Two B.C. Mounties charged

[#juan]

Trial ordered for two B.C. Mounties accused of watching women have sex in cellat 14:08 on April 11, 2013, EDT.

The Canadian Press
Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services1
KAMLOOPS, B.C. - Two B.C. Mounties and a civilian guard accused of watching two drunk women have sex in a cell have been ordered to stand trial.
Kamloops provincial court judge Chris Cleavely made the order at the end of a preliminary hearing into the case in which the three are accused of breach of trust.
Cpl. Ken Brown and Const. Stephen Zaharia, along with a civilian jail employee David Tompkins, were accused of watching the sexual encounter on a video monitor in 2010 without intervening.
Prosecutors have dropped a breach of trust charge against a third Mountie, Const. Evan Elgee.
An earlier investigation determined the two women were too drunk to have been able to consent to having sex.
One of the women later said she had HIV. (CHNL)
Note to readers: This is a corrected version. An earlier story misspelled Zaharia and Tompkins.

 

[karrie]

If the women had been sober enough to 'consent' to the sex they had with one another, would the police have broken any laws?

 

[CDNBear]

Geezus, to drunk to ****?

How does that law get upheld?

 

[L Gilbert]

Perhaps. Being in a public place there's always laws like public lewdness and the like so allowing the women to continue sober likely would have been infractions, too.

Geezus, to drunk to ****?

How does that law get upheld?

lol That's a good question, also.

 

[karrie]

Perhaps. Being in a public place there's always laws like public lewdness and the like so allowing the women to continue sober likely would have been infractions, too.

Infractions I can get. Charges through the court, that baffles me.

 

[#juan]

If the women had been sober enough to 'consent' to the sex they had with one another, would the police have broken any laws?

My read was that the police were worried about them passing disease to each other. Maybe I was wrong.

 

[L Gilbert]

It is a bit of an odd issue alright.

My read was that the police were worried about them passing disease to each other. Maybe I was wrong.

The article said one of the women only admitted to testing HIV positive AFTER the deed.

 

[#juan]

It is a bit of an odd issue alright.

The article said one of the women only admitted to testing HIV positive AFTER the deed.

That would mean one of them was carrying the disease when she came in and the other was immune to it.
I'm obviously no expert.

 

[karrie]

My read was that the police were worried about them passing disease to each other. Maybe I was wrong.

But that's still not any more criminal of the officers than if the women had gotten into a brawl and one had been exposed to the disease that way.

I just found it odd that the legal capacity of the women to consent to the sex they had with one another, factored into the investigation.

 

[L Gilbert]

That would mean one of them was carrying the disease when she came in and the other was immune to it.

It would mean that one had HIV to begin with yes, but the other may not necessarily be immune nor have acquired it from the one that had it.

I'm obviously no expert.

No worries. One can always learn more.

 

[karrie]

That would mean one of them was carrying the disease when she came in and the other was immune to it.
I'm obviously no expert.

Your chances of catching HIV from a single, normal sexual encounter are actually fairly small. And from a lesbian encounter, even lower.

 

[#juan]

Your chances of catching HIV from a single, normal sexual encounter are actually fairly small. And from a lesbian encounter, even lower.

Of course. There is obviously more than one way to not catch it..

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Infractions I can get. Charges through the court, that baffles me.

I suspect that the notion here is that, when one is in custody, one has a right to be protected from violence, sexual assault, harsh conditions, &c., and that at some point the government decided to make it a crime for a public employee to deliberately fail to protect a person in custody.

I guess that makes sense in some ways, like when a guard or police officer sees a person in custody in a dangerous situation, and does nothing about it, but this particular incident seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[Nuggler]

My read was that the police were worried about them passing disease to each other. Maybe I was wrong.

Maybe one of the cops boinked one, and now he is very worried.:lol: HIV is not like the common cold

Your chances of catching HIV from a single, normal sexual encounter are actually fairly small. And from a lesbian encounter, even lower.[/QUOTE


..............Whew............]

 

[karrie]

I suspect that the notion here is that, when one is in custody, one has a right to be protected from violence, sexual assault, harsh conditions, &c., and that at some point the government decided to make it a crime for a public employee to deliberately fail to protect a person in custody.

I guess that makes sense in some ways, like when a guard or police officer sees a person in custody in a dangerous situation, and does nothing about it, but this particular incident seems a bit of a stretch.

Okay, that makes sense. So had they been able to legally consent to the sex they were having, then the guards would have only been guilty of being pervs, and faced disciplinary instead of legal action.

 

[Goober]

But that's still not any more criminal of the officers than if the women had gotten into a brawl and one had been exposed to the disease that way.

I just found it odd that the legal capacity of the women to consent to the sex they had with one another, factored into the investigation.

If one was drunk and the other sober it would be rape would it not?

 

[grumpydigger]

When a police officer puts someone in custody and they end up in the cells or the drunk tank.
the jail guards and the police are responsible for the safety of the person.

Watching an assault , sexual or not , drunk or not, standing back and watching for your own entertainment should be grounds for immediate dismissal.

Of course the civilian guard will take the fall.
And the RCMP officers will get the customary,one day off without pay , written reprimand along with a couple year paid vacation.

 

[JLM]

If the women had been sober enough to 'consent' to the sex they had with one another, would the police have broken any laws?

I definitely think it's more a matter for job discipline than a judicial matter. I not sure where you'd find anything in the criminal code regarding watching two drunken women having sex.

 

[Sal]

If one was drunk and the other sober it would be rape would it not?

If one was too drunk to consent it would be.