Officers who rape: The police brutality chiefs ignore (but, there is NO war on women!!)

[niyad]

Officers who rape: The police brutality chiefs ignore
Scores of women are sexually assaulted by on-duty officers each year. Most departments are doing little
Police chiefs have long known that officer sexual misconduct is a problem. But an Al Jazeera America investigation found that very few departments have followed basic guidelines designed to prevent it.Edel Rodriguez for Al Jazeera America

http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2016/1/19/sexual-violence-the-brutality-that-police-chiefs-ignore/jcr:content/mainpar/adaptiveimage/src.adapt.960.high.police_rape2.1453206481369.jpg

. . . . . .


Becker was later indicted by the Bronx County district attorney — but only for filming Noonan while she was in custody. A spokesperson for the Bronx district attorney says that the office couldn’t prosecute Becker for the rape because it allegedly took place in Becker’s house in Nassau County. A Bronx judge dismissed the charge because while the filming was “insulting, demeaning and disrespectful to Ms. Noonan,” it didn’t rise to the level of a crime. He suggested that the NYPD discipline Becker for violating department policy.


http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2016/1/19/sexual-violence-the-brutality-that-police-chiefs-ignore/jcr:content/mainpar/textimage3/image.adapt.990.high.erica_noonan.1453206481369.jpg
Erica Noonan, in a photograph taken at the hospital.



While media exposés in recent months have highlighted the pervasiveness of police sexual misconduct, the problem isn’t new — and few departments appear to be doing anything to address it. In perhaps the highest-profile recent case, former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw was convicted in December on 18 counts of sexual assault in attacks on 13 women. His story was one of several described in a yearlong AP investigation published in November that identified about 1,000 cases over a six-year period in which officers had their badges revoked for on-duty sexual misconduct such as rape, sodomy or consensual sex. In another newspaper investigation published in November, the Buffalo News identified 700 cases in the last 10 years in which officers were involved in sexual abuse or sexual misconduct related to their police work. The paper found 105 “new and credible” cases in 2014 alone.

While media exposés in recent months have highlighted the pervasiveness of police sexual misconduct, the problem isn’t new — and few departments appear to be doing anything to address it. In 2011, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, a national leadership and advocacy group, produced a series of recommendations designed to change a culture that the IACP noted may encourage some officers to sexually abuse, harass and assault those they’re sworn to protect.


But an Al Jazeera America investigation found that only three departments of 20 surveyed appear to have taken any of the recommended steps for curbing sexual misconduct. And some female officers attest to a police culture that may encourage such behavior. Further, departments put themselves at risk of expensive lawsuits by not having policies in place, putting taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars in payouts. And the AP investigation found that a broken system of laws and background checks allowed some officers accused of sexual misconduct to get jobs in departments where new allegations would later surface, including rape.

. . . .

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/19/sexual-violence-the-brutality-that-police-chiefs-ignore.html

[smirkymonkey]

1. Police brutality and violence toward women has gotten out of control in this country.

If someone like Trump becomes president, they will end up becoming the modern-day brownshirts. He would sanction even more violence against minorities and women.

[niyad]

2. appallingly true.

[malthaussen]

3. Not that I disagree there is a war on women...

... but I wonder how much of it is organic, and how much directed with intent. The problem with "war on women" as a concept is it implies a leadership, a plan, a purpose. While no doubt such leaders, plans, and purpose do exist, how much they influence the general bloody-mindedness encouraged by our culture is the question. I lean in the direction of it being more of a zeitgeist than an overt war, but the net effect is the same.

-- Mal

[niyad]

4. the net effect is, indeed, the same.

