No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.
When the case went to trial, however, defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn’t responsible for making sticky all over the woman’s sweater. He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess–after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.
“She got what she wanted,” said Stokke. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”
A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—agreed with Stokke. On Feb. 2, after a half-day of deliberations, they found Park not guilty of three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors during the December 2004 traffic stop.
And apparently since you decided to show us all that you’re flaming asshole, you want me to punch you in the face. You’re obviously just asking for it.
Not only is this a disgusting case of slut shaming and victim blaming, but the police officer was actually stalking the stripper. He knew her profession would make her an easy target, as her “sexiness” was his only defense. The only sensible person at the trial was apparently the prosecutor:
In his closing argument, Stokke pounced. He called Lucy one of those “girls who have learned the art of the tease, getting what they want . . . they’ve learned to separate men from their money.”
Kamiabipour wasn’t amused. “Dancer or not, sexually promiscuous nor not, she had the right not to consent,” she told jurors. “[Park] doesn’t get a freebie just because of who she is . . . He used her like an object.”
There is no excuse for rape or sexual assault. It doesn’t matter if they’re wearing revealing clothing, a stripper, walking around alone at night, or drunk. The blame lies with the man who is sexually assaulting and raping others. The fact that some people still can’t get this through their tiny brain mildly terrifies me.
I was wondering when or if you’d hear about this story. Not so much feminist rage, I think, as general outrage in anyone with any measure of scruples and ethics. Personally, the one I hate the most in this story is Stokke, that asshole of a defense for Park.
I was wondering when or if you’d hear about this story. Not so much feminist rage, I think, as general outrage in anyone with any measure of scruples and ethics. Personally, the one I hate the most in this story is Stokke, that asshole of a defense for Park.
Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh. I am so grossed out by Park's actions and Stokke's unethical and repulsive questions. They should both be in jail. Blarg.
Joé McKen said: Not so much feminist rage, I think, as general outrage in anyone with any measure of scruples and ethics.
I disagree. The ethical position that women have the right to say "no" to men, to control their own reproduction, and to not have semen splattered across their sweaters if they don't want it is a feminist idea.
And, sadly, this story only goes to show that there's no such thing as "general" rage in these cases. Average people come down on the anti-feminist side all the time.
Stokke only did what was required of him to win the case – to succeed in his job, which was to defend Park. Regardless of what we think, Park deserves a competent defense.
The fact that the judge allowed the line of questioning and that the jury swallowed it is the real problem.
Sean, Joé is just young. Ethics changes over time based on movements like feminism. To the young of today, the concept of feminism being seperate from general equality is difficult to understand.
Stokke only did what was required of him to win the case – to succeed in his job, which was to defend Park. Regardless of what we think, Park deserves a competent defense.The fact that the judge allowed the line of questioning and that the jury swallowed it is the real problem.Sean, Joé is just young. Ethics changes over time based on movements like feminism. To the young of today, the concept of feminism being seperate from general equality is difficult to understand.
Don't forget that men can be feminists too.
Don’t forget that men can be feminists too.
@Sean & Veritas:I would have to disagree, myself. I don’t see this as an issue that’s purely, or even mostly, feminist in nature. What I see here is a case where someone in authority is using his influence, and especially the respect and honor inherent to his position (for being a cop), to present this case in his favor, regardless of the actual circumstances. Yes, it involves “slut shaming” and denigration of Lucy, but the way I see it, this is more because of her type of work and position in societal hierarchy than her simply being a woman. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s how I see it. To me, this isn’t loathsome because it involves the denigration of a woman; it’s loathsome because this asshole cop uses his position to simultaneously elevate and “immunize” himself against any charges of wrongdoing (for lack of a better term) whilst shaming his accuser and crushing their accusations. This story does have feminist ramifications, of course, but that’s not the most part, at least not in my view.
(And for the record, I also disagree that my opinion has much to do with my age. I don’t see how feminism is “separate from general equality” any more than is racism, or homophobia, or any form of bigotry. Maybe it’s just a local or cultural thing, but I can safely state that where I am, at least, sexism is no more a prevalent issue or form of bigotry than is any other. In fact, it may be the least; I see a lot more homophobia and racism than sexism where I am, and I’m pretty sure suburban Québec isn’t all that much different than anywhere else in the modern Western world. But, again, this is just from my personal experience.)
