Cop Headed to Trial for Raping a Child While Other Officers Watched

[Suzanimal]

I searched this story and nothing came up, sorry if it's a dupe.


Pharr, TX — Trial is set to begin December 1, in the case of former Pharr police officer Erasmo Mata, Jr., accused of repeated first-degree felony sexual assaults of a child.

A federal civil lawsuit filed with Texas Southern District Court back in May accused Mata of assaulting the minor five times, on five separate occasions, all while on duty. The suit alleges that the attacks took place in abandoned houses around the city as other Pharr police officers stood by and watched.

The lawsuit also accused the department of engaging in a cover-up to protect the officers from criminal charges, as well as not conducting a rape kit or immediately testing the evidence.

The lawsuit was filed against the officer, the City of Pharr, the Pharr Police Department and the Pharr police chief.

Claims against the City of Pharr and the Pharr Police Chief Ruben Villescas were dismissed, however the motion to dismiss Mata was denied.

The Pharr Police Department did an internal investigation, but the family claims Chief Villescas told them not to hire an attorney and that he would personally take care of the allegations against the officer, Valley Central reports.

While the officers were terminated, neither Mata, nor the officers who allegedly watched, initially faced any criminal charges for the 2013 attacks.

After the lawsuit was filed, the lawyer for the teen asked the Texas Rangers to conduct their own investigation into the allegations. The Rangers found the accusations to be accurate and turned over the results to prosecutors, who presented the case to a grand jury and indicted Mata on July 30.

Pharr’s city attorneys deny that other officers watched the sexual assaults.

...


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/trial-date-set-cop-accused-raping-teenage-girl-officers-watched/#Famp1sUVLt3OFPGV.99



Federal lawsuit accuses on-duty officer of raping minor, PD cover-up
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1045770#.VFY6d_nF_4Y

[pcosmar]

I searched this story and nothing came up, sorry if it's a dupe.





Federal lawsuit accuses on-duty officer of raping minor, PD cover-up
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1045770#.VFY6d_nF_4Y

So??
Will the other officers be witnesses for or against?

[tod evans]

So??
Will the other officers be witnesses for or against?

Pensions will weigh heavily in any decisions......:rolleyes:

[jkr]

HERO

[phill4paul]

HERO

Correction. "Heroes."


Isolated incident? Hardly.

Sexual misconduct is the second highest of all complaints nationwide against police officers, representing 9.3 percent in 2010, according to an unofficial study.

In 2010, 354 of the 618 complaints involved non consensual sexual acts, and over half of those involved were minors.

Earlier this month we reported on an officer in charge of a rape case who is accused of stalking and sexually harassing the victim.

Last month Oklahoma made headlines with three serial rapists in 3 weeks, all officers, as well as one police chief molesting children.

In July, a former New York Police Department officer convicted of planning to kidnap and rape women before killing and eating them was set to go free after a federal judge overturned his conviction.


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/trial-date-set-cop-accused-raping-teenage-girl-officers-watched/#7Mt8t0lAj54oHVe5.99

[Cleaner44]

Here is a video report from Aug 19:
http://www.krgv.com/news/former-pharr-police-officer-indicted-in-sexual-assault/

[Mani]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/lawsuit-police-officer-sexually-assaulted-minor-five-times-while-officers-watched

....Other Pharr officers were allegedly aware of the assaults and stood watch while Mata raped the underaged girl. (nah, there's no blue law.....:rolleyes:)

The lawsuit was filed after the Pharr Police Department declined to press charges against Mata and the involved officers. (Nah....There's no blue wall....The pd just didn't think there was any reason to charge those guys....) The victim’s family claims that Pharr Police Chief Ruben Villescas instructed them not to hire an attorney and said he would discipline the officers himself. (Don't worry family of daughter being raped again and again....I'll give that officer the proper slap on the wrist he deserves!)...The family ignored Villesca’s request and went forward with the lawsuit.

Soon after filing the lawsuit, the family asked the Texas Rangers to investigate their claims. The Rangers found that the victim’s accusations were supported by evidence and turned the evidence over to prosecutors.

The lawsuit was originally filed against Mata, the Pharr Police Department, the city of Pharr and Police Chief Ruben Villescas. The claims against Villescas (how does the piece of shit Chief protecting his own not get in trouble? BS) and the city of Pharr were dismissed by the court.
- See more at: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/lawsuit-police-officer-sexually-assaulted-minor-five-times-while-officers-watched#sthash.Y4cS5blO.dpuf

[heavenlyboy34]

:mad: :mad: :mad: GET A ROPE!!

[RJB]

Cop Headed to Trial for Raping a Child While Other Officers Watched

Federal lawsuit accuses on-duty officer of raping minor, PD cover-up
This is so screwed up, yet people will shrug off this police ACTION and COVER UP, yet call people scary for what they write in the Frein thread.

[Christian Liberty]

This is so screwed up, yet people will shrug off this police ACTION and COVER UP, yet call people scary for what they write in the Frein thread.

I don't honestly care that much about Frein. He killed a gang member. Still not right (barring possible info that I don't have) but I don't see my way to particularly care. If I knew the gang member would I care? Probably. But I don't. So meh.

But when those who are supposedly supposed to "protect and serve" commit rape in broad daylight, and this sick and twisted society may well let them get away with it, yeah, that is going to tick me off.

At least Frein didn't pick an innocent target. I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but at least the target wasn't innocent. He was a thief at bare minimum.

[Occam's Banana]

The suit alleges that the attacks took place in abandoned houses around the city as other Pharr police officers stood by and watched.

The lawsuit also accused the department of engaging in a cover-up to protect the officers from criminal charges, as well as not conducting a rape kit or immediately testing the evidence.

[... T]he family claims Chief Villescas told them not to hire an attorney and that he would personally take care of the allegations against the officer [...]


Earlier this month we reported on an officer in charge of a rape case who is accused of stalking and sexually harassing the victim.

Last month Oklahoma made headlines with three serial rapists in 3 weeks, all officers, as well as one police chief molesting children.

Nothing to see here ... just a few "bad apples" ... move along, move along ...

[r3volution 3.0]

So....promotion?

[Spikender]

Thin blue line ain't so thin after all.

I want to know what monsters stood by and watching a man rape a minor.

I wish I could strangle them all to death with my own hands.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Just to play devils advocate...

The SAME girl(?) FIVE different times...

Was she turning tricks? "put out and I won't take you to jail" is rather common in that situation.

"rape" in this situation is statutory, and very possibly with her enthusiastic participation.
They could have also been having a consensual relationship - till the state got involved...

-t

ps: they said teen and underage. We are not talking about a 5yo here. Until not that long ago, having consensual sex with a 20yo in DE and a few other states was "child rape".

[TheTexan]

Is there any proof?

[alucard13mm]

This guy is a cop, child molester and rapist... he is gonna have a good time in prison.

[Spikender]

Is there any proof?

Good point. This is one of America's heroes we're talking about here, we need more evidence. Where's the DNA/Video/Witness/Circumstantial evidence? No dashboard footage from inside the warehouses?

[jonhowe]

Good point. This is one of America's heroes we're talking about here, we need more evidence. Where's the DNA/Video/Witness/Circumstantial evidence? No dashboard footage from inside the warehouses?

Should cops be convicted by mere accusation?


"A speeding ticket, eh? STOP TOUCHING MY CROTCH!"












(That being said, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence against him here, it was more the larger point you were making that I object to. I suspect that a reasonable jury would convict were he not a cop; as a cop, who knows. I have no idea if he's ACTUALLY guilty, though, as I don't have all the evidence.)

[Constitutional Paulicy]

I ask you with all sincerity. How can a father refrain from retaliation in a matter of this magnitude? Nothing, and I mean nothing, could stop me from taking the law into my own hands. My justice would be delivered, and it would be brutal.

[Slave Mentality]

I ask you with all sincerity. How can a father refrain from retaliation in a matter of this magnitude? Nothing, and I mean nothing, could stop me from taking the law into my own hands. My justice would be delivered, and it would be brutal.

Right there with you on that. My murder trial would be pending.

[presence]

I cannot agree that the aggressive tactics of Cop A, Cop B, and Cop C, allows for the murder of Cop D

[tangent4ronpaul]

The SAME girl on FIVE different occasions?

Ya think they knew each other?
Ya think this might have been consensual?

If he just gets off on raping girls, where is girlB and girlC?, etc.

-t

[CaptainAmerica]

not surprised, nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to "law enforcement" officers.

[morfeeis]

What i never understand about stories like this is; where are all of the men in this young ladies life? had this been my sister, my daughter, or any close friend i would be the one on trial and not him or the those involved.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I've seen no mention of age for either of them, other than she is a "teen" and "adolescent". Outside of the highly inflammatory CHILD RAPIST in the title, just for giggles lets say she's 17 and he's 19. And there is this imaginary line in the sand imposed by the state that says their consensual relationship is illegal.

Would you still be as outraged? Would you?

-t

[pcosmar]

(That being said, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence against him here, it was more the larger point you were making that I object to. I suspect that a reasonable jury would convict were he not a cop; as a cop, who knows. I have no idea if he's ACTUALLY guilty, though, as I don't have all the evidence.)

I don't know,, but the Texas Rangers found enough for him and several others to be fired by the city,, after they tried unsuccessfully to cover it up.

I wonder what is wrong with the townspeople? Why are any of these people still in their jobs? Why are they still sucking air?

[LibForestPaul]

:mad: :mad: :mad: GET A ROPE!!

Lots of ropes. Oh, never better be anyone in my family.

[r3volution 3.0]

I've seen no mention of age for either of them, other than she is a "teen" and "adolescent". Outside of the highly inflammatory CHILD RAPIST in the title, just for giggles lets say she's 17 and he's 19. And there is this imaginary line in the sand imposed by the state that says their consensual relationship is illegal.

Would you still be as outraged? Would you?

-t

What makes you think it was consensual?

The article said nothing about statutory rape, it just said rape.

It also refers to "attacks." I don't think anyone would call statutory rape an "attack."

[Brian4Liberty]

The SAME girl on FIVE different occasions?

Ya think they knew each other?
Ya think this might have been consensual?


But then we couldn't scream for ropes and hangin's and such... it's for the children!


Erasmo Mata Jr. is accused of raping a 17-year-old old girl while on duty at least five times between July and October 2013 as fellow Pharr Police Department officers watched, reported The Brownsville Herald.

An attorney for the teen’s family said Police Chief Ruben Villescas tried to cover up the case after they reported the assaults by urging them not to hire an attorney.

The girl’s family has filed a lawsuit against the city, its police department and police chief, and the 25-year-old Mata – who was fired after an internal investigation found evidence of misconduct with the victim.

The city’s attorneys denied other officers witnessed the assaults or took the girl to abandoned homes throughout the city along the U.S.-Mexico border – as claimed in the lawsuit.

No other officers have been charged in the case.
...
More:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/former-texas-cop-accused-of-raping-teen-girl-while-other-officers-watched/


When her parents found out about the alleged sexual assault, they went to the police to file a complaint and “nothing was ever done,” according to documents filed on behalf of the minor.

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1045770

Obviously, the guy needed to be fired. There is no reasonable doubt about that. Doing something like this "under the color of authority" and while on the taxpayers dollar is a gross violation of the job.

[tangent4ronpaul]

What makes you think it was consensual?

The article said nothing about statutory rape, it just said rape.

It also refers to "attacks." I don't think anyone would call statutory rape an "attack."

Unless more details come out, I'm giving the cop the benefit of the doubt. That there are no other "victims" so far says consensual. That it happened on FIVE separate occasions with the SAME girl says consensual.

consensual sex crossing legal line in sand = statutory rape = rape
rape = attacked
child != adolescent != teen
bolded = SELLS NEWSPAPERS! sensationalism always does.

If anyone finds additional details, I may well change my opinion, but for now, I call consensual.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

But then we couldn't scream for ropes and hangin's and such... it's for the children!





Obviously, the guy needed to be fired. There is no reasonable doubt about that. Doing something like this "under the color of authority" and while on the taxpayers dollar is a gross violation of the job.

Thank you B4L! I completely agree that he should have gotten fired for doing it on the job. Now that we know their ages, I'm thinking more strongly it was consensual. This is sounding like parental freak out too me... maybe prompted by a "umm, mom - I think I might be a little prego..." type statement.

-t

[r3volution 3.0]

@tangent4ronpaul

Check this (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1115381#.VFgijMk551I) out:


If convicted, Mata is facing up to 99 years behind bars.

You get 99 years for statutory rape in Texas?


That it happened on FIVE separate occasions with the same girl says consensual.

I see your point, but we know nothing about the girl.

Suppose she was a prostitute, homeless drug user, illegal immigrant, or someone else who might have come into repeated contact with the police?

[kcchiefs6465]

@tangent4ronpaul

Check this (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1115381#.VFgijMk551I) out:



You get 99 years for statutory rape in Texas?



