This was RAPE!

[luchog]

Are your cops policemen or a ****ing occupying army?

Bad cops are the exception, not the rule. And they're not all that common. However, the nature of the job does tend to pull a disproportionate number of people who get off on the power, and the psych exams can't weed out all of them. And certain regions tend to pull and even higher proportion of those, as those with the hiring power tend to pick up more people like themselves. On top of that, problem cops are almost never fired, they're simply shuffled around between precincts, and often eventually end up concentrated in the "worst" precinct, usually the one in the "bad part of town". One of the places I grew up was notorious for having some of the worst city cops in the region; though the county sherrifs were far better.

 

[Belz...]

Not really, Sodomy just means non-kosher sex acts. In Denmark the word is used only for beastiality, in the US you tend to include anal sex, and if you're consider oral sex unatural that can be called sodomy as well.

Still, it's carried around as a derogatory term, and it at one time included any and all forms of homosexuality.

 

[CFLarsen]

'An officer of Corrections Corp.of America, a private prison company. '

Doesn't mean he has access to that videotape. When do private prison companies get to look at McDonald's surveillence tapes? Even his brother, a true police officer, wouldn't pass on that sort of stuff to him.

Nope. What I meant was that it could well be someone with access to the tape. E.g., someone who already worked there.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's stated quite clearly in the article; what he gains is the psychological (and most likely sexual) satisfaction of playing god. He can hear that his orders are being carried out to the letter, and thus he is able, by proxy, to humiliate and even rape someone else.

That's one theory. Another is that he has access to the tape.

Kinda gives more of a kick, hm?

 

[disfunkster]

I mean... all those stories I hear and read about, I´m already beyond the stage of scratching my head in confusion.

I have never had any problem here in Germany with police being impolite, or abusing their powers, or considering me anything but a law-abiding citizen (with all the rights that go with that) - nor do I personally know anyone who has had such problem. Even back when I caused that accident in the middle of Friday morning rush hour, they were polite.

(okay, my cousin is a cop, so I may be slightly biased - OTOH I have never encountered him in his official capacity)

Most any time i've delt with a police officer here in the states, he or she was polite and professional and was simply doing their job. Only a couple times have I had really bad experiences, and only in small towns in the midwest

My step-father was a police officer here in California for fifteen years, so I am slightly biased too, I really tend to believe most cops are good people

 

[disfunkster]

I hope you sued that guy clean.

No, i'm too damn passive about things like that. I was a lot younger then, but if the same thing happened to me now, i'd be on the phone with a lawyer the moment I was released xD

 

[disfunkster]

Bad cops are the exception, not the rule. And they're not all that common. However, the nature of the job does tend to pull a disproportionate number of people who get off on the power, and the psych exams can't weed out all of them. And certain regions tend to pull and even higher proportion of those, as those with the hiring power tend to pick up more people like themselves. On top of that, problem cops are almost never fired, they're simply shuffled around between precincts, and often eventually end up concentrated in the "worst" precinct, usually the one in the "bad part of town". One of the places I grew up was notorious for having some of the worst city cops in the region; though the county sherrifs were far better.

Well said! I totally agree with you, i've found the real bad cops to be few and far between. When you have a personal experience with a bad one, though, it tends to stick in your memory.

 

[Flatworm]

That's one theory. Another is that he has access to the tape.

Kinda gives more of a kick, hm?

It was my understanding that this same individual was responsible for pulling off the same scam with numerous other fast food restaurants, and that he had to try many of them before he would find a manager gullible enough to play ball. It is very doubtful he had access to the security tapes from all these locations. In addition, professions in the security field (including prison guards) tend to attract a higher-than-average number of police wannabes who get off on authority. All this tends to support the "playing god" theory.

This explanation may be intuitively less satisfying to a psychologically normal person, but is rather better supported by the known facts of the case.

 

[slingblade]

Bad cops are the exception, not the rule. And they're not all that common. However, the nature of the job does tend to pull a disproportionate number of people who get off on the power, and the psych exams can't weed out all of them. And certain regions tend to pull an even higher proportion of those, as those with the hiring power tend to pick up more people like themselves. On top of that, problem cops are almost never fired, they're simply shuffled around between precincts, and often eventually end up concentrated in the "worst" precinct, usually the one in the "bad part of town". One of the places I grew up was notorious for having some of the worst city cops in the region; though the county sherrifs were far better.

So . . . cops are priests, essentially?

This isn't the first time this "telephone-strip-tag" game has been played, you know. It's happened before, although this seems to be a far more egregious case than the other I heard about. In that one, the caller had only one victim: the person who'd answered the phone. A male caller, he'd try to get the person to strip in front of a window . . . I can't remember now what ruse he used, othr than pretending to be a cop. Most of the women didn't fall for it, but a couple of them did, IIRC. I also want to think the stip-search ruse has been done before, as well. (I'm vewwy tired right now, so I refuse to think or work any more than necessary.)

And yes, I'm afraid some American 18yos can be just that naive and willing to obey authority, and I'm also afraid some of our police are criminals. But Luchog has already put that matter very well, above, so I'll just let those words stand.

