Dont clench your butt in Deming New Mexico

[Dave70968]

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?

 

[cmhbob]

New Mexico doesn't call it "rape," it seems.

I figured since some were arguing about whether it was "rape" or not, and bringing up Oklahoma statutes to discuss a NM issue, I might try and locate the actual NM statutes. New Mexico statutes: Article 9 - Sexual Offenses

I could see CSP1 or 2, actually, from what's been published in the news. I'm assuming the cops involved are going to argue that their actions were not CSP, since they were investigating a crime. But once someone determines the searches were improper, and beyond the allowable scope, I'd assume that makes them eligible for criminal charges. And I doubt the county or the city would actually bring the charges. It's probably going to fall to NM State Police.

30-9-11. Criminal sexual penetration.

A. Criminal sexual penetration is the unlawful and intentional causing of a person to engage in sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio or anal intercourse or the causing of penetration, to any extent and with any object, of the genital or anal openings of another, whether or not there is any emission.

B. Criminal sexual penetration does not include medically indicated procedures.

C. Aggravated criminal sexual penetration consists of all criminal sexual penetration perpetrated on a child under thirteen years of age with an intent to kill or with a depraved mind regardless of human life. Whoever commits aggravated criminal sexual penetration is guilty of a first degree felony for aggravated criminal sexual penetration.

D. Criminal sexual penetration in the first degree consists of all criminal sexual penetration perpetrated:

(1) on a child under thirteen years of age; or

(2) by the use of force or coercion that results in great bodily harm or great mental anguish to the victim.

Whoever commits criminal sexual penetration in the first degree is guilty of a first degree felony.

E. Criminal sexual penetration in the second degree consists of all criminal sexual penetration perpetrated:

(1) by the use of force or coercion on a child thirteen to eighteen years of age;

(2) on an inmate confined in a correctional facility or jail when the perpetrator is in a position of authority over the inmate;

(3) by the use of force or coercion that results in personal injury to the victim;

(4) by the use of force or coercion when the perpetrator is aided or abetted by one or more persons;

(5) in the commission of any other felony; or

(6) when the perpetrator is armed with a deadly weapon.
- See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-9/section-30-9-11#sthash.r5tUyCRg.dpuf

 

[RickN]

Real simple test guys, are the the victim or his lawyer claiming he was raped, or is it just you guys freaking out again?

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

How about this, Rick, Iggy and I will pull you over and drag you out of your vehicle and start shoving foreign objects up your keester. Don't even pretend like you would be outraged, it's perfectly legal.

 

[RickN]

How about this, Rick, Iggy and I will pull you over and drag you out of your vehicle and start shoving foreign objects up your keester. Don't even pretend like you would be outraged, it's perfectly legal.

1) I would not trust you guys, you both seem a little funny.
2) You are not police officers, you do not have a search warranty and never had.
3) You would have to take me to the hospital and have a medical professional run the test, not just pull me over on the side of the road.
4) I would have to give you permission for a drug dog to search my car.
5) Again, I think you two would enjoy it to much.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

1) I would not trust you guys, you both seem a little funny.
2) You are not police officers, you do not have a search warranty and never had.
3) You would have to take me to the hospital and have a medical professional run the test, not just pull me over on the side of the road.
4) I would have to give you permission for a drug dog to search my car.
5) Again, I think you two would enjoy it to much.

So all I need to rape you is a badge, a dog to false alert, an expired warrant from another county and a foreign doctor?

 

[Dave70968]

New Mexico doesn't call it "rape," it seems.

I figured since some were arguing about whether it was "rape" or not, and bringing up Oklahoma statutes to discuss a NM issue, I might try and locate the actual NM statutes. New Mexico statutes: Article 9 - Sexual Offenses

I could see CSP1 or 2, actually, from what's been published in the news. I'm assuming the cops involved are going to argue that their actions were not CSP, since they were investigating a crime. But once someone determines the searches were improper, and beyond the allowable scope, I'd assume that makes them eligible for criminal charges. And I doubt the county or the city would actually bring the charges. It's probably going to fall to NM State Police.

Thank you, cmhbob. Citations to statutes are exactly what I asked for.

RickN, I'll concede that under New Mexico law, it wasn't "rape," just "criminal sexual penetration." I'm sure that makes the victim feel so much better.

1) I would not trust you guys, you both seem a little funny.
2) You are not police officers, you do not have a search warranty and never had.
3) You would have to take me to the hospital and have a medical professional run the test, not just pull me over on the side of the road.
4) I would have to give you permission for a drug dog to search my car.
5) Again, I think you two would enjoy it to much.

RickN, 4), no, we don't need to get your permission to let a dog have a sniff; furthermore, if the dog indicates--which they often do, whether or not drugs are present (see, e.g., the Clever Hans Effect)--that is sufficient cause for further investigation. That was addressed in the Supreme Court just last term, actually.

 

[RickN]

So all I need to rape you is a badge, a dog to false alert, an expired warrant from another county and a foreign doctor?

In your case, you would need to get me really, really drunk first. I also notice you have not answered my question about is the victim claiming rape or just you guys and your hyperbole.

Thank you, cmhbob. Citations to statutes are exactly what I asked for.

RickN, I'll concede that under New Mexico law, it wasn't "rape," just "criminal sexual penetration." I'm sure that makes the victim feel so much better.



RickN, 4), no, we don't need to get your permission to let a dog have a sniff; furthermore, if the dog indicates--which they often do, whether or not drugs are present (see, e.g., the Clever Hans Effect)--that is sufficient cause for further investigation. That was addressed in the Supreme Court just last term, actually.

In this case, the guy did give his permission for the dog at least from what I have read. The dog gets a hit and the LEOs got a warrant. Did they go to far, yes they did. Did they rape the guy, No.

The sad thing that you folks do not seem to care about, if you had not started screaming rape, I would be agreeing with most of you.

 

[ignerntbend]

See, your mistake is using logic to argue with him. He'll realize how crappy his statements are and start trying to change it up to tell you he was just yanking your chain for stimulating conversation or to "make you think".

.........

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

In your case, you would need to get me really, really drunk first. I also notice you have not answered my question about is the victim claiming rape or just you guys and your hyperbole.



In this case, the guy did give his permission for the dog at least from what I have read. The dog gets a hit and the LEOs got a warrant. Did they go to far, yes they did. Did they rape the guy, No.

The sad thing that you folks do not seem to care about, if you had not started screaming rape, I would be agreeing with most of you.

uh...yes, the reason he is suing and the department settled so quickly is because he was raped.

Let me get this straight, anal penetration without the penetratee's consent doesn't meet your definition rape? Do you also think that women really mean "yes" when they say "no"?