|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
ACLU: Cops Don’t Have a Constitutional Right To Rape Protesters
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) went out on a bit of a limb Wednesday, stating that police officers who raped people in their custody committed Constitutional rights violations–specifically infringing the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments–and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
But first let’s go back to January 20, 2017. It was one of the first pitched battles of the so-called “resistance” movement against President Donald Trump; in fact, it happened before Trump was officially inaugurated as president.
Scores of Black Bloc anarchists initiated relatively moderate amounts of property damage within the confines of the designated protest route, prompting the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to kettle a much larger group of people, including peaceful protesters, journalists and legal observers.
Pepper spray doused those unlucky enough to have been corralled. Tear gas and crowd-control grenades were also used. The kettling went on this way for hours until upwards of 230 people were arrested–most of them slapped with felony rioting charges. Some of those charges have since been dismissed.
The ACLU’s Scott Michelman told ThinkProgress that the civil liberties organization said D.C. cops’ use of guilt by association, torrential pepper pray and kettling tactics–and that such methods were “Constitutionally dubious.”
But a lawsuit filed in federal court on Wednesday documents a series of shocking abuses which amount to physical and emotional abuse carried out for no particular end other than alleged retribution.
The suit charges that an officer stuck a gloved finger into detainees’ rectums about an inch deep and then wiggled it around, yanked on their testicles without warning, barked commands not to flinch or resist–and laughed about it all the while with the other officers present as he “moved down the line” and then subjected four others to the sexually humiliating treatment.
Additionally, the complaint notes:
“[The officer] did not change gloves when he moved from one individual to the next.”
Rather than limiting the charges to the few-bad-apples theory, however, the lawsuit takes wholesale aim at the D.C. police establishment, stating:
“The coordinated MPD response is part of a custom of the District of Columbia of responding with overwhelming and unlawful force to non-violent demonstrators at largely peaceful demonstrations where some law-breaking is occurring.”
lawnewz.com I swear I'm not going out of my way to look for stories about rape today
|
Rumor has it that the NYPD protest response handbooks at the center of disclosure litigation repeatedly recommend that responding officers do what they can to humiliate and otherwise discourage protestors from engaging in protest behavior. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone with knowledge of these things on the ground.
|
On June 24 2017 02:24 farvacola wrote: Rumor has it that the NYPD protest response handbooks at the center of disclosure litigation repeatedly recommend that responding officers do what they can to humiliate and otherwise discourage protestors from engaging in protest behavior. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone with knowledge of these things on the ground. That one is about DC police though. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was a national problem.
|
Extremely hostile police attitudes towards protestors are definitely a national problem.
|
Police know there is one thing they cannot solve with force, a full blown real riot.
|
On June 24 2017 02:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 02:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 24 2017 01:55 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2017 01:54 Buckyman wrote: @Nevuk
That article's introduction appears to conflate consent being given but revoked before the actual sex (what they're arguing about) with consent being revoked in mid-act (what the law's about). Do we need to explain that foreplay can also include acts that would count a rape under the law? Well, that would depend on what the law defines explicitly as "sex". Which would be even more backwards if the law says sex is when a penis goes in a vagina, but point stands. Of course. In the NC law, they split the two into difference offenses, rape and sexual assault. Damn it, now I care enough to read the ruling and charges. Edit: Ok the ruling is specifically for rape(proper intercourse) and does not address sexual assault(other sexual acts). The basic ruling is that anything goes, including violence, once the proper fucking starts. Wait, so does NC law actually define sex as a penis going in a vagina? I was mostly joking...
Out of curiosity, does this mean that by NC law a woman couldn't rape a woman, man couldn't rape a man, etc. because there is no "proper intercourse"? (sexual assault laws still applicable though, I should hope)
|
At common law in many states, rape is still defined solely as man-on-woman. This is certainly the case in a state like NC, though they likely have adopted some form of amendment or degree scheme to mask their backwardness.
Edit: Looks like that's still the case. NC Laws on Rape and Sexual Offenses
|
On June 24 2017 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 02:08 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2017 02:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 24 2017 01:55 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2017 01:54 Buckyman wrote: @Nevuk
That article's introduction appears to conflate consent being given but revoked before the actual sex (what they're arguing about) with consent being revoked in mid-act (what the law's about). Do we need to explain that foreplay can also include acts that would count a rape under the law? Well, that would depend on what the law defines explicitly as "sex". Which would be even more backwards if the law says sex is when a penis goes in a vagina, but point stands. Of course. In the NC law, they split the two into difference offenses, rape and sexual assault. Damn it, now I care enough to read the ruling and charges. Edit: Ok the ruling is specifically for rape(proper intercourse) and does not address sexual assault(other sexual acts). The basic ruling is that anything goes, including violence, once the proper fucking starts. Wait, so does NC law actually define sex as a penis going in a vagina? I was mostly joking... Out of curiosity, does this mean that by NC law a woman couldn't rape a woman, man couldn't rape a man, etc. because there is no "proper intercourse"? (sexual assault laws still applicable though, I should hope) Yes, it specifically states that. It is as the article described: a very old law from the late 70s. For reference, martial rape was pretty much legal across the country until the mid-1970s. It took till early 90s to change the laws in all of the states.
Edit: farvacola is correct that the law appears to be silent as to rape between two men or two women. It also doesn't seem to cover "date rape", since physical intimidation isn't covered. Maybe physical helplessness covers that? I am nto sure. The sexual assault law references "person" and "sexual act".
|
Manafort, one of many launderers and shadesters living in Trump's properties over the years.