@Sean & Veritas:I would have to disagree, myself. I don’t see this as an issue that’s purely, or even mostly, feminist in nature. What I see here is a case where someone in authority is using his influence, and especially the respect and honor inherent to his position (for being a cop), to present this case in his favor, regardless of the actual circumstances. Yes, it involves “slut shaming” and denigration of Lucy, but the way I see it, this is more because of her type of work and position in societal hierarchy than her simply being a woman. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s how I see it. To me, this isn’t loathsome because it involves the denigration of a woman; it’s loathsome because this asshole cop uses his position to simultaneously elevate and “immunize” himself against any charges of wrongdoing (for lack of a better term) whilst shaming his accuser and crushing their accusations. This story does have feminist ramifications, of course, but that’s not the most part, at least not in my view.(And for the record, I also disagree that my opinion has much to do with my age. I don’t see how feminism is “separate from general equality” any more than is racism, or homophobia, or any form of bigotry. Maybe it’s just a local or cultural thing, but I can safely state that where I am, at least, sexism is no more a prevalent issue or form of bigotry than is any other. In fact, it may be the least; I see a lot more homophobia and racism than sexism where I am, and I’m pretty sure suburban Québec isn’t all that much different than anywhere else in the modern Western world. But, again, this is just from my personal experience.)
She could have been naked, bent over, straining to pick up a table; it doesn't matter. The police officer acted in a lewd manner in public. As a *public* official, he should be punished. Then again, perhaps my lack of bigotry and strict requirement for evidence is why I never end up on a jury…
She could have been naked, bent over, straining to pick up a table; it doesn’t matter. The police officer acted in a lewd manner in public. As a *public* official, he should be punished. Then again, perhaps my lack of bigotry and strict requirement for evidence is why I never end up on a jury…
Oh, I forgot:http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/12/what_not_to_get_me_for_christm.php
Oh, I forgot:http://scienceblogs.com/bioeph…
This is disgusting. Anybody can be a jury member? Aren't they required to pass a test or something to check whether they turn out to be, well, something like some nasty macho fuckheads?
This is disgusting. Anybody can be a jury member? Aren’t they required to pass a test or something to check whether they turn out to be, well, something like some nasty macho fuckheads?
WAIT, WHAT?? This police officer just what? Was he masturbating? AND THE PEOPLE AGREED WITH HIM???????? I have no hope for the world after reading this. So basically they're saying that any woman who's scantily clad is just inviting men to come on her? I AM HORRIFIED. (I'm busting out the all caps on this one.)
WAIT, WHAT?? This police officer just what? Was he masturbating? AND THE PEOPLE AGREED WITH HIM???????? I have no hope for the world after reading this. So basically they’re saying that any woman who’s scantily clad is just inviting men to come on her? I AM HORRIFIED. (I’m busting out the all caps on this one.)
@Boob Nazi:He wasn’t "just masturbating"; he forced her to give him a handjob. She also claims he fondled her groin and breasts. Just the image of class, isn’t he …
@Boob Nazi:He wasn’t “just masturbating”; he forced her to give him a handjob. She also claims he fondled her groin and breasts. Just the image of class, isn’t he …
"I disagree. The ethical position that women have the right to say "no" to men, to control their own reproduction, and to not have semen splattered across their sweaters if they don't want it is a feminist idea."
It certainly isn't the case that that is an exclusively feminist idea.
Look at the ancient Romans! They were hardly feminists and yet they were so horrified by the crime of Rape that they made it a Capital Crime.
When was the last time someone in America, the home of so many feminists, was executed for commiting rape?
“I disagree. The ethical position that women have the right to say “no” to men, to control their own reproduction, and to not have semen splattered across their sweaters if they don’t want it is a feminist idea.”It certainly isn’t the case that that is an exclusively feminist idea.Look at the ancient Romans! They were hardly feminists and yet they were so horrified by the crime of Rape that they made it a Capital Crime.When was the last time someone in America, the home of so many feminists, was executed for commiting rape?
Oh. My. God. And I don't even have one. This kind of story really makes one wish for a personal superhero God who will exact eternal justice.
Oh. My. God. And I don’t even have one. This kind of story really makes one wish for a personal superhero God who will exact eternal justice.
BTW a Google login on here associates you with a fictional Blogger account.
BTW a Google login on here associates you with a fictional Blogger account.
A fictional blogger account? Huh?
A fictional blogger account? Huh?
