NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/rape/2196

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-17 | 9.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!uoft02.utoledo.edu!dcrosgr
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:45:54 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
Lines: 197

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Samuel Green) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Samuel Green) writes:
>>
>     (Deleted to save space)
>>
>>No, you are not dealing with it sequentially. The ploice spot you following
>>her, or she waves them down. Her story gets explained, and as far as the police
>>are concerned, you fit the profile of so many other rapists they have dealt
>>with or astudied or heard about.
>>
>>At that time you get arrested for (fill in the blank) AND resisting arrest.
>>
>     Resisting arrest?  1) How and why?  2)  Whats fill in the blank?
> Remember, there are no charges whatsoever that would possibly account for
> them arresting me for walking down the street, even if I was following
> someone.

When they stopped to question you, they have the legal right to frisk you to
make sure you do not have any weapons. You turned away, thus interfering in
official police business of frisking you. They tried to place you under arrest
for said crime, you jerked away, thus adding resisting arrest to your charges.

Or, you walked against the signal.

Or you jaywalked.

Pick one. It is your word against theirs.

        Also, there is still the matter of intent to deal with.  As far
> as can be prooven, my intent was, essentially, to make sure the person gets
> home safely.  That is what I told the people at the party...

Wrong. You intent was to stop them from frisking you. Your intent was to jerk
away when they tried this.

Intent is no longer an issue.

>
>>You now go downtown while a follow-up cruiser is sent to the party to collect
>>evidence that you:
>>
>>1. Were chatting with her.
>>2. Offered to escort her
>>3. Followed her AGAINST her wishes.
> Dont forget 4)  Stated to several people that I was going out to make sure
> she or he got home safely.

So? Nice cover. I imagine a smart rapist would say soemthing like this. You are
college educated. Created a nice cover for yourself before you left.


>
>>
>>By that time, the police are not looking for "truth", they are looking for
>>evidence, because they have committed themselves to proving you are a criminal.
>     Evidence that will only show positively on myself, if they do not
> fabricate it.  Statements from witnesses expressing my stated intent would
> help, not hinder me.

Really? You think a jury is going to buy that you escorted this person AGAINST
THEIR WISHES out of altruistic reasons? You forced her to have an escort, maybe
you also wanted to force her to "show appreciation" for you chivalry.


>
>>If they fail, you go free AND get to sue them.
>     Probably be a waste of time to sue them, unless they did fabricate
> evidence opr falsify charges, in which case, they need to be either
> reprimanded or some other such.  Pretty hard to sue the police.

Only because they make sure they have "reasonable suspicion" before arresting.

And, all they need to have for that is their word against yours.

>
>>
>>That means you have to defend youself against said charges, while they try to
>>plea bargain you down to something petty you will agree to rather than risk
>>prison time.
>
>     Yeah, and I think my defense will be good enough to have me
> exonerated from any charges, unless they can find some bullshit way to slap
> me with a misdemeanor.  Probably wouldnt make it past arraignment, though,
> due to lack of evidence (again, assuming that no 'evidence' has been
> created by the police.

This is an interference and resisting case! What kind of "evidence" do you
think they must bring into court??? Handwritten diagrams you made in advance? A
crowd of on-lookers to say you resisted?

She wil get up there and tell the jury you wanted to go home with her, and she
was afraid of you because you were following her.

(And if you don't think she would be afraid, ask those dozen female friends how
they would feel if some guy at a party asked to take them home, and when they
declined, he were to follow her home from about 50 feet back. Ask them if they
might just be terrified of said individual.  She is going to look at you as
apervert who was out after her. She is going to look at the police as her
rescuers. Every bit of her testimony is going to be geared towards helping lock
you up.)

No, they will get up there and say they worried that you had a weapon because
you were following her and they suspected you of being a rapist. They tried to
pat you down, but you did not let them. Then they tried to arrest you but you
resisted.

Both of them are going to testify to that.

And you are going to get up there and say "I was following her to protect her
from rapists, and I did nto resist."

Who would YOU believe if you were the jury? The potential victim and two
police officers that stopped you, or the person who was following a yourg lady
against her wishes late at night?

>
>>
>>And, do NOT make the mistake of thinking a crack bust is bigger than taking a
>>rapist off of the streets to a cop. Crack busts are a nuisance that does
>>nothing--by the time the perp is being booked, he or she has been replaced, and
>>someone is happy to buy from them. Catching a rapist means you have protected
>>innocent people from harm.
>
>     I think I said that the cops would rather fabricate evidence on a
> crack bust, than on some person just walking down the street.  Even so, it
> again depends on the situation.  If there is no evidence whatsoeever (and
> there isnt from any of that chatting stuff, other than that she did refuse
> escort, and I followed her (whic, by the way, would not be considered
> walking with her)  Like I said, it all depends on how far the police are
> willing to lie when the arresting officers will know: 1)  that I am
> innocent,

They would know you are innocent of resisting. But if they believed you a
potential rapist, they might be willing to cut a few corners to lock you up
BEFORE your victims start adding up.

        and I think the fact that they would have to make up evidence
> would pretty much proove it to them, 2) that they will have to spend many
> hours doing bullshit paperwork and attending a bullshit trial,

Cops I work with love trials--it is gravy duty if during their shift, and
overtime WITHOUT going to their shift if they are second or third.


                                and 3) that
> they run the risk of getting in some fairly serious trouble if they are
> caught for making up evidence.  In Chicago, the new superintendant is VERY
> strict about police behavior.  May be different elsewhere.

How are they going to get caught? Yu counting on someone with a cam corder
recording an uneventful stop with no beating? (You said you would go
peacefully) You think they will call the station to tel them there was video of
police making a calm arrest where no one's rights were violated?


>
>>
>>If you don't believe me, which would you rather arrest, some chinsey dealer, or
>>a date rapist?
>
>     I would rather arrest a rapist, if it was proven that he had
> committed the crime or if there were very strong evidence that he had done
> so.  False rape charges can hurt the 'defendant' just as much as a rape can
> hurt the victim.  I would not be willing to risk ruining someons life if I
> wasnt pretty convinced that they had done something wrong.  But, I would arrest the dealer if there was no real
> proof or strong reason to suspect that the alleged rapist had done anything
> at all in way of showing intent to harm, rather than help.
>
>>
>>DC
>>
>>PS. Remember, being innocent is only a good defense if you can prove it is true
>>AND it nullifies what you have been charged with.
>>
>     Unless a police officer is willing to risk charges of perjury by
> stating that i either resisted arrest or something, I doubt that the other
> charges would stick.,  Also, what charge was I resisting arrest on?  Please
> supply an actual crime.

Let me explain something to you. Perjury is something that happens in almost
every trial. You would not believe what some people make up. ("My car was stolen
the day of the damage. I was going to fill out a police report, but it was
Sunday. By Monday my car was returned to where I had left it. So I didn't go
fill out the report. That is how my car was there but I didn't do it." I am not
making this up--I was delivering documents to the court when this testimnoy was
being given.) Further, perjury is rarely, IF EVER, prosecuted. (grand jury is
the exception) Why? Because either the guilty is convicted anyway, or there was
not enough evidnce to convict which means you can't prove perjury.

Cops, and other defendants, worry about perjury charges the same way you and I
worry about not taking a found $10 bill down to the police station. (So it's
rightful owner can claim it.)

DC