It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police Officer charged with rape and kidnapping to get 1 year house arrest?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
www.redding.com...


A plea deal prosecutors say was prompted by a loophole in state law resulted in the promise of a maximum one-year jail sentence Friday for a former Anderson police officer charged with kidnapping and raping a woman he was taking to jail.


This is a local case and I am just disgusted. You hear stories of people being put away for years over ridicules things they shouldn't have even been charged with but for a serious crime like rape, 1 year house arrest due to a "loop hole"?
Not to mention the fact that the man is a police officer.


After he's served his sentence, he could petition the court to try to have his felony assault conviction reduced to a misdemeanor. He won't have to register as a sex offender because that's not a requirement of the misdemeanor lewd act count to which he also pleaded no contest.


Yet a teenage boy can get branded as a sex offender for life, because he turned 18 a month before his girlfriend.


Carlton, who stressed that he does not doubt the woman's rape claims, said he does not believe Benson will ever be a police officer again. "I can't imagine anyone hiring him, and that was one of our concerns," he said.

Wait, are you trying to tell me there is still a possibility?
edit on 19-9-2011 by calstorm because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I hope he catches a case of "lead poisoning" ....



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I think cases like this make the argument for requiring that Police vehicles all carry tamper proof recording systems which run from the start of the shift to the end. No recording controls available to the Officers. I'd seen on the comments to the local story that previous stories suggested she may have tried to get out of jail by sex like many of the cop shows do have happen on the dash cams. Why doesn't this PD have them?

If truckers are going to have to have black boxes to replace log books...and 4 wheelers have tattle boxes that are regularly used in civil courts after accidents, then Police can just accept being recorded at all times. Things like this might not happen and if they do, a record removes questions as to what led up to it. A case like this simply shouldn't happen in the 21st century with the cheap technology available to prevent it, IMO.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
What the sorry POS should have received is the Remington sentence once he was found guilty. Public officials, especially those entrusted with enforcement of the laws and safety of the public, should be held to a higher standard than the general public since they are entrusted with the powers of the people.

I am sick and tired of these "Tyranny Enforcement Officers" breaking the laws that they are sworn to uphold just to get a slap on the wrist. Our nation is gone, not the physical nation or borders but the founding principles. There is very little integrity or dignity to be found in our public offices, and the will and service/safety of the citizenry has been made into a mockery fueled by greed and corruption.

What this man did was not just a simple kidnapping case, instead he abused his position of power as a cop and thwarted responsibility to ensure the person's safety by raping her while she was in his custody. That goes way beyond kidnapping.

I hear people say that the founding fathers would be rolling in there graves if they knew what was going on. I say those who would be more upset are the fallen servicemen and women that gave all to protect the values and liberties that we are guaranteed under our constitution.

This is just a sample of what's to come if the people do not put their political partisanship and petty differences aside and unite to stop an increasingly intrusive and corrupt government. We are in the midts of class warfare in this nation but it is not necesarilly rich vrs poor or race vrs race, it is those in power against the governed and everyday they take away a little more freedom and get away with a little more.


edit on 19-9-2011 by Nucleardiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


could even have it stream live to the precinct for the record. truly tamperproof. there is no evidence for me to decide either way, so im going to ignore this story lest i get all emotional and make false assumptions. either way, the officer shouldnt have done it, consentual or not and is an idiot for it. he #ed up bad, nuff said



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


what the?
maybe its because they know if a cop goes in jail it will be a death sentence.. or atleast a sexual abuse nightmare for this rapist
what a disgusting world we live in
we need to overthrow police as soon as possible before they start taking control for the rich. you see what they do now imagine what they will do when they have full power



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Based on a previous article she refused. I am not sure if it was caught on tape or if it was just her words.

www.redding.com...

There was obviously enough evidence to convict him besides her own words. However, there should be some kind of recording device on all police vehicles.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiraCity
I hope he catches a case of "lead poisoning" ....


It shouldn't be a hope. Should something like this take place against a family member of mine, it's a guarantee. I'll not sit idly by and watch one of the henchmen get a slap on the wrist. They'll get slapped alright...rest assured.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Goddamn this is one of the worst case ever.

Where's dexter when you need him?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem

Originally posted by ConspiraCity
I hope he catches a case of "lead poisoning" ....


It shouldn't be a hope. Should something like this take place against a family member of mine, it's a guarantee. I'll not sit idly by and watch one of the henchmen get a slap on the wrist. They'll get slapped alright...rest assured.


oh absolutely, if someone messed with family... they will regret living in the first place... I'd keep them alive.. but in torturous agony for the rest of their miserable useless life.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


At anypoint are you going to explain why the deal is what it is, or are you going for the hope people wont read the entire article and just jump on your I hate the law band wagon?

