One year in prison for cop who raped a transsexual woman while he was on duty!

Links234

http://veracitystew.com/2011/01/19/justice-fail-ex-cop-gets-one-year-for-raping-transsexual-while-on-duty/

Craig Nash (pictured), a former San Antonio cop, received one year in jail on a misdemeanor “official oppression” charge. He is accused of arresting a transsexual prostitute in San Antonio, handcuffing her, driving to a hidden location, and forcing her to perform multiple sex acts, all done while on duty. A rape kit confirmed Nash had raped her, and a GPS device on his patrol car backed her story.

Two days later, another victim came forward to say he had been raped by Nash.


Prosecutors in Texas agreed to a plea bargain, avoiding the felony charge of sexual assault by a police officer, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. Part of the bargain included dropping the charges brought by the second victim. Nash had to agree to never work in law enforcement in Texas again.

wow :mad:

wallplugsocket

That's disgusting. There are some things there most certainly should not be a plea bargain for.

L.Jenkins

So for that he gets banged up for 1 year and told he can't work in law enforcement in Texas again. That means, should his conviction not follow him, he can work in another state as an officer. Jesus, why not give him a pat on the back and say well done!

Now switch the roles, a trans person commits the crime in Texas. Ever legal book and possible conviction would be thrown at us and the maximum sentence handed down. So much for human rights! :mad:

SugarHigh

Yea that's terrible but I don't really see what discussion is supposed to happen here. It's not really relevant that it was a transexual, would a cisgender be treated differently. It seems that your only interest in this story is that it contains a transsexual

L.Jenkins

It's the end result thats a problem, regardless of the fact that the victims are trans. The officer in question got a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.

SugarHigh

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

It's the end result thats a problem, regardless of the fact that the victims are trans. The officer in question got a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.

That is a problem but I don't see how it's a lgbt problem.

mikemac

and a GPS device on his patrol car backed her story.

Not realy commenting on the case, more on this bit of evidence. The man is a fool if he knew about the GPS and expected to get away with it

L.Jenkins

It's hard to say though, if the officer would have received a harsher sentence, had the women been cisgender. The principal of the matter is, a police officer only got a one year sentence which is a slap in the face for any woman.

Azure_sky

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

It's hard to say though, if the officer would have received a harsher sentence, had the women been cisgender. The principal of the matter is, a police officer only got a one year sentence which is a slap in the face for any woman.

Yes, but in such backwards sh!tholes like Texas the fact that she was trans no doubt did play a part. The trans panic defense is still used, and abused as a defence in America--and in Ireland.

SugarHigh

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

It's hard to say though, if the officer would have received a harsher sentence, had the women been cisgender. The principal of the matter is, a police officer only got a one year sentence which is a slap in the face for any woman.

I still don't see how her being trans-gendered is an important part of this story.

which is a slap in the face for any woman.

I also don't see how her being a woman is an important part of this story that it would only be a slap in the face to women.
Would the rape of a man be treated differently?

I think the stand out parts of this case is that he's a cop and she's a sex worker but I don't really see why it should be posted in the LGBT section just because she was trans. It doesn't add anything to the discussion since we have no reason to think a cisgendered man would have been treated differently.

SugarHigh

Azure_sky wrote: »

Yes, but in such backwards sh!tholes like Texas the fact that she was trans no doubt did play a part. The trans panic defense is still used, and abused as a defence in America--and in Ireland.

Was it used in this case?

the fact that she was trans no doubt did play a part.

Can you show me how?

Azure_sky

SugarHigh wrote: »

Was it used in this case?

Can you show me how?

It's an example of the mentality. When a T.S. dies most people in said sh!tholes don't give a damn as they view us as sub human anyway, like blacks sixty years ago or gays forty years ago. I can't prove it but--damn it's wonderful to have introverted intuition.

SugarHigh

Azure_sky wrote: »

It's an example of the mentality. When a T.S. dies most people in said sh!tholes don't give a damn as they view us as sub human anyway, like blacks sixty years ago or gays forty years ago. I can't prove it but--damn it's wonderful to have introverted intuition.

You aren't backing any of this up though. You seem to have the same disdain for Texans that you are accusing them of having for you.


It seems the reason why the prosecutors decided to go for a charge of oppression instead of sexual assault is because they weren't confident they could prove the sex was non-consensual.

Unlike sexual assault, consent isn't an issue for an officer to be charged with official oppression. Prosecutors only have to show that an officer had sex with somebody in custody.
Outside the courtroom, defense attorney Alan Brown wouldn't say if he had been prepared to argue that sex between his client and the accuser was consensual, saying only: “We don't agree to the elements of sexual assault. We don't agree that happened.”


Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Official-oppression-earnsex-cop-a-year-behind-bars-963942.php#ixzz1BaGApiIA

The officer was never proved to have sexually assaulted anyone. Whether he did or not we can't really say.

wallplugsocket

SugarHigh wrote: »

You aren't backing any of this up though. You seem to have the same disdain for Texans that you are accusing them of having for you.


It seems the reason why the prosecutors decided to go for a charge of oppression instead of sexual assault is because they weren't confident they could prove the sex was non-consensual.


The officer was never proved to have sexually assaulted anyone. Whether he did or not we can't really say.

" A rape kit confirmed Nash had raped her"

Rev Hellfire

TiernanJ wrote: »

" A rape kit confirmed Nash had raped her"

So the story is someone got raped and someone got what people feel is a lenient sentence. Its nothing special unless there's proof that sentence was reduced due to the nature of the victim.

wallplugsocket

My post was actually aimed at sugerhighs comment:

"The officer was never proved to have sexually assaulted anyone. Whether he did or not we can't really say."

L.Jenkins

Ah here, think about. The officer got 1 fecking year for rape. As for texas, i hate to pigeon hole, but i know how the think, and being trans nearly would play a part in a reduced sentence.

As far as being an lgbt problem, i would take offence to the idea that anyone could receive only 1 year for rape. The trans person 'could' be me one day and id be horrid pìssed off if my attacker only got a year and the possibly of going back into law enforcement.

SugarHigh

TiernanJ wrote: »

" A rape kit confirmed Nash had raped her"

How does a rape kit measure consent?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So the story is someone got raped and someone got what people feel is a lenient sentence. Its nothing special unless there's proof that sentence was reduced due to the nature of the victim.

+1 I really don't see what makes this case a LGBT issue.

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

Ah here, think about. The officer got 1 fecking year for rape. As for texas, i hate to pigeon hole, but i know how the think, and being trans nearly would play a part in a reduced sentence.

As far as being an lgbt problem, i would take offence to the idea that anyone could receive only 1 year for rape. The trans person 'could' be me one day and id be horrid pìssed off if my attacker only got a year and the possibly of going back into law enforcement.

The officer did not get one year for rape he got one year for oppression. He was accused of rape not convicted of rape.

As for texas, i hate to pigeon hole, but i know how they think, and being trans nearly would play a part in a reduced sentence.

If you hate to pigeon hole then why do it?

What do you mean you know how "They think". Do they all have uniform views?

What does "nearly would play a part" mean? How can it nearly play a part?

You clearly have a view that people from Texas are just dumb rednecks which is the exact attitude that you are accusing them of having to you.

28064212

TiernanJ wrote: »

" A rape kit confirmed Nash had raped her"

No rape kit can confirm anyone has raped anyone. A rape kit can only confirm that Nash had sex with her, not whether it was consensual or not.

The prosecution seems to have been the one at fault here (other than the cop, obviously). They took the easy way out of going for a lesser charge because it was easier to prove

Links234

Do we really need to question the validity of this thread? really?

had this been about a gay man who had been raped or assaulted by a police officer while on duty, would people be as quick to jump in and why it belongs here, if it's relevent or if it's really an LGBT issue?

SugarHigh

28064212 wrote: »

No rape kit can confirm anyone has raped anyone. A rape kit can only confirm that Nash had sex with her, not whether it was consensual or not.

The prosecution seems to have been the one at fault here (other than the cop, obviously). They took the easy way out of going for a lesser charge because it was easier to prove

That doesn't mean they were at fault. They weren't confident they could get him convicted of rape because like you say it's extremely difficult to prove the sex wasn't consensual.