Federal investigators are examining financial transactions involving Paul Manafort and his son-in-law, who embarked on a series of real estate deals in recent years fueled by millions of dollars from Mr. Manafort, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The transactions involve the financing of apartments and luxury homes in New York and California using money from Mr. Manafort, as well as from other investors solicited by the son-in-law, Jeffrey Yohai, including the actor Dustin Hoffman and his son. F.B.I. agents have reviewed financial records related to Mr. Yohai, who has been accused in a lawsuit of defrauding investors, the sources said.
...
Mr. Manafort has emerged as a key figure in the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, which has focused on interactions between Trump associates and Russians during and after last November’s presidential election. In addition to his work for Ukraine’s former president, an ally of the Russian leader Vladimir V. Putin, Mr. Manafort’s long lobbying and consulting career has included numerous financial dealings with Russian oligarchs. One of his former employees has been investigated in Ukraine on suspicion of having ties to Russian intelligence.
The revelation about investigators’ interest in Mr. Yohai’s activities comes amid indications that the scrutiny of Mr. Manafort has intensified. Besides the F.B.I. and congressional inquiries, the New York State attorney general’s office has opened a preliminary inquiry “focused on certain real estate dealings” involving Mr. Manafort, according to a third person with direct knowledge of the matter.
...
Mr. Yohai, who had a degree in journalism and became a real estate professional only in 2011, was forming shell companies to purchase luxury properties in the Hollywood Hills, worth tens of millions of dollars, which Mr. Manafort would put money into. Mr. Manafort was more than a passive investor; Jessica Manafort told her sister last year that Mr. Yohai had “a contract that says dad and him are 50/50 business partners.”
...
“Her hubby is running a Ponzi scheme,” Ms. Manafort wrote. “I’m sure of it.”
That is what Mr. Yohai was accused of in a lawsuit filed in November by an investor in Mr. Yohai’s real estate business. The suit asserted that Mr. Yohai employed a “web of dozens of limited liability companies” to repay early investors with money from new investors to create the illusion of a “quick and large return on their investments.”
...
Many of Mr. Manafort’s real estate purchases over the years coincided with his long-running work as a political consultant to the Russia-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine. During his time there, Mr. Manafort used a network of shell companies in the tax havens of Cyprus and Belize to move money around and collect payments from clients, who, in addition to the Ukrainians, included Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with whom Mr. Manafort partnered in investments.
Back in the United States, Mr. Manafort created still more shell companies to make cash purchases of expensive properties for millions of dollars and other investments. His Los Angeles investments were handled through a limited liability company called Baylor Holding, in which Mr. Manafort and Mr. Yohai were partners, according to court records.
www.msn.com
|
The weirdest part about Paul Manafort is that he got his start working for Reagan back in the 80s. Spy novels couldn’t make a character with a less believable background.
|
On June 24 2017 02:08 Plansix wrote: Of course. In the NC law, they split the two into difference offenses, rape and sexual assault.
Damn it, now I care enough to read the ruling and charges.
Edit: Ok the ruling is specifically for rape(proper intercourse) and does not address sexual assault(other sexual acts). The basic ruling is that anything goes, including violence, once the proper fucking starts.
Non-consentual violence during sex would be illegal as (ordinary) assault, right? Or have we degenerated so far as a society that we consider violence to be a necessary or inherent component of sex?
|
really depends on how the laws written.
some states allow forced sex as long as there's no actual violence due to the law
|
On June 24 2017 03:35 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 02:08 Plansix wrote: Of course. In the NC law, they split the two into difference offenses, rape and sexual assault.
Damn it, now I care enough to read the ruling and charges.
Edit: Ok the ruling is specifically for rape(proper intercourse) and does not address sexual assault(other sexual acts). The basic ruling is that anything goes, including violence, once the proper fucking starts. Non-consentual violence during sex would be illegal as (ordinary) assault, right? Or have we degenerated so far as a society that we consider violence to be a necessary or inherent component of sex? Yes, but that wasn’t what he was charged with and is likely a lesser crime.
|
On June 24 2017 03:35 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 02:08 Plansix wrote: Of course. In the NC law, they split the two into difference offenses, rape and sexual assault.
Damn it, now I care enough to read the ruling and charges.
Edit: Ok the ruling is specifically for rape(proper intercourse) and does not address sexual assault(other sexual acts). The basic ruling is that anything goes, including violence, once the proper fucking starts. Non-consentual violence during sex would be illegal as (ordinary) assault, right? Or have we degenerated so far as a society that we consider violence to be a necessary or inherent component of sex? Well, the case law being used is that the appeals court overturned this decision:
“consent initially given could be withdrawn and if the intercourse continued through use of force or threat of force and that the act at that point was no longer consensual this would constitute the crime of rape.”
So, again depends on what you (and the courts) call violent.
|
Laws like the one in NC are why there is a push to change rape laws to reference some version of “enthusiastic consent” and clearly define it and how it can be withdrawn.
|
|
yea i mean he IS the president after all.
|
Someone calling for the shooting of Hillary is always present considering Trump himself did so.
|
United States40776 Posts
If you'll recall he only said that the 2nd amendment folks should do something about Hillary if she won. Trump won so Hillary is allowed to live.
|
On June 24 2017 04:41 KwarK wrote: If you'll recall he only said that the 2nd amendment folks should do something about Hillary if she won. Trump won so Hillary is allowed to live.
Don't be silly - Trump was only encouraging 2nd amendment folks to advocate politically.
|
|
|
|