The reason for the charge is because of a state law (not local, but state) that says a person in custody cannot consent to sex regardless. The issue arises because the law specifies jail custody, not police custody, and there is a difference.

The former officer has the potential of house arrest, and its not guaranteed. He has to petititon the courts to get it. He faces 1 year and an additional 4 on probation, which would be the time frame he can petition to serve at home, and thats not a guaranteed request.

The prosecutors werent happy about the charge loophole issue.

Now, since this also is not covered in these cop hate threads -

The Police have NOTHING to do with charges - period.

The Prosecuting Attorney, and solely the PA, has sole, ultimate authority on if a perosn is charged or not, and what those charges will be. Its up the a jury or judge to wiegh the evidence to determine guilt or innocense, as well as ANY and ALL punishments.

If your going to be pissed at the situation, then may I suggest you do something productive with that anger, and rally the people in the state to have the STATE LAW changed to wipe out the loophole.
edit on 19-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by calstorm
Based on a previous article she refused. I am not sure if it was caught on tape or if it was just her words.

www.redding.com...

There was obviously enough evidence to convict him besides her own words. However, there should be some kind of recording device on all police vehicles.


In pretty much all states if an officer / corrections is dealing with a person who is in custody, and sexual behavior involved, regardless of consent, will be illegal. In my state a CO messing around with an inmate is a Felony.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Tell the Aryan Brotherhood where this cops house is. They'll take care of it. That's what he deserves. I mean, if the law won't take care of trash like him, then.........



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Here is where you seem to misunderstand, my intentions of this thread. This is not specifically a cop bashing thread, this is a thread about someone getting off easy for rape. The fact that he was a cop just adds to it. However, had he not been a police officer the law about where it took place, (police custody or jail) wouldn't matter. He would be convicted of rape. There is no doubt in my mind that it was indeed forced rape.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by calstorm
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Here is where you seem to misunderstand, my intentions of this thread. This is not specifically a cop bashing thread, this is a thread about someone getting off easy for rape. The fact that he was a cop just adds to it. However, had he not been a police officer the law about where it took place, (police custody or jail) wouldn't matter. He would be convicted of rape. There is no doubt in my mind that it was indeed forced rape.


There is a difference between the law and how its applied and what a person "thinks" should happen. Contrary to popular belief, there is only 1 judicial system. The difference in this case is indeed because he is a police officer, but not in the manner you are attempting to portray. Because police have a lawful ability to temporarily deprive a person of civil rights, the laws become different at that level, since only law enforcement can violate those laws.

In this case, the law itself, and not its application, is in question. Contrary to your comment of the thread intent, I dont see the argument you are stating your making.

You are still blaming the cops for something not in his control. As I said before, the state law is flawed, and the state law needs to be fixed. That would entail the state legislatures fixing a law they put into effect some time back. The police hace nothing to do with this law, its inception, or its application - period.

The PS has the sole authroity on whether charges are filed or not.

Also, have you taken into account mitigating circumstances? Namely its not uncommon for inmates / in custody peoples to offer sexual favors to get out of trouble, only to turn around and use it as a trump card when they get in trouble again. As was stated, even a person in custody / inmate cannot consent to sex. If they strip down and beg for it, its still not considered consenual sex.

Has that occured to you?

It would be prudent to get all the info first bfore passing judgment on punishment? After all I see people demand that all the time on these forums dealing with non law enforcement.

Apparently the double standard is with the application towards law enforcement.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra


Apparently the double standard is with the application towards law enforcement.


Especially when theres BIG money to be made.......................


Hartshorn, of Waterford Township, is on trial charged with second-degree criminal sexual conduct. He allegedly touched the inmate’s breast and let her out of a cell to perform oral sex on him on March 2, 2010.

A witness for the defense, 26-year-old Bollman said Hartshorn’s alleged victim told him in August 2010 that her bunkmate had made similar allegations about a guard and received $30,000 in a civil lawsuit.

Richard Bollman said the woman told him that she made up the allegations against Kenneth Hartshorn under pressure from her jail bunkmate and in an effort to get money from a civil lawsuit. Bollman also said he hates police and was furious about having to appear on the witness stand.


Must hate his Girlfriend more.
Inmate refutes accuser's testimony about alleged sex with deputy



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Im surprised people are NOT up in arms with inmate on inmate rape. Wheres the shock,and the willingness to change the laws protecting inmates from this kind of abuse?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 






The difference in this case is indeed because he is a police officer, but not in the manner you are attempting to portray. Because police have a lawful ability to temporarily deprive a person of civil rights, the laws become different at that level, since only law enforcement can violate those laws.


