Replies

Before I go any further, I guess I need to clarify something and hopefully regain some credibility. It is possible for a cop to rape a hooker, every bit as much as it is possible for him to rape a bicycle thief.

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?

The officers legitimate authority, authorized by law and the consent of the governed, ENDED when he made his offer thus breaking the law himself. 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.

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.