Posted on 02/07/2018 6:28:17 AM PST by JP1201
Inside, Anna said the detectives took turns raping her in the backseat as the van cruised the dark streets and as she sat handcuffed, crying and repeatedly telling them “No.” Between assaults, she said, the van pulled over so the cops could switch drivers. Less than an hour later, a few minutes’ drive from where it all began, the detectives dropped Anna off on the side of the road, a quarter-mile from a police station, surveillance footage shows. She stood on the sidewalk, her arms wrapped around her chest, looking up and down the dimly lit street and pacing slowly before borrowing a cell phone from a passerby to call a friend.
The cops made no arrest, issued no citation, filed no paperwork about the stop. Hours later, Anna and her mother went to a hospital, where Anna told nurses two detectives had sexually assaulted her, according to hospital records. Semen collected in Anna’s rape kit matched the DNA of detectives Eddie Martins, 37, and Richard Hall, 33, of the Brooklyn South narcotics unit. Both have since resigned from the force and been charged with rape.
But Anna didn’t know that in New York, there is no law specifically stating that it is illegal for police officers or sheriff’s deputies in the field to have sex with someone in their custody. It is one of 35 states where armed law enforcement officers can evade sexual assault charges by claiming that such an encounter — from groping to intercourse — was consensual.
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
Yeeeaaahhhh....me thinks “Anna” isn’t telling the story quite like it happened.
I especially like the part of the story where this lying tramp managed to have DNA from BOTH cops inside her.
I definately blame her. And the media. Yeah, it's the media.
Ah yes, when facts and logic fail, go to personal insults. Sorry for your loss.
Welp. That may be true but my BS meter is perked up a bit. There’s LOTS of young women who regret a consensual encounter after the fact and tell stories to protect their reputations. Happens all the time.
Case in point: Jackie’s “rape” story from UVA as told to Rolling Stone Magazine...
Plus, she got busted with weed. Lots of women will offer themselves to a cop to NOT get arrested.
Thank you for proving my point.
The Police were just doing their jobs, following standard procedure. There is no record of any policeman ever violating any citizen’s rights.
/s
Barry Williams
Twitter/Anna Chambers
“Thank you for proving my point.”
That you defend rapists so long as they wear a badge?
You’re welcome, I suppose.
Yeah. You’re unique all right.
Nasty nasty reply.
Nasty nasty reply.
It's nasty because I made it personal.
This girl is somebody's daughter and this shouldn't have happened.
That you think it is justified is the real tragedy.
This is a lot different then the Jackie “rape” story. All parties in this case have confirmed sex took place. One is claiming it was unwanted and forced.
So it’s one of two choices.
Two 35 year old policemen arrest an 18 year old girl and have consensual sex with her in the back of the van.
or:
Two 35 year old policemen arrest and 18 year old girl and rape her in the back of the van.
We’ve got a he said/she said situation here. Until it pans out in court neither you or I know the truth. You wishing someone else’s daughter meets the same fate just because they disagree with your assessment makes you look very bad. Be careful what you wish for.
That said, human nature is abundant in this story.
I’m late to this thread.
But I see jp has been zotted.
Good. Good Riddance.
“My specific point was that there is no law against two consenting adults, in general, with all of your caveats, from having sex. Nor is there a law permitting sex between two adults.”
Well, the idea of a law permitting something is just silly. The very nature of laws is to forbid things, not to permit them.
“The title of this article that stated “She Had No Idea The Law Might Protect Them” from rape charges is blatantly incorrect. Just because there is no law prohibiting sex between an officer and a detainee, that doesn’t give the officer carte blanche to commit rape.”
It certainly allows police to take advantage of a situation where they can generally make it harder for themselves to be prosecuted for a rape than the average rapist would. That is a form of protection that the current laws (or lack thereof) are offering them.
“Not that preposterous, if the deal WAS to let them both go, after the girl serviced the two cops, with the guy then owing the girl a big favor.”
But they didn’t let them both go after, they let them both go BEFORE anything happened with the girl. So it’s still quite preposterous.
Wow,I hadn’t noticed that.
Thanks so much-———he was an absolute disgrace.
.
...and so it goes in post-Christian America.
Be careful what you wish for.
Of course, you are the one wishing this on others by trying to justify it.
Ah, a point of agreement. It was my intent to point out that absurdity.
It certainly allows police to take advantage of a situation where they can generally make it harder for themselves to be prosecuted for a rape than the average rapist would. That is a form of protection that the current laws (or lack thereof) are offering them.
And then we disagree again. Please explain how is harder to prosecute a cop for rape than it is to prosecute someone who met a person at a nightclub, then subsequently raped them? In both cases, one possible defense would be 'it was consensual.' Prosecution would be equally as hard in both cases.
I think what you mean to say is that a statute forbidding sexual contact of any kind by an officer while on duty, or with a suspect in custody, would make it easier to prosecute the officer. In that point, we are also in agreement.
Again, my specific point was that the headline claimed "The Law Might Protect" the two cops. The law does not protect them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.