Cop charged with raping woman during traffic stop

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 05:01:32 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> wrote:

>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.

If I couldn't tell the dif between a Truth and an
'official truth' I wouldn't have mentioned it here ...

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:47:18 GMT, (Dark Magus)
wrote:

>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.


Very. It sounds, on the surface of it, like a ho, a pimp, a cop, and
a freebie to avoid arrest as much as it sounds like a cop and
opportunity, and a coerced sex / rape.

However, in the first case, I don't think it's likely she'd make a
formal complaint.

Whatever, there are parts missing and the parts that exist just sound
off key.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

B1ackWater wrote:
> 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.
>
> Aw ... rightwing Hank WAY out-does me. :-)
>
> >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.
>
> Most sex is for SEX. Some is for power - plus sex.
>
> I've always wondered why leftist psychology was so
> puritanistic about the motives behind rape. They've
> spent lots of time and effort trying to de-sex rape,
> turn it into ordinary assault. Why is that ? Almost
> a Victorian aversion to eros ... pretend it doesn't
> exist. Are they trying to make rape victims feel
> better somehow - 'uncontaminated' by lustful intent ?

Maybe you don't have the intellectual capacity to get behind the
rapists eyes and understand why he does what he does.

Some people simply aren't smart enough to discern the motives of
others, no matter how they might wish the opposite, no matter how self
deluded they are, and that's that.

Men rape for power, period. If they wanted sex, they's go to a hooker.
This isn't difficult and you're a dumb cocksucker who should keep his
nose out of complex issues.

Men rape to show who is in control, they rape because they are cowards.
Rape gives them a sense of being the alpha male they are not. They
can't compete with the big boys. Rape makes them feel as if they can.

Really, it's frustrating to read what you think, because you simply
aren't smart enough to understand how others think.

You should admit that, shut up, and learn something.

You are no intellectual authority whatsoever. The difficult part is
when people like you think you're qualified to offer psychological
evaluations.
,
You are REALLY dumb.

Shut up.
>
> Sorry, but this particular case smells bogus. It's not
> impossible that a young cop might try to humiliate a
> sagging post-middle-aged woman on a whim ... but it's
> pretty unlikely. Plenty of young good-lookin' women
> to exploit instead, promise to lose that bag of rock
> if they'll just drop their knickers ....

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 07:39:32 -0700, "Michael Snyder"
> wrote:

>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.

Bull****. For the same reason our teachers are not supposed to be
****ing our little girls, cops are supposed to keep it in their pants.
If they can't, it is rape by definition.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Men rape to show who is in control, they rape because they are cowards.

So many feminists, so little cyanide...

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 07:39:32 -0700, "Michael Snyder"
> > wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Bull****. For the same reason our teachers are not supposed to be
> ****ing our little girls, cops are supposed to keep it in their pants.
> If they can't, it is rape by definition.

Yes -- that's exactly what it is. Rape by definition... because
you have *defined* it to be rape. Which is exactly why I drew
a distinction between FORCIBLE rape, and "rape by definition."

tiny dancer wrote:
> "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
> >

Oh yeah. I recognized him as being at best a kook before I posted. I
just figured I wouild point out a few points of law that hadn't already
been mentioned. I see it did no good.

Harry K

Michael Snyder wrote:
> "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.

Of course it does. Now let's see you strain and try to explain just
what statutory rape has to do with the case under discussion.

>
> > 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.

Can anyone possibly be this ignorant? Haven't you seen any legal
decisions? Clue - all that matters in law is that the victim was
afraid. The perp doesn't have to do anything at all to cause that
fear, the fear itself is all that is needed.

> > 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.
>
>

Jeez, try again an post something that is somewhere near reality!

> >
> > > > 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.
>
>

I believe that is what I and others have already said. I will give you
a point here for finally posting something that matches reality.


> > 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.

Get off the "forcible" shtick. It doesn't matter one whit in this case
and other than in sentencing, doesn't matter much at all in trials.

Harry K

"Harry K" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> tiny dancer wrote:
> > "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
> > >
>
> Oh yeah. I recognized him as being at best a kook before I posted. I
> just figured I wouild point out a few points of law that hadn't already
> been mentioned. I see it did no good.
>
> Harry K


****ing in the wind.


td

"Michael Snyder" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Men rape to show who is in control, they rape because they are cowards.
>
> So many feminists, so little cyanide...


and one lone dope.




>
>
>