Those 2 cops have zero chance of being acquitted.
A bruising seen on the woman's cervix coincides with her story of being forcibly raped in the position she had claimed. The lawyers tried to claim it could have a variety of different causes, including an earlier sexual episode, a venereal disease, the ER examination, or (this is the best one yet) from her vigorous scrubbing the morning after the attack.
How can a vigorous scrubbing result in a bruise ON HER CERVIX? (I don't even think the lawyer knows what a cervix is if that's his answer...)
And how could a lawyer try to dismiss the evidence by pretending to know more than the sexual assault forensics nurse? Their best course of action would be to blame the attack on someone else. There is clear evidence that she WAS attacked. Trying to claim otherwise, from the start, is hurting their case.
These two men are guilty as sin, and hopefully the justice system will see to it that they are severely reprimanded.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Did They or Didn't They?
It's important to get news from multiple sources. The same news from multiple media. Few things will remain consistent from article to article, and it is probably those few things that are the true facts.
Night of Horror with Rape Cops - NY Post
Accuser Back on Stand in NYPD Rape Cops Trial: Admits Drinking but Says 'I Remember I was Raped' - NY Daily News
Full Transcripts: Alleged Rape Cop Kenneth Moreno Meets with his Accuser
Listen to Alleged Rape Cop Allegedly Impersonate Canadian in 911 Call - Gothamist
Piecing together this story proves more difficult with every new article. My original feeling was that the woman was severely intoxicated (the fact that she was able to walk almost on her own does not discount that fact to me) and probably made some come on's to the police officer, who then had sex with her. I felt that the rape had happened, but that the cop was just an idiot about the rules of consent. Undoubtedly, this woman should have been taken to the hospital. And from what I know of police, I'm not entirely sure why some higher up in the department did not tell the officers that she had to go.
But then I read the full transcript of the conversation with Officer Moreno. And that sounds like he's innocent, at least of raping her. He not only continuously denies the act (which of course he would do regardless), but retells full conversations they shared. Yes, surveillance shows they returned multiple times, but I believe that she had asked them to. Honestly, I probably would too, if I were in her position.
The transcript also mentions other tenants that appeared high on marijuana were banging on the victim's door at some point in the night. If the officers were continually able to get into her apartment, it's quite possible that these other persons were also able to enter.
I do believe something happened to her. I believe she woke up to someone having sex with her. I believe that she showered, despite know she shouldn't, because she felt dirty. But maybe it wasn't the police that did it.
And then I heard the 911 call, which was quite obviously not a cell phone-less Canadian named John Edwards. Why did they feel the need to make up a call to get back in the building? Why did they ignore a more important call, one of a woman screaming? Why were they so desperate to go back and see this girl? Even if she asked them to, it's weird, and certainly incriminating to put in that much effort to obey her alleged requests.
I don't know.
Night of Horror with Rape Cops - NY Post
Accuser Back on Stand in NYPD Rape Cops Trial: Admits Drinking but Says 'I Remember I was Raped' - NY Daily News
Full Transcripts: Alleged Rape Cop Kenneth Moreno Meets with his Accuser
Listen to Alleged Rape Cop Allegedly Impersonate Canadian in 911 Call - Gothamist
Piecing together this story proves more difficult with every new article. My original feeling was that the woman was severely intoxicated (the fact that she was able to walk almost on her own does not discount that fact to me) and probably made some come on's to the police officer, who then had sex with her. I felt that the rape had happened, but that the cop was just an idiot about the rules of consent. Undoubtedly, this woman should have been taken to the hospital. And from what I know of police, I'm not entirely sure why some higher up in the department did not tell the officers that she had to go.
But then I read the full transcript of the conversation with Officer Moreno. And that sounds like he's innocent, at least of raping her. He not only continuously denies the act (which of course he would do regardless), but retells full conversations they shared. Yes, surveillance shows they returned multiple times, but I believe that she had asked them to. Honestly, I probably would too, if I were in her position.
The transcript also mentions other tenants that appeared high on marijuana were banging on the victim's door at some point in the night. If the officers were continually able to get into her apartment, it's quite possible that these other persons were also able to enter.
I do believe something happened to her. I believe she woke up to someone having sex with her. I believe that she showered, despite know she shouldn't, because she felt dirty. But maybe it wasn't the police that did it.
And then I heard the 911 call, which was quite obviously not a cell phone-less Canadian named John Edwards. Why did they feel the need to make up a call to get back in the building? Why did they ignore a more important call, one of a woman screaming? Why were they so desperate to go back and see this girl? Even if she asked them to, it's weird, and certainly incriminating to put in that much effort to obey her alleged requests.
I don't know.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
giving blood
When I studied at Emory, I had the privilege of volunteering with a woman who was easily one of the nicest, most genuine people I've ever come across. We volunteered together to teach science to a public school in an under-privileged neighborhood in Atlanta. While I was debating pledging a sorority, she told me that she had pledged, and initiated, but after studying abroad in India, and seeing the poverty that existed there, she had deactivated. Instead, she donated what would have been her sorority dues to orphanages in the country.
That's the kind of person she is.
In December of 2010, while 8 months pregnant with what would have been her first child, she was taking a walk when she was hit by an SUV. The driver didn't stop, and to my knowledge, has not been caught. Despite attempts to perform an early c-section, her child did not survive the impact. After weeks in the hospital, Laurie was finally released, and now, is doing well. At least physically.
Laurie is alive because of donated blood. I gave blood for the first time before I even knew her, and after almost passing out, I never thought I'd do it again. Now that I know someone, someone who should never have been in that position to begin with, someone who is alive right now because people gave a few minutes, and 1 dispensable pint of blood, I understand the significance of such a donation. I won't call it a sacrifice. I never sacrificed anything to donate blood. It didn't cost me a thing. But the lack thereof, could cost people everything.
Giving blood seems like such an inconsequential action, that so many people overlook it. But its impact is profound. Everyone is aware of its necessity, but until someone we know is in need of it, it's difficult to understand the importance of donating blood.
Donate blood. It's cheaper, and sometimes more valuable, than money.
That's the kind of person she is.
In December of 2010, while 8 months pregnant with what would have been her first child, she was taking a walk when she was hit by an SUV. The driver didn't stop, and to my knowledge, has not been caught. Despite attempts to perform an early c-section, her child did not survive the impact. After weeks in the hospital, Laurie was finally released, and now, is doing well. At least physically.
Laurie is alive because of donated blood. I gave blood for the first time before I even knew her, and after almost passing out, I never thought I'd do it again. Now that I know someone, someone who should never have been in that position to begin with, someone who is alive right now because people gave a few minutes, and 1 dispensable pint of blood, I understand the significance of such a donation. I won't call it a sacrifice. I never sacrificed anything to donate blood. It didn't cost me a thing. But the lack thereof, could cost people everything.
Giving blood seems like such an inconsequential action, that so many people overlook it. But its impact is profound. Everyone is aware of its necessity, but until someone we know is in need of it, it's difficult to understand the importance of donating blood.
Donate blood. It's cheaper, and sometimes more valuable, than money.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Consent (again)
Woman files criminal charges after discovering her masseuse is heterosexual
A woman was getting a massage at her gym when the masseuse asked her if she wanted him to massage her butt and breasts. She assumed the masseuse was homosexual, and consented on that basis. There was never any talk of sexuality between the two - she simply thought that since he seemed effeminate he must be gay. Since she believed he would get no sexual gratification out of the massage, she consented to essentially have her breasts and butt fondled.
Well, turns out he's heterosexual after all. Apparently the massage in question can be normal practice. The woman however, filed a criminal complaint of sexual misconduct.
So although she consented, she consented under a certain false belief. A belief that was never substantiated.
This case should be thrown out. She consented, explicitly, verbally, admittedly to these acts. There was no threat, or fear for her physical or emotional well-being if she did not consent. She was not under the influence of any drugs or any alcohol. Whether the man is gay or not is irrelevant. There is also no evidence to suggest his proposal was out of sexual desire, as she believes.
So there are several problems with this charge. One, her stereotyping homosexuality puts her in a bad light. Two, if she felt uncomfortable at all with the situation, she could have said no before or during the massage, without consequence. Three, he explicitly asked if she would like the massage, displaying completely professional behavior. And, of course, four, she explicitly verbally consented to such acts.