I see your point, but we know nothing about the girl.

Suppose she was a prostitute, homeless drug user, illegal immigrant, or someone else who might have come into repeated contact with the police?
Suppose the pig raped a woman...

[r3volution 3.0]

Suppose the pig raped a woman...

That's exactly what I'm saying....:confused:

[kcchiefs6465]

That's exactly what I'm saying....:confused:
My response wasn't towards you.

Though I do find the speculation that she was a prostitute or drug addict, etc. a little bit out of line. I've simply seen nothing to warrant it.

[r3volution 3.0]

My response wasn't towards you.

My mistake. Since you quoted me, I assumed you were responding to me....


Though I do find the speculation that she was a prostitute or drug addict, etc. a little bit out of line. I've simply seen nothing to warrant it.

I think you missed the point.

I was responding to tangent4ronpaul, who suggested that this might be statutory rape, rather than forcible rape, since it seems odd that somebody would forcibly rape the same person on five separate occasions. And, indeed, that does seem odd. But I retorted that, if she was somebody who had routine contact with the police (like a prostitute, homeless person, etc), that might explain how he managed to rape her five separate times.

If you thought I was blaming the victim, or something to that effect, you misunderstood.

In my view, forcible rape should be a capital offense. If he's guilty of it, he should be executed.

[tangent4ronpaul]

My response wasn't towards you.

Though I do find the speculation that she was a prostitute or drug addict, etc. a little bit out of line. I've simply seen nothing to warrant it.

I think I threw out a hypothesis that she was a hooker and doing it to avoid jail early in this thread. Currently I'm thinking consensual relationship.

It will be interesting to see where this goes as more details become available.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

In my view, forcible rape should be a capital offense. If he's guilty of it, he should be executed.

forcible rape or consensual statutory rape?

-t

[Christian Liberty]

I think I threw out a hypothesis that she was a hooker and doing it to avoid jail early in this thread.

In my mind that's still a capital offense, believe it or not. Think about it. That isn't "consensual" at all, its telling someone you won't throw them in a cage if they sleep with you.

Of course, that's just a reminder to me of how evil the police really are. A person who takes advantage of their power in order to sleep with someone is not ignorant of how evil they are. And thus, they should die.

[Christian Liberty]

forcible rape or consensual statutory rape?

-t

He specifially said forcible rape.

[r3volution 3.0]

forcible rape or consensual statutory rape?

forcible rape....that's why I said forcible rape

:confused:

[tangent4ronpaul]

Houston - we might have a lil problem here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Texas

Texas
The age of consent in Texas is 17 (Texas Penal Code Section 21.11). However, "...It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor...was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex...(and) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offence" and is not a registered sex offender Section 21.11 (b), Section 22.011 (e).

Section 21.12 further prohibits all sexual contact between an employee of a school (including educators) and a student enrolled at the primary or secondary school where said employee works (unless the student is the employee's spouse). No age is specified by the statute (thus, even if the student has reached consent age of 17, it is still a violation), and violations are a second degree felony.

The portion criminalizing all relations between teachers and students was passed in 2003. The law's author stated that he only intended to criminalize sexual relations of students 17 and under. During a period after the bill's author made those statements, a teacher engaged in sexual intercourse with her 18-year-old student, and a Texas court refused to indict her.[79]

However, sex with a child under the age of 14 is considered aggravated sexual assault Section 22.021 (a.2.B).

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

forcible rape....that's why I said forcible rape

:confused:

kk - just wanted to clarify.

-t

[kcchiefs6465]

My mistake. Since you quoted me, I assumed you were responding to me....
I respond to things to make a point. Whoever offers a chance for a point to made, I am quoting. I'd read the thread and knew your position. I apologize if what I wrote inferred something negative about you in general (to people who had not read the thread).



I think you missed the point.

I was responding to tangent4ronpaul, who suggested that this might be statutory rape, rather than forcible rape, since it seems odd that somebody would forcibly rape the same person on five separate occasions. And, indeed, that does seem odd. But I retorted that, if she was somebody who had routine contact with the police (like a prostitute, homeless person, etc), that might explain how he managed to rape her five separate times.

If you thought I was blaming the victim, or something to that effect, you misunderstood.

In my view, forcible rape should be a capital offense. If he's guilty of it, he should be executed.
Well I'd imagine if you asked those who've been raped if five times is out of the ordinary, they'd say that that isn't particularly so.