So it becomes the cops word against the sex workers word. The prosecutor has to convince a jury to believe a sex worker who is currently in jail for prostitution over a cop.

Nash had been a good officer and good father to six children and probation seemed appropriate, Brown said.

“He had been officer of the month a couple times,” Brown said, adding that Nash had been recognized for saving a woman from a fire, among other commendations. “He had a lot of heroic acts.”

Do you think a jury is likely to convict him with no evidence the sex wasn't consensual?

SugarHigh

Links234 wrote: »

Do we really need to question the validity of this thread? really?

had this been about a gay man who had been raped or assaulted by a police officer while on duty, would people be as quick to jump in and why it belongs here, if it's relevent or if it's really an LGBT issue?

Yes, I would have. Just because something happens to involve a LGBT person that doesn't make it a LGBT issue.

Rev Hellfire

The sub-text here is that if it had happened to a non-transgender person then the cop would have not got a lenient sentence.

Clearly that is not necessarily the case as lenient sentences handed out to rapists in other cases have proven.

Its a sorry fact of life, but women get abused everyday of the week and their abusers can often get what seem unduly lenient sentences.

wallplugsocket

I'm not arguing if it is an lgbt topic or not (tho I do think it's relevant to the forum)
What I'm arguing is that Sugarhigh implied that the officer was not proven to have raped this woman.
So in response;

No a rape kit does Not measure consent but it does play a vital part in determining if force is used.
As somebody who was raped twice and who has undergone two rape kits i know this for fact.
The rape kit was found to prove that he raped her.

SugarHigh

TiernanJ wrote: »

I'm not arguing if it is an lgbt topic or not (tho I do think it's relevant to the forum)
What I'm arguing is that Sugarhigh implied that the officer was not proven to have raped this woman.
So in response;

No a rape kit does Not measure consent but it does play a vital part in determining if force is used.
As somebody who was raped twice and who has undergone two rape kits i know this for fact.
The rape kit was found to prove that he raped her.

The rape kit did not prove he raped her. Do you think forceful sex with a prostitute is rare?

DNA taken from a rape kit later linked Nash to the complainant, according to court records.

Notice how the court records don't say the kit proved he raped her, it was just some badly written news article which made that claim.

wallplugsocket

SugarHigh wrote: »

Do you think forceful sex with a prostitute is rare?

This is an assumption, just like the one that the majority of texans are in fact very homophobic and transphobic.
So by your own words it's a sweeping statement that doesn't hold ground in this debate.

SugarHigh

TiernanJ wrote: »

This is an assumption, just like the one that the majority of texans are in fact very homophobic and transphobic.
So by your own words it's a sweeping statement that doesn't hold ground in this debate.

How can a question be an assumption?

I don't think forceful sex is proof of rape. I don't think forceful sex with a prostitute in the back of a car is proof of rape.

Azure_sky

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The sub-text here is that if it had happened to a non-transgender person then the cop would have not got a lenient sentence.

Correct.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Clearly that is not necessarily the case as lenient sentences handed out to rapists in other cases have proven.

That does not negate the statistical probability that a rapist or a perpetrator of violence against a transgendered person is more likely to receive a lenient sentence than a cisgendered person. Watch the movie Boys don't Cry-based on a true story.

Fact: Transsexuals who have been beaten and raped have died in America due to blood loss because hospitals refused to treat them upon discovering they were transsexual. It gives a good insight into the mindset. Again the evidence my not be staring one in the face,yet a little intuition is all it takes to put the pieces together.

wallplugsocket

SugarHigh wrote: »

How can a question be an assumption?

I don't think forceful sex is proof of rape. I don't think forceful sex with a prostitute in the back of a car is proof of rape.

You asked "do you think forceful sex with a prostitute is rare?"
The implication is that you think that it is not rare, if I am wrong il stand corrected.

Azure_sky

Links234 wrote: »

Do we really need to question the validity of this thread? really?

had this been about a gay man who had been raped or assaulted by a police officer while on duty, would people be as quick to jump in and why it belongs here, if it's relevent or if it's really an LGBT issue?

Objectively speaking some would, based on my experiance of lgbt forums-however must wouldn't. I know where you're coming from though.

SugarHigh

Azure_sky wrote: »

Correct.



That does not negate the statistical probability that a rapist or a perpetrator of violence against a transgendered person is more likely to receive a lenient sentence than a cisgendered person. Watch the movie Boys don't Cry-based on a true story.

Fact: Transsexuals who have been beaten and raped have died in America due to blood loss because hospitals refused to treat them upon discovering they were transsexual. It gives a good insight into the mindset. Again the evidence my not be staring one in the face,yet a little intuition is all it takes to put the pieces together.

How is this anything other than a conspiracy theory?

That does not negate the statistical probability that a rapist or a perpetrator of violence against a transgendered person is more likely to receive a lenient sentence than a cisgendered person.

What does this prove?

Transsexuals who have been beaten and raped have died in America due to blood loss because hospitals refused to treat them upon discovering they were transsexual.

I'm not familiar with that story so I can't tell if maybe you misinterpreted it in the same way you are misinterpreting this news article to make it fit into your conspiracy.

yet a little intuition is all it takes to put the pieces together.

Maybe a little imagination with very little evidence.

SugarHigh

TiernanJ wrote: »

You asked "do you think forceful sex with a prostitute is rare?"
The implication is that you think that it is not rare, if I am wrong il stand corrected.

I don't know if it is rare or not but I do know it's possible to have forceful sex with a prostitute without it being rape which is why I don't view proof of forceful sex as proof of rape because it clearly isn't.

You can have consensual forceful sex and rape kit isn't able to differentiate. Rape kits do not tell you if someone was raped and they don't even claim to be able to. It's simply your misinterpretation of what a rape kit is.

Rev Hellfire

Azure_sky wrote: »

That does not negate the statistical probability that a rapist or a perpetrator of violence against a transgendered person is more likely to receive a lenient sentence than a cisgendered person.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm sure it does.
Then again perhaps the real reason they got off lightly is the fact that the victim was a prostitute, another group with a higher likelihood of encountering rape. Again that's conjecture, we simply don't have the facts and are simply jumping to such conclusions.

Azure_sky wrote: »

Watch the movie Boys don't Cry-based on a true story.

What does that prove ?

Azure_sky

SugarHigh wrote: »

How is this anything other than a conspiracy theory?

Did you even read what I said? No point spoon feeding if one is throwing up.

SugarHigh wrote: »

What does this prove?

That transsexuals are far more likely to be discriminated in the courts than a cisgendered female. The trans panic defense has been sucessfully abused to allow men to beat and rape transsexuals and get away either free or with lenient sentences. I can only imagine how far they would circumvent justice to protect one of their own.

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'm not familiar with that story so I can't tell if maybe you misinterpreted it in the same way you are misinterpreting this news article to make it fit into your conspiracy.

So now it's a conspiracy? Quit derailing. Some reading:


http://www.glaa.org/archive/1998/margiehunter1211.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people

SugarHigh wrote: »

Maybe a little imagination with very little evidence.

Nope.

Azure_sky

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What does that prove ?

A real life example of the typical transphobic attitudes of both society and the courts of the red states in the U.S.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't know if it is rare or not but I do know it's possible to have forceful sex with a prostitute without it being rape which is why I don't view proof of forceful sex as proof of rape because it clearly isn't.

You can have consensual forceful sex and rape kit isn't able to differentiate. Rape kits do not tell you if someone was raped and they don't even claim to be able to. It's simply your misinterpretation of what a rape kit is.

For god's sake, SugarHigh, you can't prove that it wasn't forceful sex in MOST rape cases if you look at it like that.

Why on earth are you arguing here right now? What are you looking to achieve? What is the purpose? Why does it offend you if people discuss this in the LGBT forum? What difference does it make to you?

SugarHigh

Azure_sky wrote: »

Did you even read what I said? No point spoon feeding if one is throwing up.

There really isn't any need to get patronising. It doesn't help your argument.

That transsexuals are far more likely to be discriminated in the courts than a cisgendered female.

The statistic doesn't prove discrimination. If I show that more men get convicted of GBH does that prove discrimination against men?

The trans panic defense has been sucessfully abused to allow men to beat and rape transsexuals and get away either free or with lenient sentences. I can only imagine how far they would circumvent justice to protect one of their own.

The trans panic defense wasn't used in this case? Maybe start a new thread on it if you thats what you want to discuss.

So now it's a conspiracy? Quit derailing. Some reading:


http://www.glaa.org/archive/1998/margiehunter1211.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people

First off I never claimed the women dieing was a conspiracy. I am not going to debate about every Trans-gender case you can find. This thread is a discussion on one specific case. It is you doing the derailing by going on some tangent about the actions of some EMS crew.
.[/QUOTE]

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

For god's sake, SugarHigh, you can't prove that it wasn't forceful sex in MOST rape cases if you look at it like that.

I agree and this why rape convictions are so low. I don't see how this puts the court at fault. Are they supposed to convict people on no evidence?

Rape convictions are low because rape is a hard crime to prove.

Why on earth are you arguing here right now? What are you looking to achieve? What is the purpose? Why does it offend you if people discuss this in the LGBT forum? What difference does it make to you?

The same question could asked why does anyone argue about anything on boards?
Why do I need to achieve something. I'm just having a discussion.

Why does it offend you if people discuss this in the LGBT forum?

I'm not offended

What difference does it make to you?

I just find it irritating how something becomes more important to certain LGBT people if it just happens to involve a LGBT. If it isn't a LGBT issue why should we care anymore than when it happens to a non-LGBT person?

Azure_sky

SugarHigh wrote: »

There really isn't any need to get patronising. It doesn't help your argument.

Ironic as you just implied I was a fan of conspiracy theories.

SugarHigh wrote: »

The statistic doesn't prove discrimination. If I show that more men get convicted of GBH does that prove discrimination against men?

Analogy fail. I shouldn't have to elaborate-no really I shouldn't.

SugarHigh wrote: »

The trans panic defense wasn't used in this case? Maybe start a new thread on it if you thats what you want to discuss.

It's related to the attitudes regarding transsexuals in relation to the justice system, which is related to this thread.

SugarHigh wrote: »

First off I never claimed the women dieing was a conspiracy.

Well considering they have her corpse I think that would be a rather fruitless endeavour.

SugarHigh wrote: »

I am not going to debate about every Trans-gender case you can find. This thread is a discussion on one specific case.
.

You don't have to. They all have a common theme which relates to this case.

SugarHigh wrote: »

It is you doing the derailing by going on some tangent about the actions of some EMS crew.

More irony or is it? Hard to tell.

wallplugsocket

SugarHigh wrote: »

You can have consensual forceful sex and rape kit isn't able to differentiate. Rape kits do not tell you if someone was raped and they don't even claim to be able to. It's simply your misinterpretation of what a rape kit is.

I've had consensual forceful sex, and as I said before I have also been raped.

There is a world of difference.

Consensual forceful sex did not leave me with serious defensive wounds, consensual sex did not result in the manner of bruising to my torso legs and pubic area, consensual forceful sex did not leave me with bloodstains.

There is a notable difference with the violence used in rape resulting in physical damage to the victim and the manner in which consensual forceful sex is played out. "played out" being the key words here.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

I agree and this why rape convictions are so low. I don't see how this puts the court at fault. Are they supposed to convict people on no evidence?

My point with that is that you're being ridiculously needling for absolutely no reason. You keep stating the obvious in an attempt to derail and I can't figure out what your motives are. If the premise of the thread bothers you, don't read it-- but it's obviously interesting to people here so I see no reason why they should be subjected you needling away constantly pointing out the obvious. We already know that it's incredibly hard to prove rape. What does it accomplish constantly stating that?

The same question could asked why does anyone argue about anything on boards?
Why do I need to achieve something. I'm just having a discussion.

Because they have an interest in the subject matter from an LGBT point of view. You're having a 'discussion' but I'm curious as to your motivations.

I'm not offended

Fair enough.

I just find it irritating how something becomes more important to certain LGBT people if it just happens to involve a LGBT. If it isn't a LGBT issue why should we care anymore than when it happens to a non-LGBT person?

Then ignore them. They obviously have reasons to make a connection between the crime and LGBT issues. Why not let them discuss the case as presented instead of going out of your way to poke holes in a story that ultimately none of us are going to have any more information on than any other of us?

wallplugsocket

SugarHigh wrote: »

I just find it irritating how something becomes more important to certain LGBT people if it just happens to involve a LGBT. If it isn't a LGBT issue why should we care anymore than when it happens to a non-LGBT person?

Because in LGBT We are a community. We care about eachother and we care what happens to one of our own.

SugarHigh

TiernanJ wrote: »

I've had consensual forceful sex, and as I said before I have also been raped.

There is a world of difference.

Consensual forceful sex did not leave me with serious defensive wounds, consensual sex did not result in the manner of bruising to my torso legs and pubic area, consensual forceful sex did not leave me with bloodstains.

There is a notable difference with the violence used in rape resulting in physical damage to the victim and the manner in which consensual forceful sex is played out. "played out" being the key words here.

Rape doesn't have to be violent so it won't leave those signs and consensual can be just as violent as you describe even more so.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

We already know that it's incredibly hard to prove rape. What does it accomplish constantly stating that?

People are making the assumption that the guy in this case raped her, we don't know he did. All we know is he was accused of rape. Rape being so hard to prove is the reason the prosecutors decided to go down the route of oppression instead so it is very relevant.

Because they have an interest in the subject matter from an LGBT point of view. You're having a 'discussion' but I'm curious as to your motivations.

My motivation is to have a discussion just like everyone else. Stop trying to paint a picture here.

Then ignore them. They obviously have reasons to make a connection between the crime and LGBT issues. Why not let them discuss the case as presented instead of going out of your way to poke holes in a story that ultimately none of us are going to have any more information on than any other of us?

They aren't discussion the case as presented. They are making up their own story with nothing to back it up.

wallplugsocket

SugarHigh wrote: »

Rape doesn't have to be violent so.

At this point I stopped reading.
A non violent rape is where somebody is drugged so cannot defend themselves. I think anybody would be hard pushed to find somebody who wouldn't try to defend themselves against being raped.

SugarHigh

TiernanJ wrote: »

Because in LGBT We are a community. We care about eachother and we care what happens to one of our own.

Why are you making it an Us VS them. I don't see how that is a positive attitude.

Something bad happening to a LGBT person is not any worse than something bad happening to a non-LGBT person. The fact you view it this way shows you have the same attitude that many anti-lgbt have.

SugarHigh

TiernanJ wrote: »

At this point I stopped reading.
A non violent rape is where somebody is drugged so cannot defend themselves. I think anybody would be hard pushed to find somebody who wouldn't try to defend themselves against being raped.

That's not true. Some people go into a state of shock and simply don't know what to do.

rainbow kirby

SugarHigh wrote: »

Rape doesn't have to be violent so it won't leave those signs and consensual can be just as violent as you describe even more so.

Your attitude towards rape victims in this thread is absolutely disgusting. Don't post in this thread again.

L.Jenkins

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'm not familiar with that story so I can't tell if maybe you misinterpreted it in the same way you are misinterpreting this news article to make it fit into your conspiracy.

SugarHigh wrote: »

First off I never claimed the women dieing was a conspiracy. I am not going to debate about every Trans-gender case you can find. This thread is a discussion on one specific case. It is you doing the derailing by going on some tangent about the actions of some EMS crew.

Possible argument conflict.

Azure_sky

SugarHigh wrote: »

Rape doesn't have to be violent

Being raped does not violate a person?

wallplugsocket

SugarHigh wrote: »

Why are you making it an Us VS them. I don't see how that is a positive attitude.

Something bad happening to a LGBT person is not any worse than something bad happening to a non-LGBT person. The fact you view it this way shows you have the same attitude that many anti-lgbt have.

And if we posted about a heterosexual person getting raped you would also be on this forum giving out that it doesn't belong in here.
It's here in the LGBT forum as it was an LGBT person, thus answering your initial, pointless, question.