There was no assumption of consent. There was no coercion for consent. Willingly consenting to a sexual act, whether that act involves a gay or straight man (or woman) gives that man, or woman, the ability to act. It is only criminal if there is no consent, or if that consent is coerced, or if the person giving the consent is under the influence. This woman has no case whatsoever.
This is a false accusation, and should be treated as such.
A woman was getting a massage at her gym when the masseuse asked her if she wanted him to massage her butt and breasts. She assumed the masseuse was homosexual, and consented on that basis. There was never any talk of sexuality between the two - she simply thought that since he seemed effeminate he must be gay. Since she believed he would get no sexual gratification out of the massage, she consented to essentially have her breasts and butt fondled.
Well, turns out he's heterosexual after all. Apparently the massage in question can be normal practice. The woman however, filed a criminal complaint of sexual misconduct.
So although she consented, she consented under a certain false belief. A belief that was never substantiated.
This case should be thrown out. She consented, explicitly, verbally, admittedly to these acts. There was no threat, or fear for her physical or emotional well-being if she did not consent. She was not under the influence of any drugs or any alcohol. Whether the man is gay or not is irrelevant. There is also no evidence to suggest his proposal was out of sexual desire, as she believes.
So there are several problems with this charge. One, her stereotyping homosexuality puts her in a bad light. Two, if she felt uncomfortable at all with the situation, she could have said no before or during the massage, without consequence. Three, he explicitly asked if she would like the massage, displaying completely professional behavior. And, of course, four, she explicitly verbally consented to such acts.
There was no assumption of consent. There was no coercion for consent. Willingly consenting to a sexual act, whether that act involves a gay or straight man (or woman) gives that man, or woman, the ability to act. It is only criminal if there is no consent, or if that consent is coerced, or if the person giving the consent is under the influence. This woman has no case whatsoever.
This is a false accusation, and should be treated as such.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Sleepers
This scene, taken from the movie Sleepers (1996)showcases the shame associated with being a victim of sexual assault. The four kids in the clip were sentenced to a year in a juvenile detention center, and while there, were sexually molested by the guards. They never told a soul, until 10 years later, when two of the kids came across one of the guards again. After shooting, and killing him, the truth came out in their trial.
Why did these kids never tell anyone? They were stuck in a horrific situation, and despite being visited by their friend, a priest on multiple occasions, they kept the truth from even him. They convinced their parents to not even come visit. To them, enduring the assaults seemed like a better idea than attempting to get out of the situation at the cost of telling everyone what had happened.
Shame is a powerful emotion. The feeling evoked by such a clear and profound violation of ones rights and privacy can overpower everything else. Any desire for prosecution, any need for help, is overshadowed by the desire for secrecy. To let no one know what happened, in fear of being judged. A fear not entirely unfounded in this society.
20-25% of women will be victims of rape, or attempted rape by the time they graduate college. Most people will deny this claim, say that the number is too high, despite it being a result of thousands of anonymous surveys from colleges all over the country. Police records will show a smaller number than the truth, because a vast majority of people never tell the police, or file a case after such an assault. Colleges will never admit the number of sexual assaults that happen on their campus because it'll deter applications.
So how can we change this? How do we get more people to come forward with their stories? To get the help so many of them need and deserve? How can we make scenes like the one shown in the movie the exception rather than the rule?
That's the easy part. We just need to listen, and to believe. To stop blaming the victim. Rid the rape myths from our own minds, and be there for those who have the strength to confide.
Understand the strength it takes to come forward with the experience of a sexual assault.
Respect the victim. Their trauma. Their story. Their emotions, whatever they may be.
No one should have to live in fear. Especially not the innocent victims of a violent crime.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Toddlers and Tiaras
I wish I could just end the rant with that subject line. Toddlers in Tiaras. Should be 'nuff said. Yet apparently,
"On any given weekend, on stages across the country, little girls and boys parade around wearing makeup, false eyelashes, spray tans and fake hair to be judged on their beauty, personality and costumes."
-TLC
Now regardless of gender (as they claim this happens with boys too...) I am horribly disturbed that there are people out there who AREN'T horribly disturbed by this. That mothers make up their children (as young as TWO!) in spray tans, fake eyelashes, fake toenails (and fingernails, of course), and fake teeth.
