In Secretive Court Hearing, NYPD Cops Who Raped Brooklyn Teen in Custody Get No Jail Time
- Thread starter Kenneth Griffin
- Start date
Based on what I'm reading she made some false statements under oath which undermined her credibility. It's highly unlikely they could have been convicted of rape in that it was her word against theirs and she made false statements.
Sounds like the charges of accepting bribes where the correct ones although given the gravity of the situation I think there should have been prison time for the misconduct. But I am not seeing anything that makes me believe that rape charges put in front of a jury would have a great deal of success.
Sounds like the charges of accepting bribes where the correct ones although given the gravity of the situation I think there should have been prison time for the misconduct. But I am not seeing anything that makes me believe that rape charges put in front of a jury would have a great deal of success.
"Eddie Martins and Richard Hall, the cops who resigned after the incident involving the then-18-year-old Chambers, were sentenced to five years of probation after they pleaded guilty to 11 charges, including bribery and misconduct. Both men admitted to having sex with the teenage girl while she was held in their custody in 2017, an act that, thanks to Chambers’s case, now constitutes rape under the law (and always constituted rape under any moral reading of the word).
The pleas and the light sentences — handed down in a secretive court hearing — come at the same moment that NYPD officers and their belligerent union are protesting the long-overdue firing of Daniel Pantaleo, the cop who choked Eric Garner to death. Together with the closure of the criminal case surrounding Chambers’s ordeal, it could not be more clear the extent to which police impunity continues to rein."
"WHAT’S MORE, Kings County Supreme Court Justice Danny Chun handed down a sentence more lenient than even the prosecution recommended.
“For the record, your honor, we do oppose a non-jail sentence,” Brooklyn Assistant District Attorney Frank DeGaetano stated during Thursday’s brief hearing, according to the court transcript. The district attorney’s office recommended one to three years in jail on a plea, for charges that could carry an 7-year sentence."
The pleas and the light sentences — handed down in a secretive court hearing — come at the same moment that NYPD officers and their belligerent union are protesting the long-overdue firing of Daniel Pantaleo, the cop who choked Eric Garner to death. Together with the closure of the criminal case surrounding Chambers’s ordeal, it could not be more clear the extent to which police impunity continues to rein."
"WHAT’S MORE, Kings County Supreme Court Justice Danny Chun handed down a sentence more lenient than even the prosecution recommended.
“For the record, your honor, we do oppose a non-jail sentence,” Brooklyn Assistant District Attorney Frank DeGaetano stated during Thursday’s brief hearing, according to the court transcript. The district attorney’s office recommended one to three years in jail on a plea, for charges that could carry an 7-year sentence."
Police departments are a haven for sociopaths.
I don't necessarily agree that having sex with someone in custody should necessarily constitute rape if the other person is consenting. I do think it should constitute a high level abuse of power or a high level accepting of bribes/official misconduct. (We need to have degrees of misconduct much like we have classes of murder.)
And I could certainly support a sentence that is about the same length as a rape.
But my reasons are different. I don't take it and view it as the person they had sex with is the victim (again if consenting). I view it as an action which brings to question to the integrity of the justice system.
If we go by their story she got out of criminal punishment for a crime by having relations with them. That doesn't make her a victim, that makes the whole city the victim by showing that the law might not apply to everyone. . . that if you are attractive and willing to have sex with some cops you can get away with stuff the rest of us can't.
And I could certainly support a sentence that is about the same length as a rape.
But my reasons are different. I don't take it and view it as the person they had sex with is the victim (again if consenting). I view it as an action which brings to question to the integrity of the justice system.
If we go by their story she got out of criminal punishment for a crime by having relations with them. That doesn't make her a victim, that makes the whole city the victim by showing that the law might not apply to everyone. . . that if you are attractive and willing to have sex with some cops you can get away with stuff the rest of us can't.
Disagree. They should be held to a higher standard. She was in their custody in cuffs. She was at their mercy regardless if she was consenting to this. Was she drunk? Was she high? Point is, they knew better, and had control over her safety and well-being and they violated that. Someone under arrest really can't consent as they are under the control of law enforcement. The law let these guys partially get away with it.
That's like saying that a woman can't consent to sex with me because she's in my house. She can say "No, I'll do my time". Now if she says that and they proceed anyways, that's rape. If she says yes, it's a bribe. Which of course because of how we always feel sorry for women no matter what they do, she will never be prosecuted for giving bribes. However that's just a side note as officials being willing to take a bribe and potentially soliciting bribes are of far greater concern than those offering the bribes.
**To clarify it would qualify as rape if they demanded sex in exchange for something she was due in her situation. If she's due a phone call and 3 meals a day and sex was demanded to get those things, that is rape. However if they ask for sex in exchange for something she is not legally due (such as them overlooking her crimes) that is a bribe.**
And for the record by all means put them away for 10 years for accepting bribes, it damages our justice system and the whole community is the victim. But I don't see her as a victim in the slightest. They offered to overlook her crimes (something she's not legally due) in exchange for that. She provided the bribe.
Last edited:
No different than a 14 year consenting to sex with an 18 year old. They can do it, but against the law and considered rape. Or teachers having sex with students even if they reach age of consent due to positions or trust/authority.
"The YOUNG WOMAN who goes by Anna Chambers on social media had just a few short words for the public on Thursday evening. “**** the criminal justice system,” she tweeted"
Sounds like ya already did ma'am
Sounds like ya already did ma'am
Problem I have with that is that police officers have authority over everyone in their jurisdiction. By that reasoning they couldn't have sex with anyone.
And I am personally for teachers having sex with of age students to just lose their jobs and never teach again.
They should have been sentenced to hard time with the option of freedom if they took it in the ass in prison.
I think saying cops cant have sex with anyone while on duty is a pretty reasonable rule.
In fairness to the cops, she might have been asking for it by wearing revealing clothing.
You have got to be kidding. How is coercive sex NOT rape? They threatened her with "criminal punishment" and forced her to have sex to avoid it. That's the definition of a victim. I suppose a woman who "consents" with a knife to her throat hasn't been raped?
Maybe you should rethink your stance.
It was a criminal punishment she would have received anyways.
Now if they picked up a random woman who was doing nothing wrong and threatened that then you are right.
That would be fair, although I think we should be careful with the wording.
If a cop swings by his house on duty for a quickie with his wife, he should lose his job but maybe not go to prison.
These guys should go to prison for a accepting and or soliciting a bribe.
Having a quickie with your wife is very, very different than having sex, possibly coerced, with a prisoner in cuffs.
I am just saying that the sex while on duty is rape rule is a poor one.
To me the issue here is that we are not punishing people enough for taking and soliciting bribes.
Really? You might want to think about what you posted given that is totally at odds with how the justice system works in this country. You're flatly wrong...you should be embarrassed to be so wrong.