Well I used my Google account to log in, but the site thinks I'm on Blogger. Click my name.
Well I used my Google account to log in, but the site thinks I’m on Blogger. Click my name.
Huh. Looks like David just found a little glitch-slash-workaround to enabling anonymous commenters to give a name. (Jen: click his blogger account name, you’ll see it leads nowhere.)
Huh. Looks like David just found a little glitch-slash-workaround to enabling anonymous commenters to give a name. (Jen: click his blogger account name, you’ll see it leads nowhere.)
Huh. Interesting. My guess is that's because Google owns Blogger.
Huh. Interesting. My guess is that’s because Google owns Blogger.
I didn't give any name though; it pulled my real name from Google, which doesn't work on ScienceBlogs… they just mark every post "destlund" which is kind of boring.
I didn’t give any name though; it pulled my real name from Google, which doesn’t work on ScienceBlogs… they just mark every post “destlund” which is kind of boring.
Ahh, makes sense. Anyway, still lovin your blag. And that comes from a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted atheist boy thankfully thriving in the liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted atheist city of Austin, Texas (thriving, except in summer).
Ahh, makes sense. Anyway, still lovin your blag. And that comes from a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted atheist boy thankfully thriving in the liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted atheist city of Austin, Texas (thriving, except in summer).
So do you think this standard applies outside the morality of monotheistic religions? If I was walking around with a male stripper (or Fabio, take your pick) thing going on and this cop pulled the same thing on me, do you think the jury would have reacted the same way? After all, I would have been 'asking for it' just as much as she was.
So do you think this standard applies outside the morality of monotheistic religions? If I was walking around with a male stripper (or Fabio, take your pick) thing going on and this cop pulled the same thing on me, do you think the jury would have reacted the same way? After all, I would have been ‘asking for it’ just as much as she was.
"So do you think this standard applies outside the morality of monotheistic religions?"Wait, what? Is this a joke?
“So do you think this standard applies outside the morality of monotheistic religions?”Wait, what? Is this a joke?
Forget Feminist Rage; this is a case in which Manly Rage is equally applicable.It *should* be hard for any man to not punch him straight in the face.It's good that he wasn't lynched by a mob, but I'm disappointed by the lack of anger.
Forget Feminist Rage; this is a case in which Manly Rage is equally applicable.It *should* be hard for any man to not punch him straight in the face.It’s good that he wasn’t lynched by a mob, but I’m disappointed by the lack of anger.
My motivation is not feministic. If anything, I'm bigoted for holding men to a very high standard.
My motivation is not feministic. If anything, I’m bigoted for holding men to a very high standard.
This is completely insane. Let us assume, AS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, he pulled the woman over, she OFFERED a handjob, he declines a few times and then says "Okay, why not?" He should STILL lose his job as a cop because he is taking bribes from suspects. I'm sure there is a penalty for accepting bribes legally too. He is still committing a sex act in a public place, so find him guilty of at least that.
How does someone admitting this in court walk away? I hope they file an appeal to this obvious miscarriage of justice.
This is completely insane. Let us assume, AS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, he pulled the woman over, she OFFERED a handjob, he declines a few times and then says “Okay, why not?” He should STILL lose his job as a cop because he is taking bribes from suspects. I’m sure there is a penalty for accepting bribes legally too. He is still committing a sex act in a public place, so find him guilty of at least that.How does someone admitting this in court walk away? I hope they file an appeal to this obvious miscarriage of justice.
@Michael: I don't normally use or defend feminist terminology, but when you find patriarchal societies like Rome (and Rome makes all other societies look egalitarian) having the death penalty for rape, it's because they're seeing it as a crime of property damage against the woman's paterfamilias or chattel-owner.
I wonder what the patrolman's wife had to say after reading this.
@Michael: I don’t normally use or defend feminist terminology, but when you find patriarchal societies like Rome (and Rome makes all other societies look egalitarian) having the death penalty for rape, it’s because they’re seeing it as a crime of property damage against the woman’s paterfamilias or chattel-owner. I wonder what the patrolman’s wife had to say after reading this.
This is unbelievable. Reading through the article, the man stalked several of the women who worked at the same strip club as Lucy prior to the event. He was not only warned by a superior to lay off the strippers, he was outside of his jurisdiction when he pulled Lucy over, and made violations of procedure in failing to call for back up on a suspended license, etc. I cannot imagine that any jury would let this guy walk, but then I look at the break down: 11 white, middle-aged men and one woman. That's how.
