Comments on: Sexual Assault In Blue

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 07:24:20 +0000

I worry a bit that the sexual assault angle is going too far–the police officers are presumably not touching these people for their own sexual gratification

Neither were the police officers who shoved a bathroom plunger up a prisoner’s anus in New York, but they committed sexual assault all the same.

Mark, the plainclothes thing is relatively rare — or at least media coverage of it is — but back in 2006 I did a blog post about an undercover officer shooting a pro sports guy named Steve Foley:

http://feralgenius.blogspot.com/2006/09/wont-someone-think-of-serial-killers.html

By: Mark Draughn

Mark Draughn — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 00:31:03 +0000

Thanks for your kind words, Marty. I worry a bit that the sexual assault angle is going too far–the police officers are presumably not touching these people for their own sexual gratification–but they are almost certainly doing it against their will. What they’re doing isn’t a sex crime, but it’s not very nice.

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 23:14:31 +0000

very well done! thanks for causing my blood pressure to climb a few notches. the ‘sexual assault’ angle is pretty vivid, as I have a 15 yo daughter…

By: Mark Draughn

Mark Draughn — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 04:32:52 +0000

Jennifer, I hadn’t heard about that issue with plainclothes cops. One of the things I object to is when non-uniformed cops claim they identified themselves before tasering/kicking down the door/firing. Usually what they mean is that they yelled “Police!”, which is not identifying themselves a police officer, it’s merely claiming to be a police officer, which is something anyone can do.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:39:12 +0000

Great piece, and utterly infuriating. I’ve complained before about how similar rules apply to undercover cops who don’t show badges or identify themselves, yet they can still legally hurt you for disobeying them, which effectively means that, to be on the safe side, Americans effectively have to obey any random stranger who walks up to them and speaks in an authoritative voice.

By: Mark Draughn

Mark Draughn — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:56:56 +0000

Thanks, Scott. I’ve added an update note to reflect this information.

By: shg

shg — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:43:36 +0000

Not to be needlessly technical, but in New York, the prohibition is Article I, Section 12 of the State Constitution, and the governing law is People v. DeBour. 40 NY2d 210 (1976).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16869413444153834408&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

By: shg

shg — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:43:04 +0000

Not to be needlessly technical, but in New York, the prohibition is Article I, Section 12 of the State Constitution, and the governing law is People v. DeBour. 40 NY2d 210 (1976).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16869413444153834408&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr