"RCMP Watches Women In Drunk Tank Have Sex" or "One Of The Women Was HIV Positive"

[Seil]

Link (http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/02/hearing-starts-for-b-c-mounties-guard-charged-in-jail-sex-case/)
Link 2 (http://beaconnews.ca/calgary/2013/04/jail-cell-sex-should-bc-officers-have-stopped-hiv-positive-woman/)


So I heard about this on CBC, there were two women in the drunk tank, where an officer was watching them - probably part of his duties - and then two women - one of whom was HIV positive - started having sex. The watching officer did not stop this, but instead called some of his colleagues over to watch.

Now, I think that urges to look at lesbians shouldn't transfer over from home, and that goes doubly at work, the officers should've known

a) That one of the women was HIV-positive
b) That they should probably stop that from happening

But instead, they stood and watched the cameras, probably high-fiving all the way. They were caught, and are now being charged with "Breach of Trust."

The RCMP officers remain suspended, pending the outcome of the preliminary hearing, and any possible trial.

Beacon readers offered their opinions on the suspension and possible charges against the RCMP officers:

Brett Berezan isn’t sure the officers should have been charged.

“What would you charge them for? I don’t believe they committed a crime. However, I see it as highly unethical an should warrant some disciplinary action from their superiors,” he said.

Alison Currie says the HIV-positive status of one woman makes all the difference.

[Aerozord]

I mean, should have like, informed the other person about the HIV I guess but, I dont know I dont personally believe someone has the right two stop two consenting adults from having sex.

If they know they are being watched and dont care, and those watching dont care, have at it.

But the HIV part, just something about having an authority informing others of a medical condition that doesn't sit right with me.

[Marc v4.0]

Uhm, this was in lockup, Aero, not a public display on their private property. It should have been broken up the moment it was noticed regardless.

[Aerozord]

Uhm, this was in lockup, Aero, not a public display on their private property. It should have been broken up the moment it was noticed regardless.

I know, but its just sex. Pleasurable and relaxing when placed in a stressful situation, in this case confinement. I have a very open view on sex. My only issue with it being done publicly is I do agree that you also have a right to not be subjected to seeing the act if you do not desire it. But if no one involved from those engaging in the act to all those seeing it I personally do not have issue with sex taking place.

My only issue with this is, being HIV positive one of the individuals was exposing the other to a health hazard and if she hid this information that was unethical. I find it abit stickier on if the officer should have informed her. I mean shouldn't informing a partner of STDs being the infected individuals responsibility? Yea I know, drunk, not in the right state of mind, so I guess for that reason you should stop it.

Though sex in public? Dont really find anything morally wrong with that

[Marc v4.0]

You guess for that reason you should stop it?

Fuck yes you stop it! How is it even something you could -consider- not stopping? How fucked up would you have to be to know that one of them has HIV, and the other doesn't know about it, and decide it's better to just keep quiet and watch?

What the fuck, man.

[Aerozord]

No, it is a health hazard, and would violate the consent and thus it should be halted so all parties can make an informed decision.

[Kim]

Plus, they were in a drunk tank. It stands to reason that they were drunk. By watching, the officers were taking advantage of people not in a position to consent to being watched.

ALSO, CONSENT IS FUCKING IMPORTANT, EVEN FOR VOYEURISM. Speaking as someone who is into the idea of someone watching me fuck, in an offline setting they goddamn better well ask my permission first.

Not to fucking mention that there's some really gross unequal power going on when two of the people involved are literally prisoners of the people watching.

Don't try and frame this as some sex positive, "If they were okay with it it's fine," and then neglect all the stuff that is important to that.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------

I dont view "I was drunk" as something that exempts you from responsibility for your actions. If I was drunk and got into a fight am I forgiven because I was drunk? If I was drunk and started posting racist comments on twitter should everyone just forget it happened?

Being drunk is not a free pass. You drank too much you live with the stupid mistakes you did while drunk, any laws you broke, any people you insulted and yes anyone you had sex with. No one was forcing them to drink and no one was forcing, or even coercing them to have sex.

This is the sort of rape culture, victim blaming horseshit that just fucking disgusts me.

NON-DRUNK PEOPLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WERE DRUNK SO THEY COULD WATCH THEM HAVE SEX WITHOUT OBTAINING CONSENT TO DO SO, AND THEY DID SO WHILE HOLDING THOSE PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL.

This is all that matters. It is an awful thing that shouldn't have happened. It should in no way be defended.

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------

Also, it should be really damnably obvious what the difference is between something wrong that you did while drunk and something wrong someone did TO YOU while you were drunk AND THEY WERE SOBER.

There's a difference between doing bad things to other people and someone taking advantage of you! Who knew?

[Krylo]

Yeah my first thought was that it shouldn't have happened regardless of HIV positiveness and knowledge of that.

Like, that is just some skeezy coppin' right there. The HIV just brings it from terrible to 'holy shit are you fucking kidding me?'

You start with the layer of terrible that is nonconsentual voyeurism toward inebriated PRISONERS, and then add the layer of terrible of allowing someone to risk getting an, extremely, life threatening and, currently, incurable disease. . . so you can watch them fuck.

Just, the worst people.

[synkr0nized]

Yeah my first thought was that it shouldn't have happened regardless of HIV positiveness and knowledge of that.

