In 35 states police can claim consent if they fuck the person they are detaining

[Antiboyscout]

Rape is not a victimless crime.

The entire point of the law you are arguing for is willingness and consent do not matter.

A willing rape victim is not a thing.

[AllanO]

I suppose I must change my argument to being against victimless crimes.

Well its easy enough to convert my examples of assumed crimes (drunk driving, statutory rape) into victimless crimes if that is what you mean. Indeed more than a few people busted for statutory rape has probably lamented that there supposed victim was quite willing as far as they could tell.

Also, if we are going to apply the principle of no harm no foul to the law then lots of crimes most people think exist are victimless, "Attempted murder, can you win a Noble Prize in attempted chemistry?"

That being said, I think you have misunderstood or misstated, the basic point of disagreement. As I think Fuzzy Necromancer has made clear the basic issue is that he contends people cuffed or otherwise detained are in a psychological dynamic where they are in a state of at least partial duress (what is this cop doing, what does he want, I better go along so he does not get stroppy with me etc.), therefore none of their actions (or at least certainly not ones involving sex) engage consent as might normally be the case. You seem to allow that there are different states of mind where apparent consent would not equal actual consent (again as with statutory rape). However, you seemed to think people detained by the police are in a perfectly normal and free psychological state with no duress, anxiety, threat or the like. This to me is an odd read of the situation.

[Antiboyscout]

I suppose I must change my argument to being against victimless crimes.

Well its easy enough to convert my examples of assumed crimes (drunk driving, statutory rape) into victimless crimes if that is what you mean. Indeed more than a few people busted for statutory rape has probably lamented that there supposed victim was quite willing as far as they could tell.

Also, if we are going to apply the principle of no harm no foul to the law then lots of crimes most people think exist are victimless, "Attempted murder, can you win a Noble Prize in attempted chemistry?"

That being said, I think you have misunderstood or misstated, the basic point of disagreement. As I think Fuzzy Necromancer has made clear the basic issue is that he contends people cuffed or otherwise detained are in a psychological dynamic where they are in a state of at least partial duress (what is this cop doing, what does he want, I better go along so he does not get stroppy with me etc.), therefore none of their actions (or at least certainly not ones involving sex) engage consent as might normally be the case. You seem to allow that there are different states of mind where apparent consent would not equal actual consent (again as with statutory rape). However, you seemed to think people detained by the police are in a perfectly normal and free psychological state with no duress, anxiety, threat or the like. This to me is an odd read of the situation.

Considering the large number of accidental inventions, I assume someone may one day unintentionally earn a Nobel prize.

Also, incompetence at crime is not an excuse for it.

Why assume that it is always the case that cop/arrestee is always non-consensual > rape? The abuse of police authority should be dealt with at the job level.

[Admiral X]

Man, there sure is a lot of discussion about rape in this forum. I'm kind of worried that it's going to draw Krauser in here.


Too late...

youtu.be/8YbMGW6xSzw

[AllanO]

Considering the large number of accidental inventions, I assume someone may one day unintentionally earn a Nobel prize.

Those would be successful inventions not attempted inventions. Attempted chemistry would be you set up everything to discovery radium and then it does not happen (no radium, you had a bad sample), so even though you did almost all the prep, you don't get the Nobel prize just because you did not get the intended result. Even though you had every intention and did almost all the prep the winner did.

Also, incompetence at crime is not an excuse for it.

Hey your the one who claimed there is no such thing as a victimless crime, if that is so then failing to commit the crime makes it not a crime. If the would-be murder fails to murder anyone, no victim and so according to your rule no crime. That's why I don't like your rule.

Why assume that it is always the case that cop/arrestee is always non-consensual > rape? The abuse of police authority should be dealt with at the job level.

Lets work through an example, a man comes up to another man with a knife waves it at him and says "give me your" money and the other man gives him money. We convict the man with the knife of armed robbery.

Your question is like asking: Why assume that was armed robbery maybe they are just old friends and the one is repaying a loan or something. Except that would be silly because waving knives around and making requests just are evidence of threats and robbery its not an assumption we are making a reasonable inferences. It would be unreasonable to doubt that was an armed robbery, you can imagine a scenario where it was not but it would be a weird assumption that you would need to justify with evidence.

I think we reasonably infer that people detained by the police feel threatened by them and do feel like the officers spoken utterance are orders with implicit or explicit threats. Just like with our guy waving the knife about and demanding money we infer from the evidence. Given that anything detainees do has to be taken as something they felt coerced to do. Barring some real evidence to the contrary (that they did not feel threatened etc.) we have evidence that the detainees felt compelled by threats at the time. If sex occurs well, sex compelled by threat is illegal, and it is not an assumption that it was done under those conditions rather it is a conclusion based on evidence.

So the question is why are you assuming detainees won't feel threatened when handcuffed, that they don't feel there is an implicit "or else" in every utterance that the officers make and so on? The way you are stringing these scenario along are making really weird assumptions about human beings work in these situations with no justification.

[Antiboyscout]

Considering the large number of accidental inventions, I assume someone may one day unintentionally earn a Nobel prize.

Those would be successful inventions not attempted inventions. Attempted chemistry would be you set up everything to discovery radium and then it does not happen (no radium, you had a bad sample), so even though you did almost all the prep, you don't get the Nobel prize just because you did not get the intended result. Even though you had every intention and did almost all the prep the winner did.

Also, incompetence at crime is not an excuse for it.

Hey your the one who claimed there is no such thing as a victimless crime, if that is so then failing to commit the crime makes it not a crime. If the would-be murder fails to murder anyone, no victim and so according to your rule no crime. That's why I don't like your rule.

Why assume that it is always the case that cop/arrestee is always non-consensual > rape? The abuse of police authority should be dealt with at the job level.

Lets work through an example, a man comes up to another man with a knife waves it at him and says "give me your" money and the other man gives him money. We convict the man with the knife of armed robbery.

Your question is like asking: Why assume that was armed robbery maybe they are just old friends and the one is repaying a loan or something. Except that would be silly because waving knives around and making requests just are evidence of threats and robbery its not an assumption we are making a reasonable inferences. It would be unreasonable to doubt that was an armed robbery, you can imagine a scenario where it was not but it would be a weird assumption that you would need to justify with evidence.

I think we reasonably infer that people detained by the police feel threatened by them and do feel like the officers spoken utterance are orders with implicit or explicit threats. Just like with our guy waving the knife about and demanding money we infer from the evidence. Given that anything detainees do has to be taken as something they felt coerced to do. Barring some real evidence to the contrary (that they did not feel threatened etc.) we have evidence that the detainees felt compelled by threats at the time. If sex occurs well, sex compelled by threat is illegal, and it is not an assumption that it was done under those conditions rather it is a conclusion based on evidence.

So the question is why are you assuming detainees won't feel threatened when handcuffed, that they don't feel there is an implicit "or else" in every utterance that the officers make and so on? The way you are stringing these scenario along are making really weird assumptions about human beings work in these situations with no justification.

Women sleep with those in positions of power in order to gain power for them selves. This can be seen in the Star Chaser phenomenon, and and a phenomenon of 70's feminism where college attending feminists would seduce their professors because it gave them power over them.

Will we soon have a law for everyone in a position of power? From bosses to Gov. leaders, anyone with power cannot have sex anymore? Does that mean Bill Clinton raped Lewinsky? He was the most powerful man in the world and she was his secretary. His words carried power direct and indirect over her.

"Barring some real evidence to the contrary (that they did not feel threatened etc.)"
Back to assuming guilt. No, any legal system worth its salt does not require proving of innocence. You must prove guilt. In the court of law you can throw the mugger example out and I will counter with my star chaser example. As it should be. let the decision be based on the individual crime's circumstance and weighted in favor of the accused. Your system is weighted in favor of the accuser.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Antiboyscout, what would you do if I waved a gun at you and asked for money?

[Antiboyscout]

Antiboyscout, what would you do if I waved a gun at you and asked for money?

Shoot you with my ccw or stab you with my pocket knife.

[Antiboyscout]

Antiboyscout, what would you do if I waved a gun at you and asked for money?

If your boss asked you for a blowjob what would you do?

[unknownsample]

Consensual or not, an officer of the law should not be fucking anyone who's in police custody; if for no other reason than it's a potential conflict of interest. You can get your jollies on your own time; while you're on the clock, you are expected to conduct yourself like you have some idea what the word "professionalism" means.

Yes that seems like a reasonable idea.