In a completely hypothetical though not too unfeasible scenario, a woman is pulled over for anything, probably nothing. The cop uses supposed (and recognized) color of law to coerce her into doing something against her will. He then uses that as a means to extort said woman.

[r3volution 3.0]

However, sex with a child under the age of 14 is considered aggravated sexual assault Section 22.021 (a.2.B).

Ah hah, well there you have it.

She was under 14.

And that's the same as forcible rape in my book.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Ah hah, well there you have it.

She was under 14.

And that's the same as forcible rape in my book.

She's 17. Read back in the thread.

-t

[r3volution 3.0]

She's 17. Read back in the thread.

-t

Hmm...

Yes I see that reference in the one article, but that same article states the charge as "child sexual assault."

Others refer to the charges as "first-degree felony sexual assaults of a child" and " sexual assault of a child."

That suggests she was under 14 at the time, based on what you quoted from wiki re the Texas law:


Texas
The age of consent in Texas is 17 (Texas Penal Code Section 21.11). However, "...It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor...was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex...(and) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offence" and is not a registered sex offender Section 21.11 (b), Section 22.011 (e).

Section 21.12 further prohibits all sexual contact between an employee of a school (including educators) and a student enrolled at the primary or secondary school where said employee works (unless the student is the employee's spouse). No age is specified by the statute (thus, even if the student has reached consent age of 17, it is still a violation), and violations are a second degree felony.

The portion criminalizing all relations between teachers and students was passed in 2003. The law's author stated that he only intended to criminalize sexual relations of students 17 and under. During a period after the bill's author made those statements, a teacher engaged in sexual intercourse with her 18-year-old student, and a Texas court refused to indict her.[79]

However, sex with a child under the age of 14 is considered aggravated sexual assault Section 22.021 (a.2.B).

The sexual assault language seems to be reserved for the under 14 cases, and the over 14 cases are apparently only 2nd degree felonies, whereas the one article states that the cop's charge is a 1st degree felony. Also, I reiterate that 99 years seems a bit steep for statutory rape, don't you think?

[Brian4Liberty]

Hmm...

Yes I see that reference in the one article, but that same article states the charge as "child sexual assault."

Others refer to the charges as "first-degree felony sexual assaults of a child" and " sexual assault of a child."

That suggests she was under 14 at the time, based on what you quoted from wiki re the Texas law:


Feel free to find other sources to verify her age. Google often comes in handy.

[Occam's Banana]

Unless more details come out, I'm giving the cop the benefit of the doubt.

Under the current "system" as it stands, I am always willing to accept that a cop is innocent of some particular wrongdoing of which he has been accused - but only when there is what might be called a "preponderance of evidence" (to use one of the "system's" phrases) that he is innocent.

Otherwise ...

I will not give cops the benefit of the doubt - because they enjoy a very thick layer of guilt-protecting moral hazards. They already have the (much more enormous) benefits of things like qualified immunity, special priveleges, state sponsorship, extra-legal procedures geared towards producing exonerations and white-washings (e.g,, internal police dept. "investigations"), etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Police are the enforcement arm of a legal system that will generally back them to the hilt in all but the most toxically egregious and highly-publicized cases.

IOW: "Bad cop! No presumption of innocence!" ...


That there are no other "victims" so far says consensual. That it happened on FIVE separate occasions with the same girl says consensual.

The problem is that the guy is a cop.

This introduces a "color of authority" angle that brings the validity of any "consent" (even repeated, explicit consent) into serious question.

[r3volution 3.0]

@Brian

The reporting appears to contradict itself.

Look at the statute (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.21.htm#21.11).

If she's 17 now, 16 last year at the time of the incident, then the crime is "Indecency With a Child," which is a second degree felony, not "first-degree felony sexual assaults of a child," as has been reported. And once more, though I didn't find the peanlty for "Indecency With a Child," I seriously doubt it's 99 years, as was reported.

:confused:

[Brian4Liberty]

@Brian

The reporting appears to contradict itself.

Look at the statute (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.21.htm#21.11).

If she's 17 now, 16 last year at the time of the incident, then the crime is "Indecency With a Child," which is a second degree felony, not "first-degree felony sexual assaults of a child," as has been reported. And once more, though I didn't find the peanlty for "Indecency With a Child," I seriously doubt it's 99 years, as was reported.

