This story is interesting. Kenneth Moreno And Franklin Mata are NYPD policemen. They took a severely drunk woman back to her apartment. They are accused of raping her.
Kenneth Moreno is accused of rape. Franklin Mata is accused of sitting in the other room doing nothing, while he knew his partner was raping her. Kenneth Moreno had more seniority.
This is an interesting story. It pits two important State lies against each other.
- Police have nearly absolute immunity for on-the-job misconduct.
- A woman may accuse a man of rape for the flimsiest of excuses.
There is no physical evidence of rape. The woman waited several days before filing her complaint. The only semen samples from her bed matched three other men!
I'm strongly opposed to police misconduct. However, I'm siding with the policemen this time. There has to be more evidence than a drunk woman testifying.
Doesn't the woman have some responsibility? She shouldn't have gotten so severely drunk. She should have had a friend to take her home.
It also was interesting to see coverage. ABC's website referred to the woman as "the victim". The NY Daily News referred to the woman as "the accuser". Those are interesting choices of words.
Saying "victim" includes a presumption of guilt. A jury hasn't decided yet if she was raped. Legally, there's no victim until the jury says "guilty". If she wasn't raped, the she isn't a victim.
Saying "accuser" emphasizes the woman as villain. An accuser deserves scorn. A victim deserves sympathy.
It seems the policemen are also scummy, in addition to the accuser. That doesn't prove rape. It seems like a dispute where both parties are scumbags.
I also was disappointed that the newspapers didn't publish the woman's name. The policemen's reputation was ruined. Why not also ruin the woman's reputation? Even if you believe her version of the story, she's an irresponsible drunkard.
I also was disappointed that the judge didn't say "Dismissed for insufficient evidence!" The judge is a wimp who doesn't want to prevent a trial based on flimsy evidence. It's better to let the jury decide. Besides, it could always be overturned on appeal.
If the judge dismissed the case before trial, that could lead to hostility. It's less risky for the judge to give it to a jury. From the judge's point of view, the least risky thing to do is to let the jury handle the case, even if he thinks there's insufficient evidence.
This story illustrates two State evils conflicting with each other. First, policemen usually have nearly absolute immunity for on-the-job misconduct. Second, a woman can accuse a man of rape with zero evidence, even when the woman made irresponsible decisions like getting drunk.
This incident is interesting, because two important State lies are conflicting. The legal system is very biased in favor of policemen. The legal system is very biased in favor of women, when they falsely accuse a man of rape. Which lie will win this time?
19 comments:
A case a bit like the one you describe happened in the UK. Actually I have heard policemen having sex with women on the job over here.
Anyway...
A middle-aged female solicitor (lawyer to the US folks) went out with a group of friends. She often got drunk and took men home. She had an alcohol problem.
A young man had been out with her and her friends a few times. Again the female solicitor had been drinking.
The woman took the young man back home. They had consensual sex.
In the morning the woman woke up and asked the man if they had sex. He replied they had.
She started shouting at him and said she could not remember giving consent to sex. As she could not remember she told the man she was going to send him to jail.
Months and months and months later the case came to court.
The judge told the female solicitor her interpretation of the law was incorrect.
The fact that she could not remember giving consent is not the same as no consent.
Effectively the only evidence was that of the man who said she did give consent.
The case was dismissed and the man found innocent.
This case should not even have come to court.
If was only because stupid lawyers could not be arsed to read the law properly.
Not remembering given consent is not the same as not giving consent.
The judge rebuked the female solicitor for not knowing the law.
The poor man was kept waiting months for the case to come to court.
Nice try but this is on tape:
Woman: I woke up and you guys were taking advantage of me.
Moreno: Nobody took advantage of you.
Woman: You were having sex with me. I was violated.
Moreno: No you weren’t — nothing happened.
Woman: You’re lying.
Moreno: OK. It turned from us trying to help you to getting really crazy.
Moreno: What do you remember?
Woman: I remember getting up the stairs and waking up on the bathroom floor. The next thing I know, I’m in my bed, you’re taking off my clothes and having sex with me.
Moreno: OK
Woman: OK?
Moreno: It wasn’t done intentionally. I didn’t mean to hurt you. I just got caught up. I’m sorry.
Woman: I need to know if I’m OK. Did you wear a condom — yes or no?
Moreno: Yes, I did. You don’t have to worry about any diseases or getting pregnant.
Woman: Was it only you?
Moreno: It was only me.
Moreno: If you stop drinking, I’ll be your boyfriend. I’m not a bad man. I’m a good friend to have.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358889/NY-police-officer-Kenneth-Morenos-chilling-taped-confession-rape-victim.html#ixzz1MjB8h6LB
I still say the woman has to take some responsibility for not getting so drunk in the first place.
Moreno definitely seems like a scumbag. (I said that in the original post.) Mata seems like an "abused productive" person caught up in something bad.
If I were on the jury, I'd hold out for "not guilty" for Mata. I'd be willing to make a "compromise verdict" and find Moreno guilty on some counts, especially for forging the 911 call.
You also called the woman a scumbag. Why? Because she got drunk? That's a bad choice but hardly a moral evil. Sorry, I just don't see how being drunk to unconsciousness gives a policeman a free pass to take your clothes off and have sex with you. And I don't think you would either, if you were on the receiving end. Am I wrong?
Based on my experience, people who get severely drunk have a defective character.
I would not have sex with someone who was severely drunk. However, "too drunk to consent" is not the same as "no consent". This is not the moral equivalent of him pulling out his gun and forcing her.
I'm happy to hear you have never once in your life been severely drunk. I suspect you are one of a small percentage of the adult population of this country, the majority of whom you would appear to be calling "scumbags."
Your (presumably sober) logic escapes me though. If someone is, in your own words, "too drunk to consent," how do you get from there to consent?
BTW, I didn't ask you if you would have sex with someone who was severely drunk. I asked you if you were severely drunk in your bed whether that would give a policeman a free pass to take off your clothes and penetrate you anally. Can I get you on the record here?
Since I never will be too drunk to consent, it's a moot point.
Yes, I have a low opinion of people who get so drunk that they pass out. You gotta have some personal responsibility.
Would Moreno or Mata physically assualt me if I passed them on the street? Probably not. There's no point to putting them in jail.
The scumbag woman is probably going to cash in via a civil lawsuit against the city. She has a financial incentive to lie.
Why should I pay higher taxes to pay for the cost of this trial? Why should I pay higher taxes to pay for the cost of the civil lawsuit this woman will file?
"Can't prove what happened" isn't the same as "can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped her".
Another question you might want to ask is why your taxes should be paying for a "public servant" to rape a semiconscious woman he's sworn to protect, in violation of the law that he is sworn to uphold.
You said it yourself: "You've gotta have some personal responsibility." If you break the law by committing the felony of having sex with someone who is too drunk to consent, you go to prison. Personal responsibility doesn't come any plainer than that. So: do you believe in personal responsibility or don't you?
»I still say the woman has to take some responsibility for not getting so drunk in the first place.«
Right, sure. But does she deserve to be raped if she's drunk? Sounds like you think so.
You say »'too drunk to consent' is not the same as 'no consent.' This is not the moral equivalent of him pulling out his gun and forcing her.«
The state sees it as rape no matter what rationalizations you've concocted in your head. She was incapacitated and the police were no ordinary passerby---THEY'RE THERE TO PROTECT AND SERVE. Do you get it yet?
I see this as a dispute where both parties did bad things, and not worth a criminal trial. Worth being fired from your policeman job? Worth a civil claim (against the policeman and not the government)? Yes. Worth a criminal trial? No.
You don't get it and you probably don't want to get it. The woman made a bad choice. The cop violated his oath and committed a felony, for which you, for some mysterious reason, don't think he should be held responsible. And yet here you blather on about personal responsibility? You commit a felony, you go to prison. Get it?
