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.
So, you finally admit that you ARE in fact arguing that it should be legal to rape a prostitute.
Meanwhile, the cop who cheated on his time card is looking at five years hard time.
Interesting.
LOL. Now who's twisted?
I never said it's legal. For the last time, it is a crime. Please try to restrain your emotions long enough to wrap your arms around that simplest of points, will you?
No, as much as you wish it is, it really isn't like that at all. But, I'm done trying to explain it.
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.
So, prostitution is nothing more than a "station in life" now? Hmm... You might want to rethink who's the liberal between us.
Wrap you mind around that one. If you can. I somehow doubt it.
I know what you're saying. But, obviously, my attempts to reason my way past your emotings have been in vain.
The knowledge of the woman's person must be forcibly and against her will; and if her consent has not been voluntarily and freely given, (when she has the power to consent,) the offence will be complete, nor will any subsequent acquiescence on her part do away the guilt of the ravisher. A consent obtained from a woman by actual violence, by duress or threats of murder, or by the administration of stupefying drugs, is not such a consent as will shield the offender, nor turn his crime into adultery or fornication.
Notice it doesn't say "The knowledge of the woman's person,unless she's a prostitute must be forcibly and against her will;"
The simple fact that you disagree with the law, and don't "believe" or "feel" that what happened here constituted rape says far more about you, your judgement, and your twisted morals than it does about the law.
By the legal definition, she was raped. The fact that you don't agree doesn't mean she wasn't raped. It just means that you seem to have spent a lot of time trying to justify an indefensible act. I wonder why, but only on the surface. Believe me, it's not something I plan to descend into your moral cesspool to try to understand.
Mark
I never said it's legal. For the last time, it is a crime. Please try to restrain your emotions long enough to wrap your arms around that simplest of points, will you?
BZZZT!!! Sorry, you lose. In post 157, you stated that you were arguing for what the law should be. You've been stating that it's not possible to rape a prostitute. Therefore, you're stating that raping a prostitute should not be a cime, since if a prostitute can't be raped, how could a crime be committed. And that you're arguing that having non-consentual sex with a prostitute should not be considered a crime of rape.
Do you have any idea what sort of a nutcase you're presenting yourself to be?
Mark
No kidding?! LOL. It's truly funny how you went to the trouble of quoting the law, long after I've said the law should be changed.
I trust your little rant makes you feel better. ("Moral cesspool"!!! ROTFL!) Obviously, you're incapable of seeing how the prostitute has, in my "moral cesspool," forfeited much of her claim on any "non-consent" argument. She gave ample consent in the act of soliciting. At that point, it became a matter of quid pro quo, tit for tat, offer and acceptance. In my "cesspool," if the alleged rapist's lawyer can convince the jury that his client is not someone that a typical hooker would refuse to service, they'll acquit him of the rape charge. They'll convict him on a lesser charge (because, YES, one or more crimes have been committed against the hooker).
She made a choice. Choices have consequences. It's sort of like, if I decide to forego a helmet while riding my motorcycle, and some idiot pulls out in front of me, causing me to crash, and among my damages are head injuries which could be reasonably assumed to be preventable if I had been wearing a helmet, I believe I've forfeited much of my claim against the idiot regarding the head injuries. He still broke the law by not yielding the right of way. He's still liable for other damages, but not the head injuries.
You see—and I can guess you might pop a vein on this one—it's actually better for all of us that the scumbag would target a hooker who's actively offering him sex, than to victimize a woman who isn't. The punishment must fit the crime, and the two crimes are not equal.
Yes, that's true enough.
You've been stating that it's not possible to rape a prostitute.
Actually, I've stated that stealing sex from a person prostituting herself should not be considered rape.
Therefore, you're stating that raping a prostitute should not be a cime, since if a prostitute can't be raped, how could a crime be committed.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. How many times do I have to tell you people that, while stealing sex from a prostitute ought to fall short of "rape," it IS a crime. Robbery, at the very least, depending on the circumstances. As I've stated previously, this guy 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 from her. Perhaps you missed that earlier.
Do you have any idea what sort of a nutcase you're presenting yourself to be?
LOL. You can call me a "nutcase" all day long. But, I'm not among those whose emotions get in the way of a reasoned debate. "BZZZT!!! Sorry, you lose!"