:confused:

Every report with her age, and there are quite a few, list her age at 17 at the time of the incident. She must be 18 today.


Erasmo Mata Jr., 25, is accused of having sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl during work hours on five separate incidents from July to October 2013, records show.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/valley/article_f56318ec-28e3-11e4-b6dc-0017a43b2370.html

[r3volution 3.0]

@Brian

If she was 17 then, it can't have been statutory rape, since the age of consent is 17: in which case it must have been actual rape - which also fits better with the report that's he's facing up to 99 years.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Hmm...

Yes I see that reference in the one article, but that same article states the charge as "child sexual assault."

Others refer to the charges as "first-degree felony sexual assaults of a child" and " sexual assault of a child."

That suggests she was under 14 at the time, based on what you quoted from wiki re the Texas law:



The sexual assault language seems to be reserved for the under 14 cases, and the over 14 cases are apparently only 2nd degree felonies, whereas the one article states that the cop's charge is a 1st degree felony. Also, I reiterate that 99 years seems a bit steep for statutory rape, don't you think?

OK, You made some good comments/points.

I'd like to point out that legalize is like NewSpeak.

In some states "involuntary touching" is viewed as "rape"
Punch someone in the face = rape
trip over your shoe lace and your shoulder brushes theirs? = rape

all states:
Forcibly and violently sexually penetrating another individual = rape

In Texas, possessing laboratory equipment useful for the production of methamphetamine is a felony! These include:
A hot plate
A distillation apparatus
A filter and funnel
A beaker

That is the definition of a coffee pot.

How many Texans do you think own coffee pots?

It is worth noting that most congress critters are lawyers and use this weasel language to achive their ends. For example:

Assault "weapons"(sic) is a legal fiction, created by Congress to describe something "evil" looking with no consideration on it's performance. They are semi-automatic.
A Assault "rifle" is a vary well defined by the military selective fire (full auto machine gun to single shot). It's compact, light weight and uses light weight ammo so you can carry tons of it. spray and play.


As to journalists ability to get things right, especially legal issues - of which we already see 2 contradictions, I present to you:

3342

I think the parents are suing in a get rich quick scheme based on the cop being in a position of authority at the time and being more than 3 years older. It's a stretch...

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

@Brian

If she was 17 then, it can't have been statutory rape, since the age of consent is 17: in which case it must have been actual rape - which also fits better with the report that's he's facing up to 99 years.

statutory rape = actual rape???

so if she was 16 it suddenly becomes violent, forced, non-consensual rape? Even if she was the aggressor and was totally into it?

btw: the AOC in my state is 16...

-t

[Brian4Liberty]

3343

[r3volution 3.0]

Okay, I think I've figured it out.

1. The girl's age is repeatedly stated as 17, but several articles also refer to her as a minor (which means under 17), and state the charges against the cop as "sexual assault of a child (which means under 17)" - suggesting that she is 17 now but was 16 a the time of the incident.

2. It is stated that the cop is charged with a 1st degree felony. But statutory rape is, per the penal code, only a second degree felony, so the charge cannot be statutory rape.

3. It is stated that the cop was charged with "sexual assault." There are two related listings in the TX penal code: "sexual assault" and "aggravated sexual assault," both of which means forcible rape. But only the latter is a 1st degree felony. There's also a sub-category under "aggravated sexual assault" pertaining to when the victim is a child.

So, I conclude that the charge is "aggravated sexual assault of a child," which, in English, means the charge is forcible rape of a minor - not statutory rape.

I'm not saying he's guilty, but that's the charge.

[r3volution 3.0]

statutory rape = actual rape???

so if she was 16 it suddenly becomes violent, forced, non-consensual rape? Even if she was the aggressor and was totally into it?

btw: the AOC in my state is 16...

-t

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/001/582/picard-facepalm.jpg

No. Reread what I wrote.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Okay, I think I've figured it out.

1. The girl's age is repeatedly stated as 17, but several articles also refer to her as a minor (which means under 17), and state the charges against the cop as "sexual assault of a child (which means under 17)" - suggesting that she is 17 now but was 16 a the time of the incident.

2. It is stated that the cop is charged with a 1st degree felony. But statutory rape is, per the penal code, only a second degree felony, so the charge cannot be statutory rape.

We've been arguing about whether it was statutory or forcible rape.

The answer is: she was 16 at the time and it was forcible rape.

