• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This was RAPE!

Roadtoad said:
Some of us are beginning to wonder.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
This is a very common technique used by criminals, that is why if an unmarked vehicle pulls you over in a bad neighborhodd many police advise you to drive to a well lit safer place where there are many witnesses, often people will impersonate a police officer to pull you over, and then take your car or wallet when you get out of the car.

Ask the officer for thier badge number with the window rolled up and then call the 9-11 dispatch number to see if they are an officer in the field. This is also done at times when someone knocks on the door of your house, apolice officer must cooperate unless they have direct evidence of a threat to life and body.
 
What did Nix do to the employee, exactly? He's charged with sodomy (why does that need to be separated from rape? But that's another discussion), but the article never says that he sodomized her. In fact, it says, "But she said Nix told her he would hit her if she didn't sodomize him, so she did. "

Whoa, wait a second.

So SHE raped HIM? Well, I guess if Nix is the one demanding she do it, she's not exactly raping him, but . . . weird. Why doesn't the article talk more about this? What did she sodomize him with?

This all just confirms my theory that there are mass amounts of amoral psychopaths wandering around us, just waiting for the right excuse.
 
rebecca said:
What did Nix do to the employee, exactly? He's charged with sodomy (why does that need to be separated from rape? But that's another discussion), but the article never says that he sodomized her. In fact, it says, "But she said Nix told her he would hit her if she didn't sodomize him, so she did. "

Whoa, wait a second.

So SHE raped HIM? Well, I guess if Nix is the one demanding she do it, she's not exactly raping him, but . . . weird. Why doesn't the article talk more about this? What did she sodomize him with?

This all just confirms my theory that there are mass amounts of amoral psychopaths wandering around us, just waiting for the right excuse.
Click to expand...

I assume in this case they are referring to oral sex. In many states, "sodomy" is legally defined as any sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genitals of a man and a woman.

In other words, he forced her to give him a bj.
 
Aaah, okay. Really? Well, I still find it fascinatingly disturbing, but somehow less so, now.
 
OK, I see. No shoes are dropping.

Who, exactly, has access to that videotape?
 
clarsct said:
Actually, the law of the land, per the Supreme Court, is that a citizen MUST identify themselves with a photo ID or the equivalent, when a Law officer requests it.
Click to expand...

No problem. Demonstrate to my satisfaction that you are, in fact, a law officer, and I will comply.

Part of the problem, as has correctly been pointed out, is that a number of police think that their unsupported word is good for anything, and will hassle you to the point of intimidation if you balk at their whims.
 
WildCat said:
Is this really so far off from what we now do w/o complaint at airports? Take off your shoes, get pat down (groped?) in intimate places by this complete stranger over here. In front of everybody. Now they are coming out w/ scanners that leave little or nothing to the imagination.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, that is a little different from demanding a BJ.

Oh, and we don't think twice about giving a urine sample to play high school sports, or get (or keep) a job.

We're slowly becoming conditioned to accept this, this case really doesn't surprise me that much.
Click to expand...
Points taken though. All this perhaps does condition us to fall for the ridiculous. Reminds me of the Friends episode where Joey's taylor "cops a feel" when measuring pant size. Joey, after learning that this is NOT acceptible behavior, except "in prison" as Ross tells him, asks about "that hernia test."

Don't mean to make light of this horrible event...
 
And people wonder why there are those of us who try to promote critical thinking and skepticism, equating skepticism with cynicism, confusing gullibility for open-mindedness. "Why can't you just believe what someone is telling you? What's the harm?"

This incident was horrible to say the least. Now imagine if the caller had convinced the managers that the employee was a suspected terrorist. Imagine what he could have gotten them to do then (and probably with greater willingness to cooperate).
 
Roadtoad said:
Let me get this straight: A NINTH GRADE DROPOUT figure out this was wrong, but not the store manager!?!
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. Blindly following orders will get you further in our societies than someone questioning authorities.
 
Darat said:
The more I think about this the person with the most responsibility is Summers, even the guy making the phone call doesn't have as much responsibility as the people carrying out the actions. At no time did he even have the means to force Summers et all to comply.
Click to expand...

Indeed. There should be accusations of, at least, criminal negligence on the part of all involved (except the victim, of course.)
 
WildCat said:
Oh, and we don't think twice about giving a urine sample to play high school sports, or get (or keep) a job.

We're slowly becoming conditioned to accept this, this case really doesn't surprise me that much.
Click to expand...

Ah! The ever-going question. Security vs freedom. The easiest, of course, is to completely ignore one of them. It's far from acceptable, however.
 
Belz... said:
Then some states have backwards definitions.
Click to expand...
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.
 
gtc said:
I think there may be a sense of escalation here.

I doubt you could get someone to strip search and violate an employee just by asking. But I can see it would be a lot harder to resist if you start off making reasonable requests and then make each request just slightly less reasonable.

Remember, this is a young employee who probably does not know her rights very well. If I had been her, I would have wanted to co-operate. I can see how by the time it progressed, she would have been very demoralised and intimidated. I can also see how the person in charge, could find it easier to take it further than to admit they made a terrible mistake.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that the description of the girl is of someone fairly small. So with 2 people in the room with her, one likely blocking the door according to the picture, there's a good chance that she was physically, as well as emotionally, intimidated into going along with this. If not overtly, then certainly it was strongly implied. And when Nix showed up, there was clear, overt physical intimidation as well. Add to that that, according to the article, she was locked in, and could not have left had she wanted to. Imprisoned.

People who put blame on Ogden are, politely, a$$h*les.
1) A small-built girl, barely out of her teens, from a culture that still teaches female passivity and unquestioning acceptance of authority.
2) Locked in a small room with two people who were likely larger, physically; and who were "ganging up on" her. Whose tones were almost guaranteed to be authoritarian and forceful, possibly violent as well.
3) She was already frightened, because of the false accusation; and now having to deal with two people who clearly believed it. Her manages made threats to start wtih, and were making further threats as they went along.
4) They didn't immediately demand her to strip, but started off slowly and built up, so by the time it got seriously bad, she's already humiliated and breaking down; and very likely in shock and incapable of reacting reasonably.

I have every sympathy for her and what she went through. I have none whatsoever, and a whole lot of violent animosity, for those who not only contributed to her humiliation and rape, but also for those who witnessed it and didn't do a d*mn thing to stop it.
 
CFLarsen said:
I think we are overlooking the obvious here.

A young female employee is forced to strip by orders from someone not there. What does he gain? Does he gain anything?
Click to expand...
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.
 
CFLarsen said:
OK, I see. No shoes are dropping.

Who, exactly, has access to that videotape?
Click to expand...

'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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom