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.
Er... no. If she proffers to him, that's one thing. If he uses his position of authority to force her, that's rape.
I'm done going in circles with you on this. If you are this misogynistic over this, I don't really think I'll ever get through to you.
There you go again, resorting to a churlish, ridiculous, wholly-unsupportable personal attack. (Hey, thanks so much for the benefit of the "if" at least.)
When you're ready to participate in a reasoned debate instead of the p*ssing match you currently desire, feel free to ping me back here.
Funny, you weren't interested in reasoned debate to begin with. So no, I'm done with you.
Prove it. That's utter b*llsh*t. I've been reasonable from the beginning; you resorted to non sequiturs (#127+) and name-calling (#134+).
You lost the debate a long time ago, when you gave up and tried your damnedest to turn it into a p*ssing match.
No. You haven't. Or else you wouldn't have so much trouble with the concept of even a whore being able to say "no" to a rapist.
Otherwise, "that tiny little mind of yours" would be able to grasp the simple fact that, although she had every opportunity to say 'no,' she chose to say yes. Offer and acceptance. Fellatio (yes) or jail (no). There's not so much as a hint of rape in this case.
You may wish to argue she was under duress. Sure, a gun to her head would be duress. But, a badge? A little time in the clink? She made that choice when she took to the street. So, there's no duress here. No rape.
It's so simple, it's truly amazing if someone of your seeming intellectual abilities cannot see it. Then, I can only guess you're so totally engulfed by some primal desire to 'win' that you've blinded yourself to even the simplest of logical arguments. How sad that would be.
That's rich coming from you.
A woman is FORCED into sex. By anyone's definition, other than you, it's rape. And yes, using the threat of force via his position as a COP is "duress". Especially since his coercing her into committing the act in itself was a CRIME. Or are cops now allowed to solicit hookers?
Logic? You wouldn't know logic if it was beating you over the head with a 2x4. Logic dictates that if a woman says "no", and you use FORCE to get her to commit a sexual act on you, then that is RAPE. Regardless of who she is or who you are.
I've already explained that. But, read on; I hope to explain it better.
Please do not reply until you read this entire post. I think you'll come around if you hear me out. I've actually learned a lot in the course of thinking this through; it's clear why the court ruled as it did.
using the threat of force via his position as a COP is "duress".
Not in this case. As she was committing a crime, she had every expectation that, if she was caught, she'd spend a little time in the pokey. When she saw the badge, she got in the car. Obviously, the next stop is the pokey. BUT, she had a choice. Fellatio or a few hours in the pokey. No duress. Just a quick cost-benefit analysis.
Especially since his coercing her into committing the act in itself was a CRIME.
Yes, for the umpteenth time, HE COMMITTED A CRIME. It's illegal for him to make such an offer; it's called extortion. But, that has no bearing whatsoever on establishing duress. Timing is important. Because, at the point he made the offer, she's already in the car; next stop, the station. He gave her an out. He didn't threaten her with anything new.
Or are cops now allowed to solicit hookers?
If you're interested in debating your position, you'll refrain from the inane non sequiturs.
Logic dictates that if a woman says "no", and you use FORCE to get her to commit a sexual act on you, then that is RAPE. [emphases mine]
Very good. I presume you understand your logical IF-AND-THEN statement; if either of the two conditions is not met, the conclusion is false and the test fails.
By the logic of your own definition, because your first condition failed, she was not raped. She did not say "no."
Even if you wanted to replace your 'and' with 'or' (I believe we should), she still was not raped. There was no force (see above).
Regardless of who she is
In the course of logically thinking this through, I have come to realize that it does not matter that she is a hooker. She could be any criminal caught in the act by a cop.
Now, I'd really like to argue the facts here. If you choose to participate—and I hope you do—please (1) be civil and (2) consider quoting and responding. Debate works much better that way.
So, either submit to non-consentual sex or non-consentually go to jail?
By the logic of your own definition, because your first condition failed, she was not raped. She did not say "no."
Only in your little world where a hooker can't say "no" to sex.
You are completely incapable of reasoning this one out.
