Cop charged with raping woman during traffic stop

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:

>On 1 Jul 2006 21:31:15 -0700, wrote:
>
>>
>>B1ackWater wrote:
>>> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/p.../NEWS/60628035
>>> >
>>> >Laurel officer charged with raping woman during car stop
>>> >By CRIS BARRISH and TERRI SANGINITI
>>> >The News Journal 06/28/2006
>>> >
>>> >A Laurel police officer was arrested today for allegedly raping a
>>> >55-year-old Delmar, Md., woman during an early morning car stop in
>>> >March.
>>> >
>>> >Officer Kevin D. Hovatter, 28, of Laurel, was charged with two counts
>>> >of first-degree rape, official misconduct and acts constituting
>>> >coercion. He was released on $72,000 secured bail.
>>>
>>> Let's see now ... he's 28, the alleged victim is 55. Sounds
>>> more like a case of wishful thinking on the 'victims' part
>>> than a likely crime.
>>
>>turdwater, one of the sickest damn reichwing ****s on the Internet.
>>Asshole, there are cases of 80 year old women being raped. But of
>>course, you know from your own sexual deviancies, sex for some is about
>>power, not desire.
>
>Oh blow it out your legwarmers. We don't want to hear that feminist
>crapola.

Well, they kept repeating that femminist crapola over and over
and over again until it kinda became the official "truth".

Weirdly, the de-sexualization of rape ... doesn't it reek of
a Victorian aversion to eros ? Rape victims need not feel
'contaminated' or 'defiled' because no eros was involved in
their attack ? I suspect those femminists weren't quite as
'forward looking' as they claimed to be - rotten with
puritan perspectives instead.

"Furious George" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> The stuff going on in Iraq -- is that war or is it violent forcible
> war?

Apparently neither. If it were war, we would have to observe
the Geneva Convention.

Do you have an issue with my making the distinction between
rape and forcible rape? I do so because the word rape has
been diluted by including "sex with someone who has had
a few drinks" and "sex between a doctor and a patient", or
"sex between any two people where the male has more
authority or social status than the female".

Do you not recognize a distinction between statutory rape
and forcible rape? If a 21 year old male has sex with a
17 year old female, do you truly think that it makes no
difference whether she was willing or forced?


> > I'm not gonna argue that it's OK for a cop to have sex with
> > someone he/she has in custody.
>
> But you believe it is OK, right? Come on and admit it.

Kiss my ass.

"Harry K" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Michael Snyder wrote:
> > "Dark Magus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:18:25 -0700, "Michael Snyder"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Next thing you will be telling us is there's "half pregnant" and
"full
> > > >> pregnant".
> > >
> > > >Congratulations, Dingus. I only met you three posts ago,
> > > >and already I'm on the verge of deciding that you're not
> > > >worth my attention.
> > >
> > > Go ahead and run off if you can't handle my criticisms. That tells us
> > > you are 13 years old.
> >
> > ... by "us", I presume you are referring to all the lurkers who support
you.
> >
> >
> > > Don't forget to plonk on your way out.
> >
> > <plonk>
>
> You seem to have some strange (to say the least) definition of "rape"

Why do you say so? I don't believe I have said anything in
this discussion to suggest a non-standard definition of rape.

I *have* suggested a distinction between FORCIBLE rape,
and what we might call "the extended definition of rape",
which includes situations in which both parties give every
indication of consent at the time, but for one reason or another
someone believes that one party is incapable of giving consent.

> How about giving us your understanding of what constitutes rape. The
> DNA in the underwear bit is a good example. You do not need to have
> penetration by penis to have "rape".

No -- but you do have to have LACK OF CONSENT. How do you
figure that DNA in the underwear proves that? Even assuming that
DNA equals semen, it says nothing about whether she consented.

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:45:34 GMT, B1ackWater > wrote:

>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>

>>>
>>>turdwater, one of the sickest damn reichwing ****s on the Internet.
>>>Asshole, there are cases of 80 year old women being raped. But of
>>>course, you know from your own sexual deviancies, sex for some is about
>>>power, not desire.
>>
>>Oh blow it out your legwarmers. We don't want to hear that feminist
>>crapola.
>
> Well, they kept repeating that femminist crapola over and over
> and over again until it kinda became the official "truth".
>

It's not official truth to me. Learn how to think for yourself.

Michael Snyder wrote:
> "Furious George" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > The stuff going on in Iraq -- is that war or is it violent forcible
> > war?
>
> Apparently neither. If it were war, we would have to observe
> the Geneva Convention.

That explains a lot. If it were rape, you would have to go to
jail...so let's call it something else.

>
> Do you have an issue with my making the distinction between
> rape and forcible rape? I do so because the word rape has
> been diluted by including "sex with someone who has had
> a few drinks" and "sex between a doctor and a patient", or
> "sex between any two people where the male has more
> authority or social status than the female".

Whatever. Keep your fantasies to yourself and keep it zipped up, perv.

>
> Do you not recognize a distinction between statutory rape
> and forcible rape? If a 21 year old male has sex with a
> 17 year old female, do you truly think that it makes no
> difference whether she was willing or forced?
>
>
> > > I'm not gonna argue that it's OK for a cop to have sex with
> > > someone he/she has in custody.
> >
> > But you believe it is OK, right? Come on and admit it.
>
> Kiss my ass.

Michael Snyder wrote:
> "Harry K" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > "Dark Magus" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:18:25 -0700, "Michael Snyder"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Next thing you will be telling us is there's "half pregnant" and
> "full
> > > > >> pregnant".
> > > >
> > > > >Congratulations, Dingus. I only met you three posts ago,
> > > > >and already I'm on the verge of deciding that you're not
> > > > >worth my attention.
> > > >
> > > > Go ahead and run off if you can't handle my criticisms. That tells us
> > > > you are 13 years old.
> > >
> > > ... by "us", I presume you are referring to all the lurkers who support
> you.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Don't forget to plonk on your way out.
> > >
> > > <plonk>
> >
> > You seem to have some strange (to say the least) definition of "rape"
>
> Why do you say so? I don't believe I have said anything in
> this discussion to suggest a non-standard definition of rape.
>
> I *have* suggested a distinction between FORCIBLE rape,
> and what we might call "the extended definition of rape",
> which includes situations in which both parties give every
> indication of consent at the time, but for one reason or another
> someone believes that one party is incapable of giving consent.

In the eyes of the law, rape is rape. There is some consideration
given during prosecution and sentencing.

In the case under discussion, it is a clear case of rape even if she
consented out of fear.

Look at some court decisions on the subject of "compelled consent"
where a person is in a position of authority. Cops fall in that
category.

> > How about giving us your understanding of what constitutes rape. The
> > DNA in the underwear bit is a good example. You do not need to have
> > penetration by penis to have "rape".
>
> No -- but you do have to have LACK OF CONSENT. How do you
> figure that DNA in the underwear proves that? Even assuming that
> DNA equals semen, it says nothing about whether she consented.

No one has said it does prove it. Your posts on the subject suggest
that it isn't proof of rape. It for sure is proof that sexual contact
took place. Investigation will determine if that contact was rape.

For two civilians in this case you would have a "he said, she said"
case. Here it is way beyond that due to being a cop on duty. Even had
it been consensual, he was still up for being charged with a felony or
gross misdemeanor (not sure in this jurisdiction) for having sex while
on duty in his office (the squad car).

Harry K

"Harry K" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Michael Snyder wrote:
> > "Harry K" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > > "Dark Magus" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:18:25 -0700, "Michael Snyder"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Next thing you will be telling us is there's "half pregnant"
and
> > "full
> > > > > >> pregnant".
> > > > >
> > > > > >Congratulations, Dingus. I only met you three posts ago,
> > > > > >and already I'm on the verge of deciding that you're not
> > > > > >worth my attention.
> > > > >
> > > > > Go ahead and run off if you can't handle my criticisms. That tells
us
> > > > > you are 13 years old.
> > > >
> > > > ... by "us", I presume you are referring to all the lurkers who
support
> > you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Don't forget to plonk on your way out.
> > > >
> > > > <plonk>
> > >
> > > You seem to have some strange (to say the least) definition of "rape"
> >
> > Why do you say so? I don't believe I have said anything in
> > this discussion to suggest a non-standard definition of rape.
> >
> > I *have* suggested a distinction between FORCIBLE rape,
> > and what we might call "the extended definition of rape",
> > which includes situations in which both parties give every
> > indication of consent at the time, but for one reason or another
> > someone believes that one party is incapable of giving consent.
>
> In the eyes of the law, rape is rape. There is some consideration
> given during prosecution and sentencing.

Nope! The law recognizes a distinction between statutory rape
and forcible rape. That is precisely the distinction I am talking
about.


> In the case under discussion, it is a clear case of rape even if she
> consented out of fear.

Nope! That is precisely the question under discussion.
Her being in a STATE OF FEAR does not prove that HE
did anything to CAUSE HER TO FEAR.

> Look at some court decisions on the subject of "compelled consent"
> where a person is in a position of authority. Cops fall in that
> category.

Yeah, I don't care what anybody says -- if she were to say
"Please don't arrest me, I'll suck your cock if you let me go" --
he would not be guilty of rape.


>
> > > How about giving us your understanding of what constitutes rape. The
> > > DNA in the underwear bit is a good example. You do not need to have
> > > penetration by penis to have "rape".
> >
> > No -- but you do have to have LACK OF CONSENT. How do you
> > figure that DNA in the underwear proves that? Even assuming that
> > DNA equals semen, it says nothing about whether she consented.
>
> No one has said it does prove it. Your posts on the subject suggest
> that it isn't proof of rape.

It isn't proof of rape. Rape requires LACK OF CONSENT.

> It for sure is proof that sexual contact
> took place. Investigation will determine if that contact was rape.

Exactly so. But the DNA in the pants, in and of itself,
does not prove anything. Whether there was sexual contact,
and whether it was rape, remains to be determined by investigation.


>
> For two civilians in this case you would have a "he said, she said"
> case. Here it is way beyond that due to being a cop on duty. Even had
> it been consensual, he was still up for being charged with a felony or
> gross misdemeanor (not sure in this jurisdiction) for having sex while
> on duty in his office (the squad car).

Exactly! WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS FORCIBLE RAPE.

"Furious George" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Michael Snyder wrote:
> > "Furious George" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > The stuff going on in Iraq -- is that war or is it violent forcible
> > > war?
> >
> > Apparently neither. If it were war, we would have to observe
> > the Geneva Convention.
>
> That explains a lot. If it were rape, you would have to go to
> jail...so let's call it something else.

You persist in acting as if there was no question that it was rape.

>
> >
> > Do you have an issue with my making the distinction between
> > rape and forcible rape? I do so because the word rape has
> > been diluted by including "sex with someone who has had
> > a few drinks" and "sex between a doctor and a patient", or
> > "sex between any two people where the male has more
> > authority or social status than the female".
>
> Whatever. Keep your fantasies to yourself and keep it zipped up, perv.

Kiss my ass, net cop.

"Harry K" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Michael Snyder wrote:
> > "Harry K" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > > "Dark Magus" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:18:25 -0700, "Michael Snyder"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Next thing you will be telling us is there's "half pregnant"
and
> > "full
> > > > > >> pregnant".
> > > > >
> > > > > >Congratulations, Dingus. I only met you three posts ago,
> > > > > >and already I'm on the verge of deciding that you're not
> > > > > >worth my attention.
> > > > >
> > > > > Go ahead and run off if you can't handle my criticisms. That tells
us
> > > > > you are 13 years old.
> > > >
> > > > ... by "us", I presume you are referring to all the lurkers who
support
> > you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Don't forget to plonk on your way out.
> > > >
> > > > <plonk>
> > >
> > > You seem to have some strange (to say the least) definition of "rape"
> >
> > Why do you say so? I don't believe I have said anything in
> > this discussion to suggest a non-standard definition of rape.
> >
> > I *have* suggested a distinction between FORCIBLE rape,
> > and what we might call "the extended definition of rape",
> > which includes situations in which both parties give every
> > indication of consent at the time, but for one reason or another
> > someone believes that one party is incapable of giving consent.
>
> In the eyes of the law, rape is rape. There is some consideration
> given during prosecution and sentencing.
>
> In the case under discussion, it is a clear case of rape even if she
> consented out of fear.
>
> Look at some court decisions on the subject of "compelled consent"
> where a person is in a position of authority. Cops fall in that
> category.
>
> > > How about giving us your understanding of what constitutes rape. The
> > > DNA in the underwear bit is a good example. You do not need to have
> > > penetration by penis to have "rape".
> >
> > No -- but you do have to have LACK OF CONSENT. How do you
> > figure that DNA in the underwear proves that? Even assuming that
> > DNA equals semen, it says nothing about whether she consented.
>
> No one has said it does prove it. Your posts on the subject suggest
> that it isn't proof of rape. It for sure is proof that sexual contact
> took place. Investigation will determine if that contact was rape.
>
> For two civilians in this case you would have a "he said, she said"
> case. Here it is way beyond that due to being a cop on duty. Even had
> it been consensual, he was still up for being charged with a felony or
> gross misdemeanor (not sure in this jurisdiction) for having sex while
> on duty in his office (the squad car).
>
> Harry K


You are arguing with our resident rape apologist. Short of a female ending
up dead or half dead, everything else is a case of 'he said/she said'. And
even then, 'it was most likely *rough sex* that occurred.' I'm guessing
he'd even argue a case of gang rape against mother theresa.


td
>

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:14:48 -0400, "tiny dancer"
> wrote:

>he'd even argue a case of gang rape against mother theresa.

If she consented, it is not rape.

There is something very fishy about that story. Things do not add up.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!