Police Officer who "made a bad decision" cleared of on duty rape

[XDurionX]

Doesn't matter what his marriage allows or not. It matters what society's general view on that is. That is what a moral standard entails.

Cheating on his wife is not a reason to fire a cop. Cheating on his wife on duty is.

[Total Crica]

Doesn't matter what his marriage allows or not. It matters what society's general view on that is. That is what a moral standard entails.

Society are not the ones who are married in a couple's marriage. They have no say in how a couple handles their marriage.

[Annamarine]

She said she did not give it. Did you not read the story? Again, that is what we are talking about, the story and the events it refers to.

After the fact .. that's not reason to put a man in jail ... only consent during matters. Did she ask him? She she obtain consent continuously? If not why .. maybe she should be charged with rape

[Deleted]

She said she did not give it. Did you not read the story? Again, that is what we are talking about, the story and the events it refers to.

And he said that she was aware enough to give it, the jury based on evidence given decided he was not guilty of rape. I don't know, a lot of assumptions being made to paint the guy as a rapist cheat rather than just a cheat.

[Xirrohon]

How did this even get to court? She even admits to not knowing if she gave consent or not.

[Total Crica]

After the fact .. that's not reason to put a man in jail

You can't claim you were raped until after the fact. You are making no sense.

- - - Updated - - -

They have a say in what kind of people they want to be part of their police force.

Which has nothing to do with the wife supporting him.

[Deleted]

Nothing insane about it.

Do you get paid during your workhours to fuck women?
Should cops not be held to higher moral standards? There are plenty of cases where judges got fired simply because they had consensual BDSM sex with their wives... . It's just part of moral standards, really.

The problem isn't if he fucked up or not. This is a rape trial ergo you should be charged with rape if you actually raped someone. Everything related to him fucking around while on duty will be handled by the department.

[Annamarine]

You can't claim you were raped until after the fact. You are making no sense.

- - - Updated - - -



Which has nothing to do with the wife supporting him.

And he said she did .. where is her proof and you still haven't answered the question about him giving consent? If it wasn't continuously given she committed rape right?? that's your argument right .. if he didn't say yes every 5 minutes it becomes rape.

In todays society the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.

[StayTuned]

Nothing, but it should have everything to do with being a cop.

Shut up. This is you, literally just seconds ago:

I would've found him guilty just on the basis of bad morals

guilty on the basis of bad morals

He was accused of rape. Not bad behavior on duty

[lonely zergling]

Nothing, but it should have everything to do with being a cop.

- - - Updated - - -



Indeed, because that is irrelevant.

Expecting higher moral standards of a police officer however isn't though.

He was fired because he had sex on duty not because he cheated on his wife. Thats a simple work contract breach nothing more. No morale involved.

[Total Crica]

Expecting higher moral standards of a police officer

You can't expect more from someone in a marriage then the people in the marriage expect if you are not the one who is married to the people who are married. If his wife doesn't consider it to be cheating, you can't make the claim he cheated on her.

[StayTuned]

It's a case of he said / she said. So it's completely up in the air whether or not he did rape her or not. It is possible he didn't, it is possible he did.

So if we go look at his overall behavior and morals... it tips the balance against him. Ergo, guilty.

Not hard to understand.

Judging by my own moral compass you'd end up in prison forever for stealing a cake because I feeeeel that way.

[Annamarine]

It's a case of he said / she said. So it's completely up in the air whether or not he did rape her or not. It is possible he didn't, it is possible he did.

So if we go look at his overall behavior and morals... it tips the balance against him. Ergo, guilty.

Not hard to understand.

Burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused ... if you want to bring morals into this lets see her sexual past because since this is about morals not evidence I guess who she has sex with is more important that what actually occurred.

[Doylez]

Sounds like reasonable doubt to me.

[Aeula]

Should he be found guilty of rape? No. There's no evidence supporting that.
Should he be fired for wasting tax payers money because he decided to fuck someone while on duty? Yes.
Should he be punished for having an affair? No, but his wife is welcome to divorce him if she pleases.

[Deleted]

It's a case of he said / she said. So it's completely up in the air whether or not he did rape her or not. It is possible he didn't, it is possible he did.

So if we go look at his overall behavior and morals... it tips the balance against him. Ergo, guilty.

Not hard to understand.

Um...Are you trolling here or do you actually believe that, that is a good way to charge someone for rape?

[Deleted]

It's a case of he said / she said. So it's completely up in the air whether or not he did rape her or not. It is possible he didn't, it is possible he did.

So if we go look at his overall behavior and morals... it tips the balance against him. Ergo, guilty.

Not hard to understand.

This really will revolutionize the justice system. Now if we have no proof of something we can just find some dirt on someone(he shoplifted a mars bar once, can you believe it!) or pay someone off to say "Oh yeah, he kicked a stray cat one time, i saw it, swer on me mum" and then we can convict them of anything.

If that fails we can go to the good old putting your hand in a fire. If you're not a criminal it won't burn obviously.

[DeadSwordz]

It's a case of he said / she said. So it's completely up in the air whether or not he did rape her or not. It is possible he didn't, it is possible he did.

So if we go look at his overall behavior and morals... it tips the balance against him. Ergo, guilty.

Not hard to understand.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with how the justice system works but you convict someone if you believe they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt not because they have bad morals

[StayTuned]

Your moral compass seems very out of tune and nihilistic.

Oooh boy, look who's talking

[StayTuned]

We're going straight by the facts here:
1. He is a cheater.
2. He even cheated his work and the taxpayer by sleeping around on the job.

Yes. Moral assessments can be made to determine whether someone would be the type to have committed a certain crime or not.

At the end of the day you know fuck all and therefore not guilty due to lack of evidence. Which is, you know, what we should use in court and when dealing with justice.