Post: #1

According to the news article posted below, a police officer has been charged with sexual assault because a woman he had sex with is claiming that he raped her....ten years ago.

You can read the article to get more information on how her hamster explains her delay in pressing charges and there's no doubt that the cop is an idiot for having sex with her in the first place, but that's no what jumped out at me when I read the article.

How many similar false rape accusations against police officers will occur before the cops get tired of it? Cops absolutely protect their own and if the rank and file get tired of seeing guys they work with become the subject of ridiculous accusations, ten or so years down the road, the police of western, feminist nations might have very little desire to trust women who make similar claims against anyone at all.

This might be how the culture war is lost. First, the #metoo campaign that has been ruining the lives of politicians who have no opportunity to face their accusers and then cases like this targeting police officers may be what causes the pendulum swing to begin changing directions.

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2018/...nsual.html

Quote:Toronto police officer tells trial sex in woman’s apartment was consensual

A Toronto police officer on trial for sexual assault testified Tuesday, denying much of his accuser’s testimony.


A Toronto police officer took the stand Tuesday to deny sexually assaulting a woman in her apartment 10 years ago, saying their sexual interaction “was consensual from the beginning right to the end.”

But Const. Vincenzo Bonazza, 47, admitted that when the young woman first approached his squad car in September 2008, he found her attractive and asked for her phone number, despite the fact that he was married.

“Listen, I was working and I used my position as a police officer to get a phone number from an attractive woman,” Bonazza said.

Days after their initial meeting, he looked up the woman’s file regarding an ongoing criminal harassment complaint she had against her ex-boyfriend, though he was not involved in the case. He conceded Tuesday during cross-examination that this was a way of conducting a “background check” on her prior to spending time with her.

“We work in a city where there’s a lot of people who are mentally unstable,” the officer said, adding that there are many people who are dangerous and he didn’t want to associate with her if that was the case.

Bonazza had pleaded not guilty to sexual assault in a case being heard by Justice Anne London-Weinstein.

The complainant in the case — whose name is covered by a publication ban — alleges Bonazza sexually assaulted her inside her apartment in 2008, when she was working as an actor. The woman now works as a police officer in another jurisdiction and came forward with the allegations against Bonazza in 2015, after investigating another alleged sexual assault.

“It’s taken me a long time to own any of this,” she told the court Tuesday, referring to admitting to herself that she had been sexually assaulted.



She told the court Monday that she engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse, and then oral sex, out of fear for her safety, thinking “he is trained to fight people if he needs to.” She testified that she adamantly told him no when he began unbuttoning her pants, but that he didn’t stop.

Court has heard that she first met Bonazza when she approached the marked Toronto police vehicle he was driving in the context of getting help with her ex-boyfriend, who had recently been arrested for criminally harassing her but who she believed was driving around her neighbourhood.

She also told court that, a day or two later, she got a surprise call from Bonazza — despite that she did not recall giving him her number. She testified that he was bringing her a sushi lunch, something she thought was “just a kind gesture as a kind police officer.”

On the stand Tuesday, Bonazza denied much of the woman’s account, admitting that they had sexual intercourse but stating unequivocally that it was consensual. He denied the woman’s account that there was oral sex following intercourse.

Bonazza told the court that the woman provided him his phone number, and when he called her a short time later, she invited him over to hang out.

Crown prosecutor Peter Scrutton grilled the officer on his account of the night in question, particularly on the issue of when he left. According to Bonazza, he left the woman’s apartment approximately five minutes after they had sex because he “had to get home.”

“You left quickly because you sexually assaulted her and it would have been very awkward for you to hang around,” Scrutton said.

“That’s entirely incorrect,” Bonazza said.

Earlier Tuesday, Bonazza’s lawyer, Gary Clewley, pressed the complainant on her story, identifying inconsistencies in her various statements.



The woman said it was only natural that she would tell her story in different ways each time — “I’m just speaking, I’m just being a human,” she said — but was adamant that she was consistent on the most important aspects of her account.

Near the end of his cross-examination, when Clewley suggested that she had “made up” the entire account of the sushi lunch, the complainant began to cry.



“I’m trying to do the right thing,” she said. “I have nothing to gain by any of this. Absolutely nothing.”

