Gotta love Florida.

[theweaselking]

Cop found not criminally liable for stalking woman, disabling his car's GPS, following her to a secluded area far outside his jurisdiction, stopping her illegally, and jerking off on her sweater.

There's nothing illegal about that, says the defense, because she's a stripper and so she really wanted it.

(Yes, this is the same state that arrested a woman on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant, denied her emergency birth control, and refused to investigate, when she went to the police to report that she'd been raped.)

Comments

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

I agree, I cannot think of any such evidence. But evidently the defense, the jury and the judge all could. There is clearly something being left out here.

When I was younger, I often had the joyful job of answering complaints against the arm of government in which I worked, and it repeatedly amazed me how often the facts were disputed rather than the application of the law. A court will often be presented with actual conflicting proof, which would require the event to have taken place in two different alternate worlds. The jury will then have to choose between one of the two realities.

[thette.livejournal.com]

Nope, it's just plain, ol' patriarchy. That's pretty much what happens to anyone but Napoli's "perfect victim" after a sexual assault.

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

Do you also have an explanation for this amazing fact? Are people with only one X chromosome just born inferior, or is it an inherent failure of the judicial system, which confuses accuser and accused in these cases?

[thette.livejournal.com]

If your Swedish is up to the task, these two books explains it rather well. With quottes from actual cases.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Hm.

Googling for every news article I could find that contains the phrase "Alex Park" and the word "Irvine", I have garnered the following impressions:

(1) The woman apparently did lie about some things (although given that it happened three years ago, I am inclined to be lenient about the fact that she said it happened her first day back at work there, when apparently she'd been back there for several days). This can't have made a good impression, and I am not claiming she is a saint.

(2) "Now, I know you eleven men--and one little lady, so nice to see you out here--are all good, upstanding members of the community, and you wouldn't want this fine, decorated gentleman--
(who was warned to stay away from strippers by his sergeant, who wasn't in his jursidiction, who didn't tell dispatch where he was going or what he was doing, who was arrested in November 2005 when a woman accused him of threatening to have her deported if she didn't have sex with him--preliminary hearing scheduled for March 5)
--to be persecuted for only doing what comes naturally when that over-sexed harlot came onto him. You *know* what she does. I've made sure you all know that she slides around on stage, rubbing that pole up and down between her legs--oh, none of you want to let anyone get away with *that*. Any man, even one whose sworn an oath to protect the public and donned a uniform, shouldn't have to restrain himself in the face of *that*. It's just unreasonable."

(I'm going to go vomit now.)

But really, I don't think anything's missing. Oh, look, a respected member of the community was charged with assaulting someone that society looks down on, and wasn't convicted.

I'd *like* to believe something was left out. But I don't see any reason to assume it.

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

If that is anywhere near a direct quote, I would venture to say that he was acquitted despite his defense rather than because of it.* Either that, or this place must be unimaginably primitive.

*)Often forgotten is that in these cases, the man is on trial rather than the woman, so that any reasonable doubt should count toward his acquittal. Due to the private nature of most sexual acts, reasonable doubt is the rule unless blood is spilled or shots fired. I'd hate to be a prosecutor specializing in sexual crimes.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

It's a bitter paraphrase, although the defense attorney did ask if she pole-danced, and if she got up on stage and rubbed up and down against the pole between her legs.

Given that the DNA testing confirmed that he'd come on her, and he admitted it, I don't think there's reasonable doubt that sexual activity occured.

Given that his sergeant had warned him to stay away from strippers, that other police officers said his behaviour that night was odd, that he'd left his jurisdiction without telling anyone, that he didn't tell dispatch what he was doing--the latter two seeming especially odd in light of the fact that the defense's story is that she offered sex to get out of a speeding ticket--and that the GPS unit in his car had been disabled, the idea that he was just a cop performing his legitimate duty who was swayed by the offer of a hand-job seems to exceed reasonable doubt.

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

It certainly would convince me. Which is the problem. If any vaguely post-medieval reader can realize that the jury's decision was just plain wrong, there are two alternatives that I can see: Either a majority of imbeciles have been drafted into jury duty, or the jury knows something we don't. The latter seems the most likely. (Even though as a foreigner, I would get a kick out of believing Americans really were that primitive.)

Ironically, I would have believed it easily if it wasn't so over the top. If there is the slightest doubt, even a Scandinavian jury would let a man off, since people have sex voluntarily under the most offbeat circumstances. It is the lack of any credible doubt that makes me suspicious. "Credo quia absurdum."

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> If any vaguely post-medieval reader can realize that the jury's
> decision was just plain wrong,

If you look at the comments on the newspaper stories, many readers do not hold the view that the jury's decision was just plain wrong.

So that is not the case.

> there are two alternatives that I can see: Either a majority of
> imbeciles have been drafted into jury duty, or the jury knows
> something we don't. The latter seems the most likely.

Does it still seem most likely when you take into account the fact that the latter situation would have to be "the jury knows something we don't, and none of the newspaper articles on the story mentioned this key information?"

I'd like to believe better of people myself, but when I have to say "well, maybe the jury has additional information that leads any reasonable person to believe that Parks has a perfectly good and upstanding reason for ejaculating on someone he pulled over outside of his jurisdiction while not following procedure, but the defense didn't want it getting out, and none of the newspapers reported it, and none of the newspapers even reported that there *were* other considerations, and there's no indication that anything was said to the jury that was kept from the press"--

--well, it's certainly *possible*.

But to my mind, believing that it's more *likely* than that a random sample of twelve people decided something disgusting requires just a little too much mental contortion.