Because who wants a natural looking child? Those crooked teeth in an undeveloped mouth, that pale skin that screams "I haven't been alive long enough to get a tan," and nails on hands and feet that are just beginning to grow.
Why are we, as a society, instilling these values in these young girls? That to be beautiful is to be fake? That if you're not beautiful, by these crazy standards a bunch of people behind the media scenes created, then you're just not good enough.
I made the unfortunate decision to watch the Tyra Show which was on this very subject (which is, of course, why I'm writing this). Of course, the parents claim their children want to do it, that they enjoy it, that they can stop any time they want to. Sounds like an addict's mantra to me.
On this same episode, they talked to young girls who compete in these pageants. One of whom said they enjoy it because they want the money.
She was 5. a five-year-old girl saying she wants the money that comes in from pageants. Those are some good values her mother is instilling. Although she did have the next answer down, saying money's good for school. (Later we find out she wanted to spend her $1000 winnings on a cow. Yes, a cow.)
If I had a daughter, who, on her own accord, came to me and told me she wanted to be in a beauty pageant, regardless of whether she was 5, 15, or 25, I'd ask her why. I can't think of a single good reason. To boost confidence? Believe in yourself, work hard, and don't listen to naysayers. To feel beautiful? You are beautiful, naturally. For the attention? Become an actress, a singer, a dancer. Any answer to that question produces a host of other alternatives that, to me, are much healthier options.
Here's why:
Another girl on the show, aged ten, answered a question from the audience. Clearly, her mother had not taught her how to field this one:
"Would you rather be pretty, or smart?"
Her answer:
"I'd rather be pretty. Like, I wouldn't want to be that smart. Like, I'd rather be beautiful than a nerd."
Tyra: And being smart means being a nerd?
Pageant queen: "haha, yeah..."
I wish I could leave it there. Tyra then asks the mother to basically try to do some damage control. The mother literally just reiterates everything her daughter said. That, yes she would probably rather be pretty than smart, but at least she is smart while saying it!
Doesn't sound like it.
When girls, when ANYONE, says they'd rather be pretty than smart, when being a nerd is terrible fate, I have to worry for the fate of this country. I'd like to think, I do think, being smart is an attractive trait in and of itself.
I got news for you killer. We all age. Those looks - they won't last forever. Even surgery isn't gonna stop the aging process. And when that fails, you, like all of us, will have nothing to rely on but your brain.
What's more unattractive than a young girl caked in makeup touting the importance of looks over brains? A mother who embraces it.
"On any given weekend, on stages across the country, little girls and boys parade around wearing makeup, false eyelashes, spray tans and fake hair to be judged on their beauty, personality and costumes."
-TLC
Now regardless of gender (as they claim this happens with boys too...) I am horribly disturbed that there are people out there who AREN'T horribly disturbed by this. That mothers make up their children (as young as TWO!) in spray tans, fake eyelashes, fake toenails (and fingernails, of course), and fake teeth.
Because who wants a natural looking child? Those crooked teeth in an undeveloped mouth, that pale skin that screams "I haven't been alive long enough to get a tan," and nails on hands and feet that are just beginning to grow.
Why are we, as a society, instilling these values in these young girls? That to be beautiful is to be fake? That if you're not beautiful, by these crazy standards a bunch of people behind the media scenes created, then you're just not good enough.
I made the unfortunate decision to watch the Tyra Show which was on this very subject (which is, of course, why I'm writing this). Of course, the parents claim their children want to do it, that they enjoy it, that they can stop any time they want to. Sounds like an addict's mantra to me.
On this same episode, they talked to young girls who compete in these pageants. One of whom said they enjoy it because they want the money.
She was 5. a five-year-old girl saying she wants the money that comes in from pageants. Those are some good values her mother is instilling. Although she did have the next answer down, saying money's good for school. (Later we find out she wanted to spend her $1000 winnings on a cow. Yes, a cow.)
If I had a daughter, who, on her own accord, came to me and told me she wanted to be in a beauty pageant, regardless of whether she was 5, 15, or 25, I'd ask her why. I can't think of a single good reason. To boost confidence? Believe in yourself, work hard, and don't listen to naysayers. To feel beautiful? You are beautiful, naturally. For the attention? Become an actress, a singer, a dancer. Any answer to that question produces a host of other alternatives that, to me, are much healthier options.