Post: #2

So what you're saying is...

Post: #3

Can we all please dispense with the clickbait? There is very little correlation between the premise of the subject and the actual content posted. I was expecting some major revelation or some manifesto expressing a strategy on how to stamp out feminism at its core. What I got instead is a long drawn out account of some horny cop who should have known better than to stick his dick into crazy.

Now nothing wrong with posting this but the headline should be 'normalized' if you get my drift.

Post: #4

Except for some politically appointed top brass, the cops are already largely on our side

Post: #5

Came in here expecting Politics and War, ended up with Everything Else.

Post: #6

The cops have no real jurisdiction over this.

The complainant is going to be reporting this directly to some fat desk-jockey at which point it's going to get bounced to a detective, who if he doesn't want to lose his job will then refer it to the public prosecutor whether it has merit or not.

If it became a regular fixture then I suppose it could create some friction between the public prosecutors and the cops but that's not enough to tip the boat.

Post: #7

I get sick of saying this again and again in my ROK articles, but if any other serious violent crime, including murder, had this level of non-evidence/he-said-she-said, 99% of the time the suspect would not be convicted.

People prattle on ALL the time about a "circumstantial" case for murder and how therefore the accused isn't guilty, but almost every "rape" case is circumstantial, with absolutely nothing in the way of hard evidence. Nevertheless, there are probably 20,000+ "rapists" in prison now or recently released in the US whose conviction rested on a girl's testimony alone. Chilling.

Post: #8

So will the blue brotherhood stay as strong facing false rape counts as they do with blatant murder by police officers and excessive force?

Post: #9

Fraid l disagree with OP, feminism is going nowhere, and the half the population dumb enough to believe it don't suffer any adverse effects, rather the opposite. Barring a bloody uprising, a major war or mass conversion to lslam, abandon all hope ye who enter here.

Post: #10

The police force has already been feminised.

They are "trained" to blame men, believe women, arrested men, uphold the feminine imperative and generally white knight as much as possible.

The ranks are also flooded with women dismantling the brotherhood and masculine force that once stood between the criminal scum and garbage and society.

It's been game over for decades on that front.

Post: #11

The good news is that when things get sporty the police are going to be a walkover for any local organised resistance, and soon the military too.

Post: #12

Accusations are the new convictions. There has to be a backlash. All this does is make more money for lawyers to clean all this bullshit up and they love money!

Post: #13

Post: #14

I'm waiting for the cops to go full on riot control at one of these pussy hat women's marches. Just like Selma but at Slutwalk. Let's see tear gas and swat teams bust one up.

Aloha!

Post: #15

A buddy of mine was out with friends at some local city festival back in the 80's. A couple of cops were hassling them about drinking, which they had been doing, and they were also carrying pot, which would have been found if things advanced to the point of the cops frisking them and searching their pockets.

The cops were suspicious that they were up to something (which technically they were), and kept asking questions. Finally, it seemed like the cops were about to escalate to searching them, when the woman that was with them said that these cops had been fondling her breasts, and she was going to file a complaint.

It was completely obvious that the cops hadn't even touched them yet, and therefore she was clearly threatening them with a false accusation.

The cops let them go. Even back then, while they likely wouldn't have faced current levels of scrutiny or repercussions from a sexual harassment accusation, they decided it wasn't worth the paperwork or possible mark on their records to deal with it, and they knew my friends were probably doing nothing worse than a little partying. Even with two cops who could have supported each other's stories, and with the fact that all of this happened in an open area with lots of people around, the cops figured this would be more trouble than they wanted.

I can only imagine how much cops have to worry about this now. If problems with false accusations were enough to make the cops turn against feminism, I think it would have already happened. I can't believe my friends were the only ones who ever tried this. It's probably been happening for decades, every since sexual harassment started being a big issue 40 years ago.

Post: #16

This Honestly depressing. I thought out of all professions that wouldn't take this shit it would be cops. They don't play this shit with minorities bit when it's a women all of of a sudden....CUCKS come out of the woodwork to white night her and dance for her like a monkey

Post: #17

I'm under the impression that the #1 thing police respond to is...

