9mo ago

San Diego officer resigns after locking himself in patrol car with woman he arrested

www.sandiegouniontribune.com San Diego officer resigns after locking himself in patrol car with woman he arrested

SAN DIEGO — It was just after 1:30 a.m. when former San Diego police Officer Anthony Hair told a dispatcher he’d arrived at Las Colinas Detention Facility in Santee to drop of…

The investigators also asked Hair for permission to check his uniforms for semen.
“I don’t know my rights. Do I have to?” the former officer asked. “I don’t think I want to do that.”

I plead the right to no blacklight searches!

You're viewing a single thread.

50 comments

Hey, interesting fact~~oid~~, you know who can't consent to sex? Prisoners. But 34 states allow police officers to have "consensual" sex with detainees. How/why a person in police custody would have consensual sex with their arresting officer is unfathomable.
California is not one of those 34 states. What Officer Hair did was rape.
- But 34 states allow police officers to have "consensual" sex with detainees.
  Look up "prisoner consent rule 34" for more info!
  
  Heh heh
- Unrelated to the main point at hand, but just a quick heads up that a factoid is something commonly believed to be true, but actually isn’t.
  
  I appreciate that! TIL
  
  So is an Asteroid just something commonly believed to be an Aster, but isn’t actually one?
  
  They're not real stars, I guess
  
  Makes sense actually!
- How/why a person in police custody would have consensual sex with their arresting officer is unfathomable.
  While I agree with the reason for the laws, the recorded audio in this case certainly show it was consensual.
  
  Ok, so she wasn't under arrest on her way to booking? Because if the sex was in exchange for freedom or leniency, then it wasn't consensual.
  No, there is no consent between an officer and a person in custody. That is not possible.
- She offered herself to him. This is a case of corruption, not rape.
  
  While under arrest. Even if she didn't explicitly suggest quid pro quo, it's still an unbalanced power dichotomy where true consent is impossible.
  That's like saying a 12 year old in foster care consented to have sex with their foster parents. All statements made by the rape victim were made under duress and do not mitigate the crime.
  
  I think it’s a little different than straight up rape. Rape is forcing a sexual encounter on someone. In this case, the woman was not forced to have sex, she tried to use sex to get out of legal trouble. This is the definition of bribery. Here is a thought experiment - if the woman offered money instead of sex, would you say the officer robbed her? I doubt it. The woman offered a bribe, the officer accepted it. The officer is corrupt, not a rapist. Let’s not absolve the woman for offering bribes just because what she offered was sex instead of something else of value.
  Now, if the woman was not in legitimate legal trouble and the officer fabricated a charge and threatened her with it unless she had sex with him, that is rape and blackmail. Doesn’t seem to be what happened in this case though. The woman was in legitimate legal trouble.
  
  How is it not force when placing someone under arrest, putting them in the back of a locked police car, and driving them to the police station for booking?
  If a police officer took money in exchange for their detainee's freedom, then yes that is absolutely robbery. There is always the implicit threat of violence and imprisonment when someone is under arrest. To refuse a police officer while in custody is to risk your own safety and life. Under those conditions, there can be no version of consent thatmitigates the crime.
  
  You’re basically saying if anyone commits a crime and an officer arrests them for that crime, but the person offers money or sex to get out of it, and the officer accepts, then that person was robbed or raped. So, all any criminal needs to do to become a victim is convince the officer to take their bribe.
  Don’t you think there is nuance in how both parties behaved?
  If the officer was going to execute their duties fairly, but gave in to temptation and took the persons offer; that is bribery and corruption.
  If the officer fabricated or embellished the charges and used that to make a threat against someone in order to pressure that person to give something of value, then that is rape/robbery, and blackmail.
  A court and jury should review the case closely, but from the article, it sounds like the officer was doing his duty in arresting the woman on legitimate legal grounds, and then she offered sex to get out of trouble, which he accepted. I did not see any evidence that he threatened to escalate the trouble she was already in, in order to get sex out of her.
  
  Yes, if an officer uses their position of authority to take money that doesn't belong to them, it is theft. If they use the threat of imprisonment to have sex with someone, that's rape. This isn't complicated. It doesn't matter if the bribe was offered or solicited, the officer is either using force to have non-consensual sex or taking something that doesnt belong to them. It doesn't matter if there was an actual quid pro quo agreement, or if the officer was planning to continue to deliver the detainee to jail. It doesn't matter at all if the detainee is guilty, and it's disgusting to suggest that it does so you should stop that.
  