Here's why:
Another girl on the show, aged ten, answered a question from the audience. Clearly, her mother had not taught her how to field this one:
"Would you rather be pretty, or smart?"
Her answer:
"I'd rather be pretty. Like, I wouldn't want to be that smart. Like, I'd rather be beautiful than a nerd."
Tyra: And being smart means being a nerd?
Pageant queen: "haha, yeah..."
I wish I could leave it there. Tyra then asks the mother to basically try to do some damage control. The mother literally just reiterates everything her daughter said. That, yes she would probably rather be pretty than smart, but at least she is smart while saying it!
Doesn't sound like it.
When girls, when ANYONE, says they'd rather be pretty than smart, when being a nerd is terrible fate, I have to worry for the fate of this country. I'd like to think, I do think, being smart is an attractive trait in and of itself.
I got news for you killer. We all age. Those looks - they won't last forever. Even surgery isn't gonna stop the aging process. And when that fails, you, like all of us, will have nothing to rely on but your brain.
What's more unattractive than a young girl caked in makeup touting the importance of looks over brains? A mother who embraces it.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Stuatory Rape
Brewster woman, 23, charged in rape of Kent boy, 16
At 16, the boy cannot consent to sexual acts. Apparently he doesn't have the mental maturity to do so. He can, however, be tried as an adult in the New York State judicial system should he be the one committing a crime. In that sense, the state does believe him to have enough mental capacity to understand his own actions. He can consent to a crime, but not sex.
Interesting.
I think this charge is completely uncalled for, which may be surprising. And don't get me wrong, if the genders were reversed, and the ages the same I still would be against pressing charges. The average age of virginity loss in the United States is between 16 and 17 - the same age as the "victim". Undoubtedly this sexual relationship was entirely consensual on behalf of both parties (as nothing to the contrary was even insinuated in the article. With an age gap of only 7 years, this is hardly a crime worth investigating.
I don't know how a relationship involving a high schooler and college grad (or someone of that age) would really work, but to each their own. Do I think it's normal? no. Do I think it's creepy? Slightly. Do I think it should be illegal? Definitely not.
Honestly, I think it comes back to the idea of sex being a taboo subject in America. For whatever reason, the government does not want people having sex. Talking about it, seeing it, doing it, is all kept under wraps. Maybe we think 16 year olds aren't mature enough to be having sex because no one is talking to them about sex.
Maybe that's why he seeking it from someone older.
You may not be an adult at 16. There's still a lot of learning to do when you're that young. But I'm hoping we're giving driving licenses to people who are old enough to understand the world around them. At 16, you're free to operate a motor vehicle, to work, to go to jail, you should also be free to have sex.
Doesn't law enforcement have better things to worry about?
At 16, the boy cannot consent to sexual acts. Apparently he doesn't have the mental maturity to do so. He can, however, be tried as an adult in the New York State judicial system should he be the one committing a crime. In that sense, the state does believe him to have enough mental capacity to understand his own actions. He can consent to a crime, but not sex.
Interesting.
I think this charge is completely uncalled for, which may be surprising. And don't get me wrong, if the genders were reversed, and the ages the same I still would be against pressing charges. The average age of virginity loss in the United States is between 16 and 17 - the same age as the "victim". Undoubtedly this sexual relationship was entirely consensual on behalf of both parties (as nothing to the contrary was even insinuated in the article. With an age gap of only 7 years, this is hardly a crime worth investigating.
I don't know how a relationship involving a high schooler and college grad (or someone of that age) would really work, but to each their own. Do I think it's normal? no. Do I think it's creepy? Slightly. Do I think it should be illegal? Definitely not.
Honestly, I think it comes back to the idea of sex being a taboo subject in America. For whatever reason, the government does not want people having sex. Talking about it, seeing it, doing it, is all kept under wraps. Maybe we think 16 year olds aren't mature enough to be having sex because no one is talking to them about sex.
Maybe that's why he seeking it from someone older.
You may not be an adult at 16. There's still a lot of learning to do when you're that young. But I'm hoping we're giving driving licenses to people who are old enough to understand the world around them. At 16, you're free to operate a motor vehicle, to work, to go to jail, you should also be free to have sex.
Doesn't law enforcement have better things to worry about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)