Posted on 09/29/2006 7:45:48 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
BOSTON (Reuters) - A prostitute forced repeatedly into having sex with a Boston policeman said she feared the abuse would never stop -- until she stole his badge.
When the officer, Michael LoPriore, telephoned her to get it back, the FBI was tuning in to their conversation, the 19-year-old's lawyer, John Swomley, said on Wednesday.
LoPriore, 37, was charged in federal court on Tuesday with depriving the woman of her rights by using his position as a police officer to force her to perform sex in his car in September 2004.
Under a plea agreement, the 12-year veteran of Boston's police force will plead guilty, resign and never seek another job as a police officer in Massachusetts. Prosecutors are recommending that he serve a year in prison.
Swomley said LoPriore had stopped the teenager in a downtown red-light district known as the "Combat Zone" while he was off duty and in his personal car.
After showing her his badge, he ordered her into the car and drove to several locations where he forced her to perform oral sex, he added.
"She told me the badge was stuffed in a little cubby in the front console. His head was back and he wasn't really paying attention to where her hands were," he said.
LOL. You still haven't a clue.
Man, you are one twisted individual. Yeah, we'll see...
Nobody on this thread needs a clue, you've expressed completely and in great detail your belief that some women simply can not be raped, under any circumstances... I certainly hope you don't have any daughters. If so, I really pity them.
Mark
Certainly, if it's nothing more than fellatio at gunpoint, your hypothetical prostitute has not been raped, IMHO.
_____________
Let me say it out loud. Oh my God.
I have, until this comment, given you the benefit of the doubt as a well-meaning but sadly mistaken person on this topic. After the comment above, I cannot give you that benefit of the doubt (and I know that means absolute jack to you). You have gone from having a misguided notion about rape to what, I have no words for.
I thought at first you were arguing from a religious stance, and just confusing hating the sin and putting it on the sinner, but that is clearly not the case. There is no religious person on this planet who would suggest that a prostitute forced to fellate another at gunpoint has not been raped.
In the red-light district, of course.
That's the piece missing from your puzzle. Hello-o-o-o-o-o-o, that's been the point all along.
I'm confident they—unlike some lesser FReepers around here—are wise enough to know that when they see it, "sparky."
___________
Mark, Dead and monday - just wanted to let you know that I am proud to be in your company as "lesser" freepers. If being a "greater" freeper requires adherence to the notion that prostitutes forced at gunpoint to fellate another have not been raped, I will relish my "lesser" status for as long as I freep.
Newgeezer - you are an amazing piece of work. Not really in an admirable way. If ever the statement "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" applied to anyone, it is you on this thread. Perhaps you failed to note that nobody (read: NOBODY) came to your defense to agree with you.
Your parsing this issue to excuse the forcible rape of this woman is despicable...
Is he going to New Mexico or Texas? Has he got the new job lined up yet?
In this mod’s view, “nothing more than fellatio at gunpoint” is vile, no less so in the red-light district.
He had already exposed himself; the badge allowed proof of identity (even better than a blue dress would have.)
In my apparently twisted way of thinking, that doesn't rise to the level of "rape." Rape isn't a $10 crime. Others apparently disagree. Go ahead and call me what you want but, that's how I see it.
Definitely, it's vile. But, then, that's par for the course in the red-light district.
I assume he didn't pay her. Therefore its rape or abuse.
No. Rape isn't a $10 crime. Rape should be punishable with the death penalty. Forcible rape at gun point applies even if the victim is a "pro". That you try to excuse this because of her "job" is where you fall off the turnip truck.
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Are you really so intellectually bankrupt that you cannot debate a point without resorting to name-calling? You've been at it for quite a while, now. So, perhaps it's time to "knock it off."
Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "retrograde liberal" is, I am quite sure I am more conservative than the overwhelming majority of FR members.
That FORCING her against her will to perform sex acts is a CRIME.
Of course it's a crime. I never said it wasn't a crime. In fact, I've said many times that it IS a crime. It's just not rape.
Your parsing this issue to excuse the forcible rape of this woman is despicable...
"Parsing"? I'm just looking at all the facts. He stole what she's selling. She was robbed. He's a cop so, that's an issue here, too. But, at the end of the day, she's out some money. Any other woman he might have picked would have lost something money cannot (and does not) buy.
"Despicable"? I'm not among those who insist on blurring the distinction between a hooker and an innocent bystander.
I'm not stating what the law IS. I'm arguing what it should be.
Or, perhaps I missed your point.
What?
The law is what the law is, not what you in your twisted world wants it to be!
Exactly.
Conservative my arse. Or you'd know, and approve, of the law applying equally to all no matter what their station in life may be.
A cop can no more rape a hooker than any other woman. If a woman, hooker or not, says "no"... at that point it becomes rape.
Wrap you mind around that one. If you can. I somehow doubt it.
Whoop-dee-doo. It was already an old, dead thread when I joined. None of you would be here today if I hadn't pinged you.
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.