  It depends on the behavior of the officer. It’s the difference between these two statements:
  “I’m going to make things worse than they should be for you if you don’t do what I want”
  And
  “Ok, I will not fulfill my duty because you offered me something to look the other way.”
  In the first case, the officer IS using the threat of imprisonment to have sex with someone. In the second case, the officer is shirking his duty because the arrestee has offered a quid pro quo. These are two different scenarios and it comes down to who is instigating the act. In the eyes of the law, intentions matter. This is why there is a distinction between first and second degree murder.
  
  No. Stop it. There is no difference between those two crimes because of the inherent power disparity between police and detainees.
  
  almost arguable that the power dynamic goes the other way since women can get a lot done with just their boobs. I'm certain I can prove that men are mentally under performing when a girl starts seducing them to the point that they will lock themselves in their own car.
  
  No one is saying he's not a piece of shit or that he didn't abuse his power or that he got off easy by resigning. This just does not meet the definition of rape.
  Reverse the roles. Female cop, male prisoner. Guy makes the same offer, she accepts. Did she rape him, or is it more likely that the guy gets an additional sexual harassment charge?
  
  Yes, in your hypothetical situation, she raped him. Rape is rape. It's nonconsensual sex. Detainees cannot give consent to sex because there is always the inherent threat of violence and imprisonment.
  It's akin to slavery. Slaves cannot consent to sex, either.
  
  You’re not wrong
  
  Nice
  
  There's been cases of underage students coercing teachers into sex and the teacher wouldn't get convicted of rape too. Or if you want to draw an even more extreme scenario, what if she was faking an emergency, the cop looks for her in the back and she forces herself onto her. Would you still argue he raped her because of power imbalance of his job and physical strength? We can go even further... Are all sexual acts of men onto women rape, because they're inherently stronger than women? Can men not get raped by women because of this?
  The cop here clearly did abuse his power, but it was absolutely not rape. She was using his weakness against him. It's like accepting a monetary bribe, except that it was sexual favors instead. This is corruption, not rape.
  
  That's not an argument in defense of rape, that's a reason to expand the legal definition to align with the reality of the situation.
  Anyone who is empowered to take away all freedom from an individual cannot have consensual sex with that individual. Whether explicit or not, there is always the threat of force when a police officer has someone in custody. It is not possible to consent to sex under those circumstances. It is always rape.
  
  They aren't able to just take away all freedom because they don't actually have that power. A cop can only hold you in custody for so long. A system can still only take away your freedom based on the crimes committed and that is still for a court to finally decide on whether you're found guilty of that or not. In this case the situation is that the cop can make you NOT go to prison by looking the other way or falsifying data. It's the opposite scenario of what you're describing. This is a quid pro quo situation where both parties would be benefiting from their underhanded deal that they've made.
  
  Oh, you sweet summer child. Never change, the world needs your optimism.
  
  Sure buddy, whatever. Love the thin veiled ad hominem though. Really underlines your argument.
  
  That's not an ad hominem. I'm not dismissing your argument because of who you are. I'm saying you're being naive in your expectations of what the police can and will do. And if you actually do believe that an arresting officer who is willing to fuck a detainee will be constrained by legal limits to their power, then I really don't know how to respond to that.
  
  I'm not dismissing your argument because of who you are. I'm saying you're being naive in your expectations of what the police can and will do.
  You claim I'm naive so you dismiss my argument. You're literally contradicting yourself here.
  And if you actually do believe that an arresting officer who is willing to fuck a detainee will be constrained by legal limits to their power, then I really don't know how to respond to that.
  What would he do? Put someone into his cellar? That would not be backed by his supposed power level of being a cop, that would just be an act of a criminal like any other, cop or not. Your whole argument is that it is rape because of the power imbalance and what he could have done to her if she refused, based on the power granted by his job. You're spinning one hypothetical scenario after another to make a point that just boils down to a black & white ACAB.
  
  Yes you get due process, with a bias towards believing the system. People can often spend months in jail before the process progresses to the point where the charges get dropped. So yes a police officer doesn't have the power to put you in custody for your whole life, but they do have the power to put you at the mercy of a flawed system where you are rolling the dice with your future.
  
  you are tragically misinformed about what constitutes rape, and I suggest you seek help from a professional.
  
  Your ad hominem is a great argument and really shows your moral high ground on this matter.
  
  Read other comments or inform yourself on California law. Someone under arrest is incapable of giving consent. (Same as a child can't)
  
  I don't care about California or any Ameritard state laws since we're arguing about ethics, not legal advice.

50 comments