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

I don't think the police would ever intentionally stand down from responding to domestic violence calls. Just saying women should think twice about treating them as the enemy.

Post: #18

(02-07-2018 08:36 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  The police force has already been feminised.

They are "trained" to blame men, believe women, arrested men, uphold the feminine imperative and generally white knight as much as possible.

The ranks are also flooded with women dismantling the brotherhood and masculine force that once stood between the criminal scum and garbage and society.

It's been game over for decades on that front.

I'd like to offer my anecdotal experience with this. A while back I was seeing a girl and she went absolutely crazy one night when she was blacked out. Came back to my apartment when I told her not to started screaming and trashing the place then SHE calls the police. The officer that showed up was an older guy and while she was lying saying I abused her and other bs he takes one look at her and takes my side, almost arrests her even. He told me I was lucky that he had been the one that came and not a new officer because he's been around long enough to know not to believe that shit in a situation like that

Post: #19

People don't understand that cops might be a little more red-pilled than the average person by virtue of the things they have to see and do but most of them are complete pussies who have built their entire persona around being a special superhero with a magic uniform and a shiny badge made of precious unobtanium. Nothing terrifies them more or even comes close to the utter dread they feel at the prospect of having to become a worthless "civilian" again.

A such, the vast majority of them will quietly re-compartmentalise any of the ethical nuts and bolts in their brain in any configuration required to remain a cop and sleep at night. This is not a "muh pension" thing. If you offered them the choice of digging holes for a living with no badge but the same pay and benefits, or the alternate choice to keep their badge and crack down on patriot groups while obeying orders to turn a blind eye to foreign men raping native women then they will choose the latter nine times out of ten.

Whatever the cops have to do to keep their badge, they will do it. If that means giving female SJWs a pass for anything but the most brazenly criminal acts, or tossing a fellow officer under the #meetoo bus every now and again, they'll hamster that stuff in a heartbeat.

Post: #20

(02-07-2018 10:46 AM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  I get sick of saying this again and again in my ROK articles, but if any other serious violent crime, including murder, had this level of non-evidence/he-said-she-said, 99% of the time the suspect would not be convicted.

People prattle on ALL the time about a "circumstantial" case for murder and how therefore the accused isn't guilty, but almost every "rape" case is circumstantial, with absolutely nothing in the way of hard evidence. Nevertheless, there are probably 20,000+ "rapists" in prison now or recently released in the US whose conviction rested on a girl's testimony alone. Chilling.

When the complainant testifies that she was raped or had non-consensual sex that is direct evidence. A conviction is based on whether the judge finds that testimony reliable and credible. Although no corroboration is required, it's technically not a circumstantial case.

I do agree that sexual assault law has become very dangerous for men, especially in Canada. While you may be divorce-raped in family court, you can also be raped in the shower of a federal penitentiary after she decided she wasn't consenting ten years later.

Post: #21

Did no read that the accuser is also now a female cop working in a different district? This is an internal affair -- and the feminization of the police force will continue. Women are going to dominate the police and male cops are going to be even bigger pussies.

Post: #22

This thread would only be true if police departments somehow were independent democratic organizations where the rank and file had a huge influence on policy. However, the opposite is currently true.

Post: #23

(02-08-2018 11:40 PM)Agrippa Wrote:  When the complainant testifies that she was raped or had non-consensual sex that is direct evidence. A conviction is based on whether the judge finds that testimony reliable and credible. Although no corroboration is required, it's technically not a circumstantial case.

I do agree that sexual assault law has become very dangerous for men, especially in Canada. While you may be divorce-raped in family court, you can also be raped in the shower of a federal penitentiary after she decided she wasn't consenting ten years later.

No, I'm talking about cases in their totality. The preponderance of evidence is circumstantial, especially when rape complainants come forward after years and often after maintaining a long-term, amicable sexual and/or professional relationship with the accused before making accusations.

To reach a finding of guilt, so much inference has to be made, comparing incongruent words/actions/silence, oftentimes going on for months and years after a "rape" and involving repeated subsequent consensual sexual contact, with a later decision to accuse someone. Complainants who act and talk one way for years (think Scott Baio's accuser wanting to appear on TV with him decades after the claimed "abuse" and only a few years before the present accusations) shouldn't immediately get the safety of having their testimony regarded as "direct" and therefore somehow privileged and not open to being dissected and ridiculed in the same way as circumstantial evidence generally.