First of all you made part of my point for me there, I was not trying to portray it any differently.


You are still blaming the cops for something not in his control.


The only thing I am blaming the cop for is rape. This is about rape. as I said before, his being a cop only adds to it.

While I know for a fact people accuse innocent cops of rape for whatever reason, I do not believe that is what happened in this case. I have been following this case for months. This happened in a very small town where everyone knows everyone. Population of approx 600 people. I know that in this town most people would rather keep their mouth shut about being raped than report it. I don't know the victim personally but my family does.

My outrage comes from seeing people who commit rape receive little to no time, yet you see people who have violated some obscure law, like owning a plant they didn't know was a protected species, receive much harsher sentences.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by calstorm
reply to post by Xcathdra
First of all you made part of my point for me there, I was not trying to portray it any differently.


I did not make the point for you. I am making the point that there are laws that specifically apply to law enforcement that revolve around actions that only law enforcement can take. Those laws by the way are in place specifically to prevent law enforcement from being held to a different standard.

If those laws dont exist, then you would be justified in your argument that the law applies differently. In this case, the alws applies to law enforcement, and not civilians. In addition to those laws, law enforcement also falls under federal civil rights laws that do NOT apply to civilians (42 USC 1983). Law Enforcement is allowed to invoke their 5th amendment rights, like civilians, however we can be ordered by superiors to answer questions because of the chain of command setup (Garrity Rights).

Even though answers cant be used in criminal proceedings, any information provided, or any question the officer refuses to answer, can be used against the officer in any IA proceedings.

So the notion that the law treats officers different can be argued. However, the argument is it does hold law enforcement to a more strict and higher standard than what it does to civilians.



Originally posted by calstorm
The only thing I am blaming the cop for is rape. This is about rape. as I said before, his being a cop only adds to it.


Is it?

Any consensual contact between an officer / Corrections officer is invalid. If the person giving consent, cant give consent, then by law / definition, its rape.

They are in custody, meaning their rights are curtailed - freedom of movement, speech, etc, etc , etc including their ability to consent to something, like sex.


Originally posted by calstorm
While I know for a fact people accuse innocent cops of rape for whatever reason, I do not believe that is what happened in this case. I have been following this case for months. This happened in a very small town where everyone knows everyone. Population of approx 600 people. I know that in this town most people would rather keep their mouth shut about being raped than report it. I don't know the victim personally but my family does.


The last part of your statement is a red flag. What I mean by that is sometimes its hard to see the trees when your standing in the middle fo the forest. Its difficult to seperate an accusation of truth from that of a lie when the person is known. Im not attacking her credability in this case, or even her accusation.

My concern was the manner in which the officer was being portrayed. He was prosecuted under the law, just as a civlian would be. He was found guilty, as a civlian would be.

The difference though, is he was charged and prosecuted under a law that only applies to law enforcement, making the argument that it was preferential without base.

Why?

Because not only is he found guilty for criminal misconduct, because of that he loses his civil immunity shielf applied to officers in the course of their duties. He is open to a civil lawsuit, where civilians would not be.



Originally posted by calstorm
My outrage comes from seeing people who commit rape receive little to no time, yet you see people who have violated some obscure law, like owning a plant they didn't know was a protected species, receive much harsher sentences.


The outrage is valid, however you are aiming it at the wrong place. Police do not creaate the law, we do not determine innocence or guilt, and we do not pass judgment and punishment. When cops are charged, its done so by the Prosecuting Attorney using laws created and passed by the Legislature, ruled on by a jury / Judge, who then inposes sentence.

Your anger is with the officers actions...
Your anger is with the law being week....
Your anger is with how the law was applied....
Your anger is with the loophole in the law not making a clear distinction between CO's and Law Enforcment....
Your anger is in the punishment handed down....

Use the anger to change the law, not punish people beyond what the law allows. The moment that occurs, then you cede the high ground and lower yourself to the level that your angry with.

The basis of our law is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.... Our system would rather see a crminal go free rather than see an innocent person locked up.

As a side note, and I point this out again to drive home the differences we are talking about -

The lady could have had consensual sex with this officer, and the officer can still be charged for rape.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I forgot to point this out.. Sorry for the long rant above -

The issue -

charged with kidnapping and raping a woman


The punishment -

In addition to serving up to a year in jail he now faces formal probation for three years.


What people are missing -

Under the plea bargain Bryan Benson pleaded no contest to assault by a public officer and soliciting a lewd act


He was not charged with rape or kidnapping.... Hence his punishment is not based on rape or kidnapping charges.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join