Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's one of the more appalling cases you'll ever hear of a cop getting off, first literally and then figuratively. Cop pulls over stripper, ejaculates on her during the traffic stop and is acquitted of any wrongdoing. The basic facts:
No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.When the case went to trial, however, defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn't responsible for making sticky all over the woman's sweater. He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess--after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.
"She got what she wanted," said Stokke. "She's an overtly sexual person."
Yeah, she wanted it. She wouldn't have gone outside if she didn't want it. Now here are some of the background facts that suggest very strongly that the cop had been stalking the stripper, followed her and deliberately pulled her over on a secluded stretch of highway:
Meanwhile, Park was on patrol in the southwest portion of Irvine. Prosecutors believe he was craving a sexual rendezvous, and so he watched for Lucy's white BMW to leave the strip club parking lot, then tailed her, waiting for an excuse for a stop. Park insisted he'd been cruising on the 405 north and coincidentally saw Lucy's vehicle weave and speed.Kamiabipour, the prosecutor, shook her head in disbelief. She knew the facts--that the officer had waited at least eight or nine minutes before stopping the stripper on a secluded section of a highway that was out of his jurisdiction.
"He was stalking her," she said.
Four months earlier, Park had stopped Lucy under similar circumstances. That time, he'd ignored a plastic drug baggie he'd found in her car and her suspended license. But the stop wasn't a waste of time. After friendly chit-chat, the officer had scored Lucy's phone number. Telephone records show that Park called the stripper the next morning. She told him she was too busy to meet.
On the witness stand, Park explained that he'd called Lucy out of concern for a citizen's safety. He also shrugged his shoulders when Kamiabipour slowly listed the first names of nine Captain Cream female employees--Annette, Denise, Rashele, Marlia, Brandi, Andrea, Deborah, Laura and Shannon--whose license plates he'd run through the DMV computer in the weeks prior to his sexual encounter with Lucy. (Another coincidence, according to Stokke.) Jurors also learned that Irvine Police Sgt. Michael Hallinan had previously warned Park as they left work to stay away from the strippers.
Park, who works in construction nowadays, conceded that he'd been given the warning but claimed that he had no clue it was Lucy in the vehicle or that she had an invalid driver's license, even as he approached her car window.
Kamiabipour believed she'd caught the 6-foot-3 cop in a lie. Records show he ran the bosomy, 5-foot, 110-pound dancer's license plate before the stop, did not call for backup despite the potential for an arrest and failed to tell his supervisor or dispatch that he was leaving Irvine. Several Irvine officers testified that Park's behavior that night was odd.
"[Park's] testimony was just incredible," said Kamiabipour. Irvine city officials must have doubted his story, too. After an exhaustive police internal affairs investigation, they felt it was prudent to give Lucy $400,000 to make her civil lawsuit go away--for fear a jury might give her much more.
In a secretly-recorded phone call to Laguna Beach police shortly after the incident, Lucy recalled that she'd told Park she had no license. Park began "rubbing himself up against me," she said. "Then, he said, 'What are we going to do here, Lucy?'"
Park unzipped his pants, took his penis out and got an erection, she explained. "Basically, the officer made me give [him] a freaking hand job and he let me go. I'm so freaked out about it."
(Lucy also told police, prosecutors and the jury that Park had also fingered her vagina and fondled her breasts before he ejaculated on her.)
"I was confused," she told the Laguna Beach dispatcher. "He called me afterwards. I'm scared, you know . . . What's an Irvine cop doing hanging out at a strip club in Lake Forest?"
Telephone records prove that Park made a 19-minute call to Lucy shortly after their encounter. The officer--who told the woman he was "Joe Stephens," an Orange County Sheriff's Department deputy who had died months earlier--said it was a friendly call to make sure she'd arrived home safely. The stripper said he told her to keep her mouth shut.
And then Kamiabipour introduced the bombshell evidence from a high-ranking Irvine police officer: on the night Park tailed Lucy out of the city, the global positioning system in his patrol car had been disconnected without authorization.
