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?