Like, that is just some skeezy coppin' right there. The HIV just brings it from terrible to 'holy shit are you fucking kidding me?'

You start with the layer of terrible that is nonconsentual voyeurism toward inebriated PRISONERS, and then add the layer of terrible of allowing someone to risk getting an, extremely, life threatening and, currently, incurable disease. . . so you can watch them fuck.

Just, the worst people.

pretty much my take on it
These are some quality cops, for sure.

[Azisien]

The quote in the OP gave me a laugh. It was an outward laugh, but inwardly I felt a stab of sadness. Indeed, what will we charge them for? Time to discipline these rascals, with several weeks suspension with pay. No, several months!

[Red Mage Black]

The quote in the OP gave me a laugh. It was an outward laugh, but inwardly I felt a stab of sadness. Indeed, what will we charge them for? Time to discipline these rascals, with several weeks suspension with pay. No, several months!

Reckless Endangerment? Reckless Conduct? Criminal Negligence? Gross Negligence? Just off the top of my head. I'm not sure which one fits the best with this situation, but all of them are equally horrible. I think I'm bothered more about the fact they put someone's health at risk simply for a 'free show'. They're suppose to keep watch on detainees to make sure they don't do anything stupid and the drunk tank to make sure they don't end up choking on their own vomit. This is quite literally a 'perversion' of justice. No, don't try to stop someone from catching a horrible and incurable disease, just focus on the two women making out and don't think about those "small" details. As if the voyeurism wasn't bad enough.

I can see how this SHOULD have panned out. Look back at drunk tank cameras. Drunk women are making out and it looks like it's heating up too much. "Okay ladies, break it up." Separate them into different cells. Problem solved. Except the problem is, I suppose it's easier to think of a logical solution from outside the situation.

And paid leave? These men aren't even fit for their jobs.

[CABAL49]

Yeah, these cops are going to get a slap on the wrist. Nothing really more to say. There was nothing right about this situation, but in the end, nothing is going to happen.

[Magus]

Just on the HIV side of things, there has apparently been observed a zero-rate incidence of HIV transferal between lesbians. So.

But anyway yes they should be fired for allowing prisoners to copulate in a drunk tank, besides WATCHING them copulate in a drunk tank.

[Red Mage Black]

Just on the HIV side of things, there has apparently been observed a zero-rate incidence of HIV transferal between lesbians. So.

But anyway yes they should be fired for allowing prisoners to copulate in a drunk tank, besides WATCHING them copulate in a drunk tank.

Hmm, with that info in hand I really can't come up with much. Gross or Professional Misconduct is the worst thing I could find, but I'm not sure how well that would hold up in court. They do have evidence of those guys' actions though. As much as I hate to say it, it's more morally reprehensible, but not exactly criminal. However, even the RCMP need to be held to higher standards and there's no excuse for such juvenile and perverse behavior. Considering the sex wasn't suppose to... and at least wasn't expected to... be held in the drunk tank, the prudent thing to do would have been to break it up.

Perhaps it was a predicted behavior though. Maybe they expected it to go that far and placed them in the same cells for just that reason. If there was any way to prove that, I think a misconduct charge would be easier to pin down.

Note that I'm going by U.S. law definitions, so I'm not sure how they define these laws in Canada.

[Magus]

They could just fire them for not following the rules. Like everyone else in existence, including me.

Yes, even me, lovable rebel though I am.

[Azisien]

I don't know if it's like this where you live, but it's notoriously difficult to fire public servants in Canada. I want to say runaway unions, but I know saying stuff like that is liable to get me mobbed by NPF.

There's also a certain culture of treating the police like a big fraternity, us vs. them complexes, etc etc. But I suppose if these cops cause enough bad press, they could get the boot. We'll see.

[Magus]

Oh, no I know. Cops always get away with shit. I was just saying that in general if you don't follow the rules you get canned, whereas with cops it seems like they get away with a ton of shit, constantly.

[Sifright]

Oh, no I know. Cops always get away with shit. I was just saying that in general if you don't follow the rules you get canned, whereas with cops it seems like they get away with a ton of shit, constantly.

The bigger the infraction the larger the holiday the cop gets...

Sorry I meant paid suspension..

[Azisien]

Deploy the Anonymous (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307266/Rehtaeh-Parsons-gang-rape-Anonymous-threaten-unmask-boys-drove-girl-hang-herself.html)

Anonymous has vowed to expose the identities of the four boys behind the rape of a 17-year-old girl who killed herself after they circulated a photograph of the assault.

The hacking collective said that they knew who two of the supposed culprits were and that they were confirming the identity of a third before putting them on the Internet.

An investigation was launched over the November 2011 rape but the RCMP says that there was not enough evidence for a prosecution, even for possession of indecent images of a child.

The Anonymous post is called ‘Operation Justice For Rehtaeh’.
It reads: ‘Anonymous has confirmed the identities of two of the four alleged rapists. We are currently confirming a third and it is only a matter of time before the fourth is identified as well.

‘Our demands are simple: We want the N.S. (Nova Scotia) RCMP to take immediate legal action against the individuals in question.

Of course the bad part would be if the teenagers they unveil were incorrectly identified. Other than that, I'm down. (Digital) Street Justice!