Georgia Police Chief

[Sidhe]

You mean like how a literal hate mob got someone fired for a crime they did not commit via attempting to shut down and guilt trip as many parts of university as was humanly possible? In spite of said person they got fired having been on their side the entire damn time?

You mean like how, not even 48 hours ago, literal terrorists who represented ISIS (who represents Islam by extension) went right ahead and murdered over a hundred people?

Look, I agree, this chief of police is a fucking piece of shit. He really is. Except that, in the grand scheme of things, the worst crime he committed was having a shitty opinion. He's in no place to define or change the law and if he refuses to execute the law because of his personal beliefs, he can be summarily charged and disbarred for doing so. He cannot refuse to do his job properly, no matter how stupid he thinks some cases may be. Versus, say, getting someone completely innocent summarily terminated from their job because of a raebic hate mob, or murdering people in cold blood because they refuse to conform to your psychotic beliefs.

In terms of the "sliding scale", this should not be given much attention. The only attention this man should be receiving is a reprimand from their superior for espousing a belief that is wildly inappropriate for someone of his position to hold. All highlighting this does is create a massive echo chamber of self-righteous idiots who will make the overly obvious proclamation that this guy is an asshole.

Yes, he is an asshole. And he should get reprimanded by his superiors.

He is also an asshole who still abides by--and is ultimately bound to--the rule of law, doesn't try to get people summarily fired from their jobs, and doesn't murder people in cold blood.

So, you know. Use your common sense. Don't stir a shitpot, don't create or feed into an echo chamber that will spiral off into yet another aimless hate mob that will prosecute people on thought crimes. If you really care, go mail his superiors about this unprofessional conduct or something. Use the force of common sense.

I'm going to try and be as civil as possible here.

Is this one asshole? Yes, but there are many more like him. In this case, he is the chief of police, one who holds a belief that is saying 'I don't give a fuck about sexual assault victims and I likely teach my police force not to, either.' That's affecting a great number of women right there. There's a good chance that any women who experience sexual assault under his jurisdiction will be subjected to hell if they try to come forward, and it's hard enough as it is to do so, because of attitudes like this. People will, without a doubt, try to find someway where it is your fault.

Just from reading previous posts of yours, I'm sure you'll cringe when I bring up the topic of rape culture, but this is a really prime fucking example of it. Statements like this, being publicly broadcasted by prominent figures (and it's not just him, but government officials, people who have power over the law and can and have tried to pass new bills to make lives of women more hellish) just allows people to continue thinking that it is okay. It encourages others of like mindsets to voice their opinions, and those on the fence to start thinking 'well, he's the police chief/governor/whatever, he must be right.'

This is one thread of a few (and only a few, apparently) people who are upset about his statements. More often than not I see people agreeing with these sentiments. Perhaps not quite as viscerally stated as this man, but there are so many people who don't take rape seriously, who believe that most women just 'cry rape,' who think only 'real rape' counts, and who believe 'real rape' only = a completely sober, modestly dressed woman who was attacked by total strangers, kicked and screamed and shouted no as loud as she could, and marched straight to the police afterwards to report the crime. Those are apparently the only victims of sexual assault who deserve sympathy, not the thousands of other women who are assaulted by friends, by family members, under the influence of alcohol, wearing short skirts and paralyzed in fear, unable to fight back or scream.

TW: sexual assault

My sexual assault was not like that. It was a friend who blackmailed and lied and manipulated me for over a year so he could touch me. He forced me into a relationship with him. When my friend came with me and got me to walk away from him, he stalked me and left messages telling me to kill myself at every avenue he could. I was told that this didn't count as sexual assault because we were children (sorry but by 13 you should fucking know better) and so went years thinking that what happened to me was okay.

It might not affect you directly, but it sure as hell affects people like me directly. It might not be as important in the grand scheme as the massacres occurring across the world right now, but that doesn't mean it's not important. It's really fucking important to a lot of people.

I don't really want to discuss this any further here, so if you have something else to say, you can PM me.

 

[Cpt Toellner]

It's that easy, let's respect the mods and keep this to PMs.

 

[Brovo]

It's that easy, let's respect the mods and keep this to PMs.

It's fine. @Fauna 's response is obviously extraordinarily personal and painful for her and I'm not so classless as to attack a trauma. The only words I have are thus: She has my sympathies, and I hope she feels okay. I don't want to wish pain on anyone.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

"I might sound insensitive, but I'm not. Most of these sexual assaults are women waking up the next morning with a guilt complex. That ain't rape, that's being stupid. When the dust settles, it was all consensual. It doesn't happen here. It doesn't show up here. They're about as much a rape as a goat roping."

Direct Quote from the Chief in the article.

To me it honestly doesn't sound like he's dismissing Rape, but rather stating something that should be obvious.
Having sex, and then regretting it after the fact is not rape, it's having made a mistake.

Now judging from the article itself, it doesn't look like he actually did anything in his position about it though.
There seems to be no proven case of him preventing a rape allegation from being investigation, just accusations of him doing so.

I think he's free to have his own personal opinion as much as anyone else.
But it's when that opinion starts to effect the way you do your job that actions should be taken.
Denying investigation because he doesn't think it's legit? Yea, he should get reprimanded for that.
Simply stating a personal belief that some times it's not rape? That is thought policing, in no instance in human history has that been a good thing.

Now, sadly innocent people being ruined by false rape allegations is also a serious and rampant matter.
But that's a different topic for a different thread on how said investigations and court cases should be handled.
All that's relevant to this thread is that despite the officer's personal beliefs, a rape claim should at least be looked into.
But an officer should not be required to personally agree with or believe the victim as long as they do not let said opinion influence their duties and responsibilities.

And before anyone tries, no I'm not looking to debate this.
I'm just stating my own thoughts on the matter.
Attempts to start a debate will be ignored, and reported if they persist.

 

[Flame]

Who's with me on having a "bad cop" or "race problem" general thread so that every time Sacred has something new to bring up, so this same shit doesn't happen every couple days.

We should just scoop up all the links and shit, and slap them into one thread so people can have circular conversations about these subjects there. It's obvious no viewpoints will be changing anytime soon, and these threads pop up every couple of days or so with circular arguments.

I'm betting good money that this post will get, at most a little chuckle, and the same thing will happen again relatively soon, so see you all next thread. ^^

 

[redblood]

To me it honestly doesn't sound like he's dismissing Rape, but rather stating something that should be obvious.
Having sex, and then regretting it after the fact is not rape, it's having made a mistake.

Now judging from the article itself, it doesn't look like he actually did anything in his position about it though.
There seems to be no proven case of him preventing a rape allegation from being investigation, just accusations of him doing so.

In reality, his department doesn't even work with the rape cases.

Article from a second interview

Golden later sent a letter to the newspaper denying making the remarks in the first place.

"I have been out on medical leave for several weeks and do not recall much of this conversation," he stated. "We talked very openly about these issues but this article excerpt is not an accurate rendition of our conversation or my position on Title IX."

He also said that his department frequently calls on other agencies to investigate sexual assaults, saying, "They do not happen on this campus often enough for my officers to be proficient in working such crimes, coupled with the fact we do not have the staff to devote the amount of time to such an investigation."

It wouldn't matter if his opinion would make him neglect that part of the job, because he doesn't work with it anyways. You can't neglect a job you aren't even supposed to do. They call in other people to do that job since they don't have the skills to handle that. (Which makes it really odd for him to have been interviewed about the sexual assault safety on campus...)

I do agree with Gwazi, it doesn't sound as if he's dismissing all rapes, he's just saying that he thinks people who regrets sex from the night before, a sex that was consented to at the time when they did it, and goes to report it are idiots, which I agree with. What bugs people are that he says "most" are this type of cases. Now, is he talking about ALL rape cases in the whole world? In his country? Probably not. This interview he was a part of was about a specific college, and different cases can differ so much in truth, false and severity depending on the place. Statistics aren't exactly the same everywhere. Did he talk about his own opinion or what he had seen was correct statistically on that college? Quite frankly, we don't know. That is one quote from probably a much longer conversation. What was said before that? What was said after that?

I cannot judge this person because A) I need to see the rest of that interview to find out the context to the quote, what led up to the quote, what was said after it, how big of an area he's talking about and what he's basing that opinion on. B) This is a he said, she said situation. The reporter said that he said one thing and he says that it was misrepresented. Now if the interview had been recorded (which in my opinion should always be the case when you interview someone to make sure that all quotes are correct and so that both parties can have a chance to show their innocence in case a he said I said something I didn't say, she said I changed stuff he said when I didn't situation. Because a written quote can be a lie.) then we could know for sure what had been said, but as it is now, we have ONE quote from an interview, we don't have the rest of the interview, and no recording has been put up to prove what was actually said.

And now I'm done playing devil's advocate and will remove myself from the discussion since I have gotten nothing proven to me one way or the other and can't judge if he's a total asshole or just misrepresented by the journalist.