News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
What cops dont want to talk about is this guy (and others) get victims by pretending to be cops.
Because even real cops don't follow procedure and will kill people for not following nonsensical orders, it's really easy for criminals to just yell "police" and victims know even if it's legitimately a cop, they may be murdered for not doing everything the person claiming to be a cop orders them to do.
Even the rape after "arrest", that's something cops are legally allowed to do in a lot of states still. They can just claim it's consensual even when the women is being detained and handcuffed, and then it's the cops word against their victim.
When cops act like criminals, it's impossible to know if someone is a cop and also a criminal, or just a criminal pretending to be a cop.
You're correct and it's only get worse. A lot if not most of our police force are made up of fascist.
They even recruiting that way. There is terrifying video of police recruiters teaching that civilians should be treated as enemy combats.
And with Atlanta building that "cop city" were police will be trained in urban combat and full on war against us civilians we are totally fucked as a society.
To add context this isn't a hypothetical situation. In New York Two cops Eddie Martins and Richard Hall raped an 18 year old woman they had arrested for marijuana possession. They detained a group of teens, and let all of them go except for the woman who they then handcuffed and raped in the back of their police van. They then dropped her off in another location. She went to a hospital where a rape kit found semen matching the DNA of detectives Eddie Martins and Richard Hall. Both officers claimed that they did have sex with her, but it was consensual. Because it wasn't specifically illegal for police to have sex with someone they detained they were able to accept a plea deal for taking bribes and official misconduct where they got 5 years probation with no jail time. Because of this case New York unanimously passed a new law (SB S7708) making it so that a person “under arrest, detention or otherwise in actual custody” cannot consent to sex. In any other state that doesn't have a similar law it is essentially legal (as in it is not specifically illegal) for police to rape someone they arrested.
That's pretty horrifying. You have all the evidence you need but can't do anything. Being police always puts you in a position of power, which makes it so much more likely for people to not resist for the fear of consequences.
Also, sex work is real work. If the same people trying to keep it illegal are paying for it, there's no excuse to continue leaving sex workers out to fend for themselves.
Rape after arrest? How is that legal at all? It's hard to believe..
What they mean is, it is legal for police there to "have sexual relations" with people in police custody. For that reason it is very easy for them to overpower people/coerce them and rape them, and very difficult for victims to get justice for this.
Sort of like when a teacher has sex with his 18-yr-old student, I'm assuming? It would be grounds for dismissal but not fit criminal charges.
Damn. Shit's fucked up.
Except the teacher has the legal right to force the student to go into a space the teacher controlls, force the student to get rid of all possessions including ones that could be used for recording, handcuff them, and then it is illegal for the student to fight back against the teacher in any way even while being raped. Also teachers may kill students during this with minimal repercussions
What? In what country?
In many states, the law fails to recognize coercive power dynamics (like being arrested and detained) as inherently non-consensual, leaving "but she said yes!" as a viable defense for cops who "have sex with" a detained woman. It's disgusting and very real.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/09/fact-check-police-detainee-sex-not-illegal-many-states/5383769002/
"After a woman accused two New York police officers of raping her while in their custody in 2017, the legality of police-detainee sexual conduct gained national attention.
While the Prison Rape Elimination Act protects inmates from sexual abuse by prison staff, the law does not apply to detainees who have not been convicted of a crime. Forced sexual conduct is illegal in every state in any context, but in states without a law mandating otherwise, police can argue a consent defense if detainees accuse them of rape."
Sure is, isn't it? Police have too much power and not enough accountability in this country.
Yeah, what the other person said.
If a person is in custody, most states don't say an on duty cop can't have sex with them.
So the cop just starts doing it, the victim thinks saying no won't help, or even does say no.
Later the cop claims it's consensual and since they turned off the cameras, it's their word against their victim's.
And most won't even report it, because it's hard to believe other cops will do anything after they were just raped while in custody, either in a police car or even in a police station.
It's not legal. What it comes down to is that some states wrote laws saying any sexual encounter where one person is in duty in a position of power, that encounter is automatically deemed non-consensual. In other states, it would follow the exact same laws as any other sexual assault. In these other states, if a rape were reported, during the ensuing investigation/court case (if there actually was one), the prosecutor would basically just say the same thing, that there was no consent because of the power dynamic. I don't know whether or not those laws make a difference in the long run. It's probably a good thing to have on the books, but not as sensational as people make it out to be.
To use the first weird analogy that came to mind, it's like if one state had a law saying that you couldn't poke whales with sticks, while another state just said you couldn't mess with whales. Either state would prosecute you for poking a whale with a stick, just the one would have to say that poking is a form of messing with the whale.
There's arguments for and against laws like that, cause on the one hand, you want laws to be as simple as possible to cover whatever use case, but on the other hand, you don't want to give criminals/businesses/etc. to have any wiggle room to do things against the public interest because there isn't a specific law against it