So, either submit to non-consentual sex or non-consentually go to jail?
No. Either consent to sex, or consent to going to jail which, when she engaged in her criminal activity, was a risk she was willing to take. This is the crux of my point and directly counters yours. If you can counter with something specific (i.e. what is wrong about my point, and how is it wrong), please do.
Only in your little world where a hooker can't say "no" to sex.
That is not the civil response I requested, and you're still a day behind. We've moved past that. The fact that she was a hooker is totally irrelevant. She might as well have been caught stealing a bicycle. The point is the same. She could have said 'no' to the sex, and gone to jail. (See above.)
If that had been the case—if the thief had said 'no' and he took her to jail—would you then be saying he's guilty of attempted rape? Just curious. As you might guess, I call it attempted extortion. Read on, please.
Regarding your force/duress argument, if she had not been committing a crime, that argument would hold some water. If a cop pulls up to a law-abiding woman on the street, flashes his badge and says, "Get in the car," she's under duress. She has no idea what's going on. Let's say she gets in the car. Then, if he says something like, "Either you perform oral sex on me, or I'm going to make your life a living hell," there's more duress. ("What does this a-hole mean by, 'a living hell'? Can he really do that? I've done nothing wrong.")
Not so with the bicycle thief. The choice is clear. Fellatio or face prosecution. No duress. Extortion, yes; rape, no.
You are completely incapable of reasoning this one out.
The difference seems to be that I am willing to be reasoned with. When you make a point, I respond to it directly with a counterpoint. But, instead of countering my counterpoint, you respond by just restating your original point, which doesn't address the facts presented in my counterpoint.
Now that you've heard me out, please take a few moments to digest it. Then, if you'll quote any specific points with which you disagree and answer them constructively, I'm confident we'll make some progress.
And if she chooses to consent to neither of these, then the implied threat of force becomes active. So a choice that is no choice isn't a choice.
If she had stolen a bicycle and was given the same choices, sexual favors, jail, or being shot, it would still be rape. Same as it would be if it was an officer and a male offender. It is the lack of consent absent the threat of violence that makes this rape by any other name or reasoning.
And that is something you cannot, or will not, admit to. Either way, you are wrong.
if she chooses to consent to neither of these, then the implied threat of force becomes active.
Agreed, I think. Certainly if, for instance, she tries to escape and he forces himself on her, he is asking for a rape conviction. But, I'm not sure what you mean by "the implied threat of force." Please read on, and I'll explain.
So a choice that is no choice isn't a choice.
Sorry but, I fail to see where a choice that is no choice came into the picture. I thought you introduced a third choice for her, which was to try to avoid both of the previous two choices.
If she had stolen a bicycle and was given the same choices, sexual favors, jail, or being shot, it would still be rape.
"Or being shot" means, I suppose, that he drew his gun on her. If she had reason to believe he would shoot her if she didn't consent to sex, that would be enough to push it into the rape category. But, I don't see that in this case. And, given the outcome, I gather the court didn't see it that way either (was he even charged with rape?).
It is the lack of consent absent the threat of violence that makes this rape by any other name or reasoning.
I'm trying to parse that statement to understand it. But, I'm having some trouble. Please clarify.
At any rate, you introduced the threat of violence into the mix. I'd like to stick to the facts in this actual case. And, unless you think it's relevant to the discussion, I'm willing to ignore the fact that she's a hooker.
Perhaps I should start with this simple question. Given the facts in the article at the top of this thread, do you believe the court made the wrong decision? (I don't think we covered that yet.) Should officer Michael LoPriore have been charged with rape?
Under these circumstances, her "consent" was coerced and cannot be considered freely given.
And yes, should she fail to "consent" to being arrested, then the implied threat of the officers gun looms large. How could it not? How can that one fact not factor in to such an equation?
Should officer Michael LoPriore have been charged with rape?
If at any time she said "no", then was threatened should she not accede to his demands, then yes. He should have been convicted.
That's an interesting point ...
Therefore, giving her a "way out" is nothing but a veiled threat of consequences dire should she not comply. Under these circumstances, her "consent" was coerced and cannot be considered freely given.