[Wilms]

7. Here's a recent article that agrees for additional reasons.

The war on women is not a war at all: It’s a one-sided assault by sad, insecure little men

snip

Assault, by contrast, is unequal and often unprovoked. One side is the clear aggressor. There’s nothing glorious about assault. In fact, perpetrators are widely reviled. Nobody organizes a victory or veterans’ parade to celebrate assailants. A man who forces his will on a child or who forces pregnancy on a woman is a repulsive villain, not a hero.

snip

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/31/why_conservative_lawmakers_are_deeply_threatened_by_women_comfortable_with_their_sexuality_partner/

That seems a bit better fit. But I'm not calling shots. Worse (and I hope I don't get yelled at), I kind of find that phrases like that excite the choir, piss off the opponents (as opposed to defeating them), and gives the average person who barely pays attention a reason to scram.

And way way worse (I will get yelled at for this), it's sarcastic use as a parenthetical added to any subject line that can contain it is screaming at the reader. I'm like: WTF did I do? Then I'm wondering, is that phrase doing a damn thing to improve the situation, nothing, or making it worse.

:flamesuiton:

[malthaussen]

8. As for the parenthetical phrase...

... to me it is obviously a voicing of vexatious frustration. It helps not to take such things personally.

-- Mal

[Wilms]

10. Quite obviously. And I don't...

except for a brief WTH? moment. But I think it's potentially alienating, and therefore counterproductive.

[malthaussen]

11. It may be tactically unsound.

I am of the choir, so not subject to being alienated. But it is possible that persons of good will who are not convinced may find the expression of frustration ill-advised.

-- Mal

[Wilms]

12. Well said.

And I'll keep it in mind. I can't say I haven't done somethings like that. I can say, it really doesn't work.

[niyad]

13. I do understand your viewpoint, and will not yell) the sarcastic addition is for those who

insist that there is no such thing as a war on women, despite the daily evidence to the contrary.

sadly, while some are sad, insecure little men, others wield great power (and may also be insecure little men, but their damage is often deadly). and that doesn't even begin to address the virulent hatred exhibited by so many.

[Wilms]

15. I would hope that those who are in denail don't post here.

Is that right? Or do they?

But as I mentioned, I don't think the word "War" when I consider the patriarchal order. I know I was being a bit dense, but I had to read up on the term, "War on Women" to try to understand more about the history of the phrase. Because I really didn't get how that frame was going to do anything positive. I feared the opposite, and still do.

If it was a war, you'd have been blown up already. But I do realize terms such as, sexism, male chauvinism, and the like have run their course...as some I've read now argue about WoW. But as much has improved in the last fifty years, their still a long way to go, to use another washed-up phrase. And I don't have a better idea.

It is frustrating. And it's complicated, because some men are across the board inappropriate, while others are so in some cases but not others.

Many of the headlines you post are hair raising enough, Niyad. Let them stand without the cluttering your OP subject line.

I think this is going to take a long time. And that's despite how impatient I feel.

[niyad]

16. believe me, the deniers post here. sad, but true. no, we aren't being blown up, we are

killed by partners, killed by strangers, denied our rights, told by the churches that we are less than human, sold into sexual slavery, or punished for being at all sexual (magdalene laundries, anyone). . . and the list goes on.

[Wilms]

18. Thanks for pointing that out.

I was thinking of the cultural, political, and institutional.

None of the above (generally) condone violence. Isn't that more a family matter? I realize there are enough violent images on TV, but doesn't that really start in the home with the upbringing? What much can be done beyond what's happening now to deal with that?

I'm hoping it is good news, in this regard as well, that it is increasingly uncool to hit a kid. I think that may lead to less violence in that population when they grow up. And millennials seem a lot better at dealing across gender and race and orientation and all that.

[niyad]

19. you think none of the three you mentioned condone violence? seriously? politically? a nation

whose entire history is drenched in blood and violence? the police? the churches? perhaps the millenials are a bit better, but this is the second decade of the 21st century, and we are far from where we should be.

[malthaussen]

5. An acquaintance (no friend, I assure you) once argued:

"What's the point of having power if you don't get to use it against somebody?"

Understanding this mindset is a key towards understanding why institutional abuses occur.

-- Mal

[niyad]

6. you are correct about that mindset.

[closeupready]

9. Thanks, niyad. K&R

[niyad]

14. you are most welcome

[niyad]

17. . . .