar. I'm so sick of it.

No, it really doesn’t. Seems to me like that’s your confirmation bias talking.

Legally, it may matter whether an off-duty cop is still considered to be in a position of authority. Ethically, a 37-year-old almost always has more power and authority than a teenager. That the attorney is allowed to quibble semantics is part of the problem.

Again: it’s the attorney’s job to quibble semantics, if those semantics define the extent of his client’s guilt. If the discussion were between Premeditated Murder and Manslaughter, would you also say that they shouldn’t be discussing what, exactly, the accused is guilty of?

[s_stabeler]

the thing is, an attorney has two main duties:
1. ensure the rights of his client are not abused- and yes, an accused rapist still has rights.
2. ensure his client gets the lowest punishment he can.

It's this second duty that explains the attorney's statement- he's trying to convince the court that the rape- which seems to be pretty much uncontested- was a normal rape, rather than what you might term an aggravated one.

[Greenday]

Actually, her lying about having a previous relationship with someone of similar stature to the accused is extremely relevant. It would imply that the woman suing has a past history of going after older guys and with that established, it would be easier to argue that he didn't use his power as an authority figure to force her to have relations with him. Instead, she had relations with him because she was into older men, not because she was made to as a result of his position.

[Canarr]

That doesn't really matter, IMO. While the age of consent in Minnesota is 16, so the girl in question is legally able to give consent to having sex with as many 30+ year olds as she wants to, the law is fairly clear on the question of an older partner in a position of authority:

(e) the complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the complainant and in a position of authority over the complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;

Apparently, the attorney understands that as well, and is trying to argue that an off-duty cop isn't technically in a position of authority right now, while the prosecutor is pointing out that a cop carries that authority with him, even off-duty. That's probably what the jury will have to decide. Not if there was another partner.

[s_stabeler]

while you're not wrong, Canarr, that's sort of the point the defence is making: if the policeman isn't in a position of authority, then the other relationship means there may be reasonable doubt as to if the victim consented or not- and if she is of legal age, consenting, and there is no position of authority, then there is no crime.

[Canarr]

You may be right about that; I definitely don't know enough about Minnesota law to say you aren't .

My understanding is:
if he is found to have been in a position of authority, then he's guilty of the crime, and it doesn't matter whether or not that other guy is also guilty of the same thing.
However, if he wasn't in a position of authority, then no crime occurred, because the girl was old enough to consent at the time.

In both cases, it seems to me that the other guy she was involved with isn't really relevant. But, again, I may be wrong about that.

[s_stabeler]

the other guy is relevant in establishing that she prefers older guys. In other words, it's relevant in establishing if it's likely coercion was used.

Incidentally, I do think that the intent of the legislature wasn't quite for this kind of situation- I think the law is more intended to cover situations like student/teacher relationships.