“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.
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.