 

[Belz...]

No, i'm too damn passive about things like that. I was a lot younger then, but if the same thing happened to me now, i'd be on the phone with a lawyer the moment I was released xD

Don't get me wrong, though. I don't condone excessive lawsuits, as it seems it's pretty much in fashion, these days. But what that guy did was clearly an abuse of power. Anyway.

 

[sami_sdata]

Fair enough if she gave permission, but why would anonymity be lifted after the trial? Over here, you can only name victims of an alleged sex crime if the victim has given permission, or is being charged with perjury or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice with regards to the original allegations (in other words, if s/he is charged with lying about it). Makes sense to me...

The laws vary from state to state here. Also, if she filed a lawsuit then she has to make it a public record. I can't imagine she wouldn't have filed a suit here.

 

[PatKelley]

Well, my own experience: cops came in two types. Genuine Joes who need a job, do their best, and have human failings, and the other type: the type that got into it for the power, the beatings and chases, and the sense of authority. Type 1 will not hassle you if you ask for their credentials; type 2 will flip out because you are challenging their authority. Type 1 goes home and drinks, watches TV, or does something else to unwind. Type 2 only feels good if he's gotten a chance that day to take down an unruly suspect: they live for the ones that give them trouble; it means they are now licensed to beat in their minds. Cheat them out of that, or challenge their authority, and they get belligerent.

Type 1, by the way, is human. Type 2 is borderline sociopath. Unfortunately, police work by its nature attracts more than its share of type 2's... like our policeman-wannabe suspect. A good number of serial rapists and murderers also were type 2 policeman-wannabes.

My best defense so far is to be honest. I imagine if they are getting lied to by so many people ("I was going fifty-five, officer!") that one person telling the truth might make their day.

 

[Jas]

Not really, Sodomy just means non-kosher sex acts. In Denmark the word is used only for beastiality, in the US you tend to include anal sex, and if you're consider oral sex unatural that can be called sodomy as well.

I think it's usually defined (iirc), as any sexual act not for the purpose of reproduction, or that could not result in reproduction, so would therefore include anal and oral sex.

(I don't think birth control is included)

 

[Jas]

But how the f*** could the guy explain how he thought that her giving him head was in some way conducive to a criminal investigation?

Cite all the studies you want, these people are just making excuses.

 

[Belz...]

But how the f*** could the guy explain how he thought that her giving him head was in some way conducive to a criminal investigation?

Yes, THAT is especially messed up! I'd like to hear some of the excuses he gave to the (I hope there were) objections given by those other people whom, I consider, are just as guilty (if not more so) as he was.

 

[billydkid]

I would not be surprised to discover that a majority of people would follow Summers' example if this were to happen to them.

It is a very scarey thought. It strikes me that these people were inclined to participate and saw it as an opportunity and justification to engage repugnant behavior to which they were already inclined. Either that or it is and illustration of dangerous inclination of many people to worship authority.

 

[ysabella]

Of course, if this goes to court, the guy is probably the kind of jerk who will have the victim put on the stand and spend as many days as he can get away with trying to cross-examine her and force her to speak out loud each grotesque detail about what happened, in front of everyone.
There are supposed to be some laws to prevent this in some places, but sadly it's happened to a lot of women.

 

[luchog]

That's one theory. Another is that he has access to the tape.

Kinda gives more of a kick, hm?

But it doesn't fit the common MO of that sort of behaviour. Those sorts of deviants don't generally make the effort to collect "evidence" of their actions; it's only the actions at the time that interest them. It's the act of manipulation, and immediate comfirmation of that act that they are after, not any subsequent visual record.

And considering that this happened systematically over a very wide area, in a wide variety of different businesses, not all of which had security cameras, with an identical MO, then no, I don't think that access to the tapes of the incidents are a likely motivating factor.

The type of deviant likely to be interested in a visual record of their actions is the type who is going to create that video himself, generally with himself as participant.

 

[Roadtoad]

Of course, if this goes to court, the guy is probably the kind of jerk who will have the victim put on the stand and spend as many days as he can get away with trying to cross-examine her and force her to speak out loud each grotesque detail about what happened, in front of everyone.
There are supposed to be some laws to prevent this in some places, but sadly it's happened to a lot of women.

Re-read the article. That's EXACTLY what McDonald's attorney is trying to do right now, even before it goes to trial.

As to cops: I've never had a really bad experience with them. Even at their worst, when you're getting an inspection at a weigh station, they're merely abrupt. The majority of them are just good, honest, hard working people trying to make a living, and trying to protect the public.

Unfortunately, there are jerks out there.

 

[Kiless]

Of course, if this goes to court, the guy is probably the kind of jerk who will have the victim put on the stand and spend as many days as he can get away with trying to cross-examine her and force her to speak out loud each grotesque detail about what happened, in front of everyone.
There are supposed to be some laws to prevent this in some places, but sadly it's happened to a lot of women.

Don't they have closed-circut camera booths, to stop the witnesses, et al being in the same room? When I was on jury duty last, the twain never did meet because everything was via camera.