"I checked and [the GPS] was not working," said Lt. Henry Boggs.
An unexplainable coincidence, Park's defense countered.
Ah yes, those unexplainable coincidences can be very convenient like that. A jury of one woman and 12 men acquitted the officer. After all, it was the Good and Virtuous Police Officer against the Slutty Stripper, right? Though, to be honest, after spending the last several years documenting hundreds of cases of cops lying on police reports, I'd be a lot more likely to believe the stripper.
Absolutely appalling. The good news is that a prosecutor finally was outraged enough to put a cop on trial; the bad news is that a jury didn't care.
Politics
Comments
Are 13 member juries common in that area? I always thought it was meant to be 12 good men (or women).
Posted by: Matty | December 21, 2009 9:43 AM
As a former cab driver, I can say - from experience - that the majority of hookers, strippers, massage girls, etc. are more honorable and decent than many of their opposite numbers in the law enforcement community.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | December 21, 2009 9:45 AM
That is appalling, Ed. :-( Yeah, who cares about a stripper, anyway? She was probably asking for it. Blech.
Well, unjust jury acquittals are, unfortunately, a risk in our legal system. Look at what happened w/ the Simpson case.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 9:45 AM
You're obviously an overtly sexual person, too, Stokke. Does that make it okay for people to stalk you and sexually assault you? Somehow I doubt it. It seems that the "Shows off skin, therefore get what they deserve" rule only applies to women for some reason.
Fucking typical rapist narcissism at work, and they let him get away with it. Disgusting.
Posted by: Wes | December 21, 2009 9:49 AM
"She got what she wanted," said Stokke. "She's an overtly sexual person."
I threw up in my mouth a little when I read that line. I'm an overtly sexual person too. That doesn't mean I want David Alex Park's semen on me.
Wes nailed it. The cop's an unrepentant rapist, with a rapist's attitude. I'd bet cash that he's done it before, and that he'll do it again.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 21, 2009 10:11 AM
This is rape. He should be in jail for rape.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 21, 2009 10:13 AM
i am an overly sexual person but i dont wanna be stalked or have some stranger getting there jollies off all over me .. that is disturbing this guy should be locked up for long time.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 21, 2009 10:13 AM
Wait, roadside handjobs aren’t a legitimate punishment? I could have just paid a fine? [headsmack]
And why is it only the assholes that call you back, never the ones you actually like?
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 21, 2009 10:20 AM
This makes me so mad I just want to punch something. Someone. Ed, I don't know if you remember this but I got pulled over by a cop 13 years ago in a stop that I KNOW would have gone badly if I had actually stopped where he started flashing his lights (a dark area) and hadn't gone ahead and pulled to a well lit area. I remember how long ago it was because I will never forget the look on his face (after he yelled at me for not pulling over immediately and for accusing him of lying about how fast I was going) when he looked in the back seat and saw that I had an infant in there. After accusing me of going 15 mph faster than I was going and after I flat out didn't have my insurance card with me, he let me go with a warning and sped off ...
When I got home, my husband asked if I wanted to call the police and report him, but of course I didn't - the guy knew where I lived by then. He had seen my license.
I am glad that I have only had that one negative experience with a cop, but this incident brings it to mind all over again and ... oooo ... I want to hurt someone.
Posted by: Andrea | December 21, 2009 10:25 AM
She should have ripped his balls off.
Posted by: Katharine | December 21, 2009 10:27 AM
Re Adrienne
Relative to the Simpson case, Simpson was found not guilty mainly because of the total incompetence of the prosecutors, meathead Marsha and dimwit Darden. Of course they were not helped by the incompetent investigators and evidence collectors. Just to point out what, IMHO, was the biggest booboo from the investigators, was their failure to confiscate a warmup suit found in Simpsons' washing machine (as detailed by both assistant prosecutor Hank Goldberg and detective Mark Fuhrman in their tomes) which was almost certainly the clothing worn by Mr. Simpson during his trip to Ms. Browns' condominium.
Posted by: SLC | December 21, 2009 10:28 AM
Yeah, SLC, the prosecution in the Simpson case certainly did an awful job, didn't they?