... but, I'll have to disagree with your conclusion. What is your basis for it? Is there any case law? I think you would have a difficult time convincing a court that it is reasonable for a citizen to believe that, simply because a police officer made an illegal offer, it is accompanied by an implied threat to inflict bodily harm if his offer is rejected. I mean sure, if as he made the offer, he (for instance) patted his gun, that's an implication. If he said, "Do it, or I'll hurt you," that's an implication. But, given just the facts in the article (especially the court's decision), I'm not seeing the implied threat. Regardless, I appreciate having a better understanding of your reasoning.
And yes, should she fail to "consent" to being arrested, then the implied threat of the officers gun looms large. How could it not? How can that one fact not factor in to such an equation?
Of course, if she consents to neither of the two choices (fellatio or jail), she's opening herself up to all sorts of use of force. I mean, he has the perp in his car. He caught her in the act. She knows the penalty for her crime. If she takes Option 3, it's a whole new ball game. Especially if she feels threatened, it seems like she might as well give Option 2 a shot, and see if it results in the customary couple hours in the pokey.
If at any time she said "no", then was threatened should she not accede to his demands, then yes. He should have been convicted.
Those are two "ifs" I don't see in the article. As I read it (and, as implied by the court's decision), she either didn't say 'no' or wasn't threatened. Or, both.
As I read it, she felt she didn't have a choice. Nor could she engage legitimate authority as who would believe the word of a whore over a fellow police officer? At least, until she was able to divest him of his badge during one of their "encounters". Her actions are clearly that of a non-willing participant here. On this I based my premise and the resulting logic follows.
Further, but tangential, I do not approve of prostitution. However, I also cannot logically and morally be against it. It is a contract for services between consenting adults. The keys being "adult" and "consenting". It should not be "illegal" by my definitions. This alone would have precluded the whores apparent necessity in stealing the offices badge to prove her claim of forced/non-consentual fellatio.
She didn't want to do the time. She got tired of rendering her services for free. Taking his badge was definitely a brilliant move to avoid both (it's not hard to imagine she got off scot free).
As for prostitution, it'll probably surprise you to know we seem to agree. I don't approve but, it might as well be legal. Caveat emptor.
They offer a valuable service to society. Because, any guy who's too hard up for some should, instead of attacking an unwilling participant, seek out a prostitute. Then, if he gets it without paying the agreed upon price, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Is "aggravated robbery" a felony? ;O)
If she asks for 30 dollars, the guy offers her 20, she grudgingly says "okay", pockets his money, and then performs sex acts for him, that's consensual and thus not rape.
If she asks for 30 dollars, the guy offers her 20, she refuses his money and he leaves, there is no sexual conduct and thus no rape.
If she asks for 30 dollars, the guy offers her 20, she refuses his money, and he forces her to have sex with her even after her refusal, that's rape whether he leaves her $20, $30, or even $10,000 afterward.
If she says no, for whatever reason, and the guy forces himself upon her anyway, that's rape. Whether she refused him because he offered too little money, or because he had a mustache, or because she thought his tie didn't go with his shoes, or for any other reason, it doesn't matter. If he accepts the refusal, it's not rape. If he forces himself on her, it is rape. What is so hard to understand?
Let me offer you a hypothetical: a man goes up to a prostitute and offers her $20 to fellate him. She agrees. When she unzips his pants, she discovers that his member is covered with sores and lesions from who knows what matter of diseases. Is the woman obligated to fellate the man, or does she have the right to give him back his $20 and tell him to get lost?
If the man forces himself upon her after her refusal, is he stealing $20, or he he stealing something the woman had decided she would not sell for that price (or, likely, for any price)?
Although a prostitute may decide to generally charge a fixed fee schedule, that does not mean that she has to regard all prospective clients equally. She may happily be willing to have sexual relations with one person for $10 (or even for free) and yet demand $500 to have relations with another. That she puts the value of sexual relations with most people at a certain price does not mean the value would be the same for everyone.
This thread has been dead for 26 days, what brings you back?
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.