I'm more inclined to believe that a man murdered someone when his fingerprint is inexplicably found in an apartment (the textbook case of circumstantial evidence) than that a man raped a woman after she came forward after years of amicable or non-confrontational relations with him. A defense attorney in the first case is going to cry "Circumstantial! Circumstantial!" but a defense attorney in the second is at a disadvantage, despite the huge problems with the complainant's timing (plus the haziness of recollection after years have passed, let alone the credibility problems of such an about-face).

Another good example - Emma Sulkowicz. "Paul, fuck me in the butt" and months of going after him for sex means that a decision down the track to go to police and say "I was raped" should be perceived as providing non-direct evidence, not to mention untenable bullshitting, most of the time.

Cookie-cutter understandings of direct vs. circumstantial evidence stem from a time in which we could reasonably expect that all evidence, including testimony, would be picked apart by either the prosecution or defense for holes. Now in the UK, for instance, you can't even cross-examine rape accusers in court - it has to be prerecorded.

And irrespective of testimony to police or in court alleging rape being direct, it is frequently a poor measurement of what actually happened and certainly not a basis for conviction. Unfortunately, such testimony is the fulcrum of rape convictions, not more objective evidence. So even if a girl ticks the box for going to police immediately, we do, I agree, need more than he-said-she-said conflicts to send people to jail.

Post: #24

(02-08-2018 06:28 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  People don't understand that cops might be a little more red-pilled than the average person by virtue of the things they have to see and do but most of them are complete pussies who have built their entire persona around being a special superhero with a magic uniform and a shiny badge made of precious unobtanium. Nothing terrifies them more or even comes close to the utter dread they feel at the prospect of having to become a worthless "civilian" again.

A such, the vast majority of them will quietly re-compartmentalise any of the ethical nuts and bolts in their brain in any configuration required to remain a cop and sleep at night. This is not a "muh pension" thing. If you offered them the choice of digging holes for a living with no badge but the same pay and benefits, or the alternate choice to keep their badge and crack down on patriot groups while obeying orders to turn a blind eye to foreign men raping native women then they will choose the latter nine times out of ten.

Whatever the cops have to do to keep their badge, they will do it. If that means giving female SJWs a pass for anything but the most brazenly criminal acts, or tossing a fellow officer under the #meetoo bus every now and again, they'll hamster that stuff in a heartbeat.

Well in the U.K domestic situations or rape cases were dealt with unofficially. So from the get go, when they realised that it was probably a false allegation, or the victim didn't seem credible enough. They would dismiss it or convince the 'victim' to withdraw their allegation.

However there were some scandals overtime and nowadays the more 'common sense' approach is not allowed. Everything is audited and tracked, from emails to phone call; also conversations due to body cameras.

And officers not treating something seriously and going through the whole process. That usually involves arresting the male on the premise of the false allegation, for bail conditions and safeguards to be set, has to be followed through. Technically they are doing everything by the book like they were supposed to before; but back then integrity, the criminal justice system, and even the general population was as a whole, a lot different back then.

Ironically enough, people who criticized the police for years from an 'anti establishment' point of view. Just made things a lot more difficult for themselves when it comes to things. By calling for more scrutiny on law enforcement, you in turn do away with integrity. As a lot of 'police not doing their jobs'.

Is usually for the benefit of somebody who should really be arrested for something. But the police decide to let them off and go their own way, because it is just not worth it.

Post: #25

(02-12-2018 03:03 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  This thread would only be true if police departments somehow were independent democratic organizations where the rank and file had a huge influence on policy. However, the opposite is currently true.

Completely agree.

Really what good can a police officer do in terms of influencing change.

Most of the police officers I know are overworked and don't have time to start up rallies or push their local politicians to pass off legislation.

False allegations and time wasters have been draining money and resources from the forces for years.

Most police officers will be more red pill than your average RVF member because they are dealing with social decay and degeneracy on a day to day basis. It is the senior leadership teams and reformers on the political side that are pushing the social justice stuff.