Specifically, the charge per the penal code is "aggravated sexual assault," which is a first degree felony.

It fits. Statutory rape does not.

The mere fact that you have to be a private eye to figure out these details underscores the problem. Our puritanical, fascist sex laws equate 5 year olds with 17 year olds, and forcible rape with consensual sex.

Should a cop be punished for forcing a teen into prostitution? Absolutely. But by lumping these things all together as "rape of a child" we are, by implication and in deed, not properly respecting the well-being of *actual* children or the horror of forcible, violent rape.

There should be a qualitative, not quantitative difference in how the law deals with these things. For instance, it's a big deal to me that Ben Rothlesberger drugged a teenager and forcibly raped her while she was semi-conscious in a bathroom stall. It's NOT a big deal that she was 19 as opposed to 16 or 17 years old, but that minor (excuse the pun) detail probably saved his career and kept him out of prison, because it's the first thing the public and media are trained to think about. That's a hideous shame, because he deserves to be behind bars for a long time.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Okay, I think I've figured it out.

1. The girl's age is repeatedly stated as 17, but several articles also refer to her as a minor (which means under 17), and state the charges against the cop as "sexual assault of a child (which means under 17)" - suggesting that she is 17 now but was 16 a the time of the incident.

2. It is stated that the cop is charged with a 1st degree felony. But statutory rape is, per the penal code, only a second degree felony, so the charge cannot be statutory rape.

We've been arguing about whether it was statutory or forcible rape.

The answer is: she was 16 at the time and it was forcible rape.

Specifically, the charge per the penal code is "aggravated sexual assault," which is a first degree felony.

It fits. Statutory rape does not.

I think you had a brain fart - but then again, it's maybe mine IDK...

Sooo much wrong with your post, I don't know where to start. Re-thunk it, hu?

ps: start with the assumption that the reporters and editors with a political agenda usually F up
and reporters with no legal training usually F it up.

kk?

-

[KurtBoyer25L]

In my mind that's still a capital offense, believe it or not. Think about it. That isn't "consensual" at all, its telling someone you won't throw them in a cage if they sleep with you.

Of course, that's just a reminder to me of how evil the police really are. A person who takes advantage of their power in order to sleep with someone is not ignorant of how evil they are. And thus, they should die.

By this standard, should we execute every rich celebrity who marries a young gold-digger?

[KurtBoyer25L]

I don't know,, but the Texas Rangers found enough for him and several others to be fired by the city,, after they tried unsuccessfully to cover it up.

I wonder what is wrong with the townspeople? Why are any of these people still in their jobs? Why are they still sucking air?

Why on God's green earth would they have a baseball team in charge of stuff like this? Those guys are dirtbags.
:P

[r3volution 3.0]

The mere fact that you have to be a private eye to figure out these details underscores the problem. Our puritanical, fascist sex laws equate 5 year olds with 17 year olds, and forcible rape with consensual sex.

No, you don't get it.

The news article says that the cop was charged with a 1st degree felony.

Consensual sex with a minor is not a 1st degree felony.

Therefore, the cop is not charged with having consensual sex with a minor.

The charge must be something else, something which is a 1st degree felony.

Follow me?

[KurtBoyer25L]

No, you don't get it.

The news article says that the cop was charged with a 1st degree felony.

Consensual sex with a minor is not a 1st degree felony.

Therefore, the cop is not charged with having consensual sex with a minor.

The charge must be something else, something which is a 1st degree felony.

Follow me?

No, I don't, because I wasn't commenting on the specifics of this case but rather on how these stories are reported, which is to say a group of indignant political message board posters have to bitch at each other while combing the fine details and doing a pile of research to figure out if A) a cop has a relationship with a 17 year old hooker or B) a cop violently raped a grade-school kid multiple times.

You shouldn't have to figure it out by carefully piecing over the terminology, it should be front and center. Sure, this time there might be a make-the-cops-look-bad-at-all-costs agenda on behalf of the news source, but I see the same willful blindness on behalf of the AP all the time.

[Christian Liberty]

By this standard, should we execute every rich celebrity who marries a young gold-digger?

How is that comparable at all? Are rich celebrities threatening to lock young gold diggers in a cge if they don't comply?

[LibForestPaul]

Every report with her age, and there are quite a few, list her age at 17 at the time of the incident. She must be 18 today.
An enforcer with a badge and gun while others looked on, still getting the rope.