This is unbelievable. Reading through the article, the man stalked several of the women who worked at the same strip club as Lucy prior to the event. He was not only warned by a superior to lay off the strippers, he was outside of his jurisdiction when he pulled Lucy over, and made violations of procedure in failing to call for back up on a suspended license, etc. I cannot imagine that any jury would let this guy walk, but then I look at the break down: 11 white, middle-aged men and one woman. That’s how.
This is absolutely disgusting, and it seems even worse to me that the legal system accommodates this.
The way it's worded is rather odd, though. He "got an erection and ejaculated"? As if it were spontaneous? Unless there are some medical issues involved, I find it hard to believe that that's all that happened.
I don't hold anything against the defence attorney except perhaps that our society is such that he can get away with saying the things he said… I doubt any other sort of defence could have worked.
This is absolutely disgusting, and it seems even worse to me that the legal system accommodates this.The way it’s worded is rather odd, though. He “got an erection and ejaculated”? As if it were spontaneous? Unless there are some medical issues involved, I find it hard to believe that that’s all that happened.I don’t hold anything against the defence attorney except perhaps that our society is such that he can get away with saying the things he said… I doubt any other sort of defence could have worked.
Ah, thanks Joe. I read the article after reading this post. I was so horrified by the post that I couldn't go read it yet.And the whole "got an erection and ejaculated" phrase sounds like it happened magically or something. I wish I could kick him in the balls. HARD. Make it so he can't force a woman to do this ever again.
Ah, thanks Joe. I read the article after reading this post. I was so horrified by the post that I couldn’t go read it yet.And the whole “got an erection and ejaculated” phrase sounds like it happened magically or something. I wish I could kick him in the balls. HARD. Make it so he can’t force a woman to do this ever again.
This is most certainly not just a feminist issue. For instance, I am not a feminist yet I am just as enraged as the people who are.
I can't imagine how any jury let him off the case. At the very least he should have gotten indecent exposure.
By the way, he can't lose his job as a policeman because he now works in construction. But he most certainly deserves some sort of jail time for abusing his authority.
This is most certainly not just a feminist issue. For instance, I am not a feminist yet I am just as enraged as the people who are. I can’t imagine how any jury let him off the case. At the very least he should have gotten indecent exposure. By the way, he can’t lose his job as a policeman because he now works in construction. But he most certainly deserves some sort of jail time for abusing his authority.
Here in Columbus there's a recent story about a cop who tried to trade an oral favor for letting go a woman who had an outstanding warrant. Yeah, he asked her to do him while she was handcuffed in the back of his cruiser. Then the idiot took her in, anyway.
My wife works with his wife (and ugh! I've even met the guy). Unlike genius, stupidity knows no limits.
Here in Columbus there’s a recent story about a cop who tried to trade an oral favor for letting go a woman who had an outstanding warrant. Yeah, he asked her to do him while she was handcuffed in the back of his cruiser. Then the idiot took her in, anyway.My wife works with his wife (and ugh! I’ve even met the guy). Unlike genius, stupidity knows no limits.
How the fuck could any competent prosecutor allow this kind of jury?
(I’m just posting as a devil’s advocate here, and commenting on a really old post)a) The only thing the jury was sure of was that he ejaculated on her at some point,b) She claims he used his status as a police officer to force her to do this,c) He claims something like “it just happened”, i.e. he did not use his status as a police officer to force her to do this,d) The charges against him were: “three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors”,e) it becomes his word vs. her word, and furthermore there’s a reasonable doubt that she could have offered to do this to try to get out of a ticket.Everyone’s heard stories about women who try to use their sexual appeal to get out of a ticket, how common is it? I don’t know: but these are criminal charges! “Yes, I think he abused his power and made her do it, but it/s possible she offered it. While accepting that offer is still a crime, it’s not the crime we’re possibly convicting him for,” is all ANY juror has to think to vote not guilty.Regardless of this, he is (allegedly) guilty of other crimes, BUT they are not the subject of this court case.Personally, I hope he was fired for this, AND I think he made her do it.
This…ARGGG Rage…building… Just…fucking….we need to just have some sort of masked viglantee to travel around and castrate people like this. I don;t care how old this thread is. I’m too weak to resist the rage…. Just…so…horrible…ARGHHH Coherent sentence…not coming….urge to kill rising…