RealJock Judges, Lawyers, Policemen, Explain This Ruling about a Gay/Bi Cop and a Minor (Meanwhile, I read it a second time.)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 2:22 AM GMT
    http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/07/ohio-court-says-police-legally-children/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 2:29 AM GMT
    http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/07/supreme_court_throws_out_ohio.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 2:32 AM GMT
    Why doesn't statutory rape law supersede this?
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 06, 2016 1:57 AM GMT
    (1) There is no charge of rape, here, the charge is sexual battery (the police officer could have been touching the victim's ass, gently, with his hand, while both were fully clothed: That constitutes sexual "battery". ("Battery" simply means to "touch", under the law, it doesn't not mean to "batter/beat");
    (2) The jury returned a hung verdict in the trial; and this Court's opinion is also 4-3, so people are clearly disagreeing on the interpretation of the statute;
    (3) The Court's holding simply says that if the perpetrator has an "occupational relationship" (of trust) with the victim, then that perpetrator is included in a "special class" (your priest, corrections officer, schoolteacher). But the Court is saying that peace officers qua police officers are NOT in that "special class", as they do not rise to the same level of "occupational relationship" with you (Note: This would be entirely different if the peace officer had molested the boy while the boy was in custody);
    (4) So the Court's holding simply says "You can't classify peace officers this way, in the same way you couldn't classify people "with blue eyes", as that denies those individuals their due process protection."
  • Dynamo_spark

    Posts: 224

    Aug 06, 2016 7:47 AM GMT
    In South Africa it would be called, Sexual Abuse of a minor. Usually the accused would be charged with sexual misconduct. Either receive a sentence, a fine or a suspended sentence, depending what the court decides. The end result is not a happy one though, the accused offenders name is placed on the list of Sexual Offenders.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2016 2:20 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said(1) There is no charge of rape, here, the charge is sexual battery (the police officer could have been touching the victim's ass, gently, with his hand, while both were fully clothed: That constitutes sexual "battery". ("Battery" simply means to "touch", under the law, it doesn't not mean to "batter/beat");
    (2) The jury returned a hung verdict in the trial; and this Court's opinion is also 4-3, so people are clearly disagreeing on the interpretation of the statute;
    (3) The Court's holding simply says that if the perpetrator has an "occupational relationship" (of trust) with the victim, then that perpetrator is included in a "special class" (your priest, corrections officer, schoolteacher). But the Court is saying that peace officers qua police officers are NOT in that "special class", as they do not rise to the same level of "occupational relationship" with you (Note: This would be entirely different if the peace officer had molested the boy while the boy was in custody);
    (4) So the Court's holding simply says "You can't classify peace officers this way, in the same way you couldn't classify people "with blue eyes", as that denies those individuals their due process protection."


    Thank you for the response.

    From the media, with priests or girls' gymnastics coaches, we get accustomed to the no inappropriate touching, jail time, monetary damages. Maybe some states have a no tolerance law where even inappropriate touching is rape. Even with the Broadway play, Doubt, the taboo is great.

    You say there is no rape, but I thought a minor could not give consent to an adult.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2016 2:23 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said(1) There is no charge of rape, here, the charge is sexual battery (the police officer could have been touching the victim's ass, gently, with his hand, while both were fully clothed: That constitutes sexual "battery". ("Battery" simply means to "touch", under the law, it doesn't not mean to "batter/beat");



    I don't see a downplay of sex--just touching with clothes on when the facts are:

    At issue was the 2012 conviction of former suburban Cleveland police officer Matthew Mole, who was accused of having sex with a 14-year-old boy he met on a hookup app, according to Supreme Court documents.

    Mole, then 35, was arrested and charged after the boy’s mother found them together, Thursday’s ruling said.
  • jlars12

    Posts: 82

    Aug 09, 2016 2:26 AM GMT
    I'm confused. Since when is anyone allowed to have sex with minors?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2016 5:55 AM GMT
    Why is everything this guy posts completely incoherent?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2016 9:07 AM GMT
    jlars12 saidI'm confused. Since when is anyone allowed to have sex with minors?


    They aren't.

    Where sexual contact with a minor is by someone in an occupational position of trust over that minor, it is generally considered by the criminal law to be an aggravating factor (i.e. it makes what is already a crime an even worse crime). In this case, the court decided that where a police officer has sexual contact with a minor, he or she should be treated like any other class of criminal defendant and should not automatically be regarded as being in an occupational position of trust over the minor.

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 10, 2016 8:09 AM GMT
    StephenOABC said
    WrestlerBoy said(1) There is no charge of rape, here, the charge is sexual battery (the police officer could have been touching the victim's ass, gently, with his hand, while both were fully clothed: That constitutes sexual "battery". ("Battery" simply means to "touch", under the law, it doesn't not mean to "batter/beat");
    (2) The jury returned a hung verdict in the trial; and this Court's opinion is also 4-3, so people are clearly disagreeing on the interpretation of the statute;
    (3) The Court's holding simply says that if the perpetrator has an "occupational relationship" (of trust) with the victim, then that perpetrator is included in a "special class" (your priest, corrections officer, schoolteacher). But the Court is saying that peace officers qua police officers are NOT in that "special class", as they do not rise to the same level of "occupational relationship" with you (Note: This would be entirely different if the peace officer had molested the boy while the boy was in custody);
    (4) So the Court's holding simply says "You can't classify peace officers this way, in the same way you couldn't classify people "with blue eyes", as that denies those individuals their due process protection."


    Thank you for the response.

    From the media, with priests or girls' gymnastics coaches, we get accustomed to the no inappropriate touching, jail time, monetary damages. Maybe some states have a no tolerance law where even inappropriate touching is rape. Even with the Broadway play, Doubt, the taboo is great.

    You say there is no rape, but I thought a minor could not give consent to an adult.


    See ExMil's post, if you didn't understand mine. You're missing the point in law to which the Court's holding is referring.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2016 1:00 AM GMT
    I found posted news under a better editor:
    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/07/28/police-cant-be-penalized-more-than-public-for-crimes-involving-sex-with-minors-supreme-court-says.html
    Supreme Court: Police can't be penalized more than public for crimes involving sex with minors


    The Ohio Supreme Court today declared unconstitutional a state law making it felony for a law enforcement officer to have sex with a minor more than two years younger than the officer.

    The 4-3 ruling in a Cuyahoga County case said a 2007 state law "clearly and unequivocally" violated the equal protection clause of the Ohio Constitution by unfairly imposing a higher standard on law enforcement than the general public.

    "Peace officers must accept certain burdens as part of their employment in order to maintain the honor and privilege of being peace officers and to foster public trust," Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor said in the majority decision. "They do not lose all of their rights as ordinary citizens, including their constitutional right to be treated equally under the criminal law, simply because they have chosen the profession of peace officer."

    While state law already made it illegal to have sex with a minor, a 2007 law added law enforcement officers to teachers, coaches, psychologists, clergy and scout trooper leaders for whom sexual battery with a minor is a third-degree felony.

    The case involved Matthew T. Mole, a former police officer in Waite Hill, a Cleveland suburb. Mole met a boy who claimed he was 18 years old on a social network gay website, according to court records. Mole went to the boy's home and had what he said was consensual oral sex with the boy, who was actually 14. The boy's mother called police and Mole was arrested on Dec. 19, 2011.

    Mole, who was 35 at the time of the incident, was convicted in 2012 for having sex with a minor more than two years younger than him. He received a two-year prison sentence.

    However, in July 2013, Mole's conviction was reversed by an appeals court and he was released from prison. The Cuyahoga County prosecutor and Attorney General Mike DeWine appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

    O'Connor said in her opinion that the Supreme Court, as the "ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Ohio Constitution, can and will interpret our Constitution to afford greater rights to our citizens when we believe that such an interpretation is both prudent and not inconsistent with the intent of the framers."

    She wrote that the government has an interest in protecting juveniles from sexual assault, but that "does not justify differential treatment under the criminal law of peace officers acting as private citizens when there is no connection between the criminalized conduct and the office, duties, or other aspects of the occupation of a peace officer."

    Justice Sharon L. Kennedy dissented, arguing that the majority "stretched the precedent to the breaking point" in making the decision on a equal protection basis. Justices Judith L. French and Terrence O'Donnell also dissented.

    Find the case online at supremecourt.ohio.gov.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2016 1:08 AM GMT
    Yea, well even so, I side with the dissenters on this one. Off-duty police should gladly be as responsible as coaches, teachers, and priests--gladly held to a higher standard than the public.