You have made it clear that you don't believe in the rule of law and that the helpless are fair game for anyone who wants to abuse them. Your misogyny could not be any more transparent. Personal responsibility? You don't know the meaning of the words.
I assert the opposite. You are guilty of misandry, for saying that the testimony of a drunk woman suffices for a false rape accusation.
With rape laws and sexual harassment laws, it's very much "guilty unless proven innocent".
I was the victim of a false accusation once. There's no due process.
What is accomplished, by sending Moreno and Mata to prison? Are they at risk for being repeat offenders?
Also, the woman filed a $40M+ lawsuit against the city and NYPD. She's a sleazy woman looking to cash in.
It's up to the jury to decide if he's guilty. He was caught on tape saying he had sex with her, and that he used a condom. So it's not her word against his, it's his own word against his. The jury will have to decide which of his stories they're going to believe.
His partner very conveniently claims to have been asleep on duty during the exact time this would have been happening. You don't seem stupid or naive -- does that sound the least bit fishy to you?
The thing that bothers me the most about what you've been saying is my impression that even if there was a tape of him having sex with her unconscious body, you still wouldn't send him to prison, but would instead let him walk, because she was (your word) a "scumbag" who drank to excess. If I'm wrong in this impression, please say so in plain English, because I would really prefer not to think that you are that morally bankrupt.
I'm a believer in compensation-based justice and not punishment-based justice.
If he really did have sex with her (IMHO there's no proof), I'd award her $50k-$100k damages, paid by him personally and not the NYC government.
So yes, even if he did have sex with her while drunk, I'd award financial damages but not imprison him.
If he had drugged her up, that's much more serious, but that's not the accusation here.
A $40M+ lawsuit against the city (paid via taxes) is silly.
FSK....You're a douchebag. You're also probably a rapist yourself! A woman's life should also be ruined for getting too drunk and making a bad choice? But isn't being raped enough turmoil for her already tragic life? And the officer who admitted to raping her while she wasn't even awake deserves to walk in your opinion? Wow! There is some evil and extreme ignorance in the world and you are definitely a part of it. You probably think it's ok to molest children who mis behave or beat the homeless for not having jobs too huh? Asshole....you make me sick to my stomach.
I am convinced this is a very important subject.
I still believe this is a false rape accusation. No matter what the jury says, I am convinced the policemen are innocent. I believe Moreno when he said "I told her what I thought she wanted to hear, so she would go away and leave me alone." The excerpts are quoted out of context. The whole conversation was not released.
I say the woman deserves to have her reputation ruined, for making a false rape accusation. Even if you believe her version of the story, she's an irresponsible drunk who deserved bad things to happen to her.
This post ranks high in Google now! I hope that any judge or juror in the civil trial reads this, and sees my point of view that this is a false rape accusation based on extremely flimsy evidence.
Why are you being so persistent, defending the woman making the false accusation? I say you are the scumbag, for promoting the idea that a woman can accuse a man of rape with zero evidence.
Update:They were acquitted of rape but found guilty of the lesser charge of "official misconduct". That sounds like a semi-reasonable compromise verdict.
If I were a juror, I might have held out for straight not guilty for Mata. He seems like a decent guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Moreno did come across as somewhat sleazy/parasitic.
The jurors apparently agreed with my argument which is "The evidence didn't overcome the prosecution's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
I have been very drunk in the past and had sex with women I would never have had sex with sober. I regret it in the morning, I realized I never would have consented if sober but I didn't feel I was a victim of anyone but myself and I certainly didn't run around trying to get the women put in prison. She is irresponsible and likes to blame others for her own misconduct that lead to the situation. She had semen of 3 other men in her bed she slept with while drunk. Did she take them to court?
She probably doesn't know the name of the other 3 men!
I don't like alcohol. Alcohol breath is disgusting.
Post a Comment