Oh... I understand what you are saying. Your denigration of the woman, just because of her job, is very clear. Who else should have their status under the law "lowered"? Since soldiers kill people for a living, should it be "destruction of government property" for killing one?
I actually pity such a moral cripple as you are portraying yourself as.
FReegards...
Prostitution is just another job in your mind, eh? Wow. But, okay, perhaps if we pursue that further, it'll help you finally get a grip on the reality of her situation.
While on the job, she didn't have anything done to her that she wasn't actively pursuing already. The ONLY damage she can claim is a lack of payment (and, perhaps some embarassment and/or fear of prosecution for doing her "job"). In actuality, I haven't denigrated her AT ALL. She's in business, doing her "job" and failed to receive payment for services rendered.
Why you continue to deny those simple facts is the real mystery here.
Oh, and in case you missed it in #167, you should consider this, too: it's actually better for all of us that scumbags such as that cop would target a hooker who's actively offering him sex, instead of victimizing a woman who isn't. The punishment must fit the crime, and the two crimes are not equal.
By the way, in this specific case, can you please explain how she was "forced" to perform her job? As I read it, he simply showed her his badge and told her what he wanted. So, it seems that her choice was between doing her "job" and being arrested for her crime. That's extortion. It's not rape. Justice prevailed.
I actually pity such a moral cripple as you are portraying yourself as.
Keep your alleged pity to yourself. It's totally unnecessary (even ridiculous). Rather, I guess I should pity you, the seeming intellectual cripple and self-proclaimed moralist.
Apparently, you guys can't formulate an answer to this one.
The court agrees with me and did the right thing. No rape here.
Still can't wrap that tiny little mind of yours around that fact that if she withheld her consent, then it's rape. Can you... If I put a gun to your head to force you to do any sexual act, regardless of anything else you might be, it's rape.
There you go again. Defeated, you turn to personal attacks. Brilliant.
If I put a gun to your head
There was no gun to her head, only a badge in her face. Had she said "no," she would have been hauled off to jail. She chose to do her "job" (your word) rather than do the time for her crime. She wasn't raped. The court agrees with me.
[Someone please tell me why a conservative forum has so many liber(al)tarian sex-worker apologists.]
Hardly. You are pretty lonely on this thread in case you haven't noticed. Even the Admin Mod didn't agree with you.
She wasn't raped.
Forced against her will under threat of force. Sounds like rape to anyone with an IQ above 85.
[Someone please tell me why a conservative forum has so many liber(al)tarian sex-worker apologists.]
Someone please tell me why a conservative forum has this poster who keeps apologizing for some cop who raped a woman.
Perhaps in your world, right and wrong are decided by popular vote. Not in mine. And, Admin Mod? LOL. This is the first I've heard of them being the litmus test.
Forced against her will under threat of force. Sounds like rape to anyone with an IQ above 85.
Let's try this again: If she had said "No," he wouldn't have forced her to do anything. He would have arrested her. In other words—this is important so, think about it carefully—she consented. That was her choice. She was blackmailed, extorted, etc. but, since she consented, she was not raped. The court agrees with me. You are flat wrong about this case.
this poster who keeps apologizing for some cop who raped a woman.
You're fabricating things. Try to stick to the facts.
So the threat of arrest isn't a threat of force? "Consent or I'll use the force of my 'authority' to deprive you of your freedom".
You really are missing the boat on this one. Your logic is totally screwed up.
Try this one on for size: What if she had been the one to make the offer of fellatio in exchange for her freedom, and he took her up on it? Would you then say he "raped" her?
No. That would be bribery on her part and accepting a bribe on his part if he consented. As I continue to try and get through to you, it has to do with HER consenting of her own free will absent threat of force. It'd be the same for your 16 year old daughter or anyone else.
That she had to resort to stealing his shield to stop the abuse kinda show that she was not a "willing" actor here.
That "threat of force" was the same in either case. She's already 'under arrest' in that he showed her the badge and she's in the car. Now, there's an offer on the table. Whether the offer originated with him or her is—for the question of "rape" or not—beside the point. If the offer is accepted, she goes free. If the offer is declined, she goes to jail.
You're absolutely right. It boils down to bribery (her offer) or extortion (his offer). In either case, as the court said, it's not rape.
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.