You can call it rape if you want, it just shows your bias against police. As far as Roman Polanski, he raped a child, nothing like we are discussing.
1) Did the cops have the written warrant in hand or were they told about it? Did they know about the time limit? Did they know that after the first doctor turned them down that they were not required by law to find the closest doctor that would? Should they have just bent in over in a cell and probed until his eyes bugged out?
2) If you read my post I never said the police did nothing wrong, I said it was not rape. I have known several rape victims in my time and they, most police, DAs, judges, etc, etc would agree.
3) You can disagree all you want but watch how you phrase it, OK?
The Oklahoma Legislature also calls it rape. I cited to the relevant section of code, and you've not refuted. Sticking objects or body parts up a man's butt without his consent, or other legal authority, is rape, as defined by 21 O.S. 1111.1 and 21 O.S. 1113. I'm sorry if you can't understand plain English, but I phrased it exactly how I meant it.
My doctor visit is just as close to this case as your claims of rape and no it is not if done by a doctor under these circumstances and I bet you have a hard time finding any LEO, DA, or most judges to agree with you. I also love your " driven around the country until the cops could find a doctor that was willing to violate the poor bastard against his will." That is classic exaggeration.
Nope.
Again, this is different. You consented to your doctor's digital exam; in fact, you probably even paid good money for it, and no, that's not a wisecrack. It was a legitimate medical procedure that you agreed to for the purposes of checking for a specific threat to your health. Compare that with the case at hand, in which the subject specifically did not consent; in which the first set of doctors refused to perform the examinations for ethical reasons (hint: this should be a warning bell for all involved that something is amiss); and in which the officers exceeded multiple restrictions on their legal authority and pressed repeated tests after finding nothing, even on the X-rays (again, plural) which you yourself said should have resulted in his release.
Your own words are "If the x-ray showed nothing kick him loose." The X-rays (plural) showed nothing; by your own admission, he should have been "kick[ed] loose;" instead, he was forcibly penetrated, by finger and endoscopic camera. Go read the statute again--we'll wait--and tell me how it's not rape by instrumentation. Be sure to tell us which of the elements of the offense (penetration, lack of consent, body part or inanimate object) was not met.
While you're at it, why don't you also explain why, when courts are extremely deferential to police and governments under sovereign and qualified immunity, the city settled so quickly, and for such a large sum? Could it possibly be because they knew they had a loser of a case?