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 10:32 AM
Violence isn't the answer Katherine. But dammit, stories like this really make me wish it was.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 21, 2009 10:32 AM
Good thing we live in a society where sexism no longer exists, or I might find this jury's decision depressing and troubling.
Posted by: Julian | December 21, 2009 10:45 AM
Captain Mike, it's a cop. Do you really think she was going to get any justice?
Posted by: Katharine | December 21, 2009 10:51 AM
@Julian: Don't forget that we've also managed to build a society where every single person is entitled to basic respect and decency, even if they do take their clothes off for a living.
I wonder how many prostitutes he's raped? They're even more vulnerable to this sort of treatment than strippers are.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 21, 2009 10:52 AM
So the officer just happens to be outside his jurisdiction, just happens to accidentally have a failure of his GPS system, just happens to run the plates of every exotic dancer's car in the parking lot of a business outside of his district, just happens to call this woman multiple times, just happens to pull her over but not cite her, just happens to leave DNA evidence on her clothing ... and he is found innocent? I'd love to be a fly on the wall of that jury room.
If I was this ex-cop, I'd rush out and buy just one lottery ticket, because the "just happens" in this case suggest he's the luckiest SOB alive.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 21, 2009 10:55 AM
Katharine, even if violence is the answer, (and I agree with Captain Mike that it's not in this case) ripping is an impractical option. Those suckers are pretty securely attached. Crushing is much more effective.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 21, 2009 10:56 AM
@ Katharine: No. I would have hoped for it, though.
Let me make something clear: I'm not a pacifist. I firmly believe that violent action should be met with violent action. It is the correct moral and ethical response.
However, violence wouldn't have helped this poor woman. If she had reacted violently, she would have been beaten, raped, and probably would have gone to jail for the crime of defending herself.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 21, 2009 10:59 AM
I agree with King of Ireland #6, it is rape. Especially given that if she had tried to defend herself (in ways that damaged the officer's genitals or not), she would open herself up to criminal prosecution. The local community should rise up and fire the perpetrating cop.
Posted by: aratina cage | December 21, 2009 11:20 AM
I'd love to be a fly on the wall of that jury room.
dogmeatib - I'd love to see the transcripts of the voir-dire. How, in this day and age, did they manage to get a jury that would actually go with the "She deserved it, she was 'overtly sexual'" defense?
(Of all the features you can get with cars, how about a video system that tapes, and maybe transmits in real time, interactions with cops?)
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 21, 2009 11:29 AM
aratina cage said:
But it's a "man of the law" against a "dirty little stripper". I doubt that social justice will work here.
Posted by: mercurianferret | December 21, 2009 11:29 AM
The story does say that Park works in construction now. I'm guessing he voluntarily left the force.
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 21, 2009 11:31 AM
At least she got $400,000 in her civil case and the ex-cop lost his job and his reputation. This doesn't absolve the utter failure of the criminal justice system. However, this case does prove the value of our parallel systems of seeking recourse for wrongs - civil, criminal and administrative.
Posted by: richardrpeters | December 21, 2009 11:42 AM
Molly,
Alas, it is all too easy to find juries that will buy some version of "she deserved it," because too many people believe that only virgins have the right to say no to sex, or that it's wrong for a woman to use force to defend herself (because she might hurt some "innocent" man who kept pushing when she said no the first time) but that if she doesn't scream and fight it wasn't rape.
Posted by: Vicki | December 21, 2009 12:03 PM
Damn you, Ed. Why must you present such maddening material on such a beautiful morning?
This literally enrages me. It makes me want to scream and kick and punch this guy repeatedly.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 21, 2009 12:16 PM
So if we throw some caca on defense attorney Al Stokke's shirt all's well, yes? After all he got what he wanted, said I. He's an overtly biological person (not to mention a scummy, though competent, lawyer).
Posted by: ema | December 21, 2009 12:37 PM
Its times like this that I think mob justice might actually be an improvement.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 21, 2009 12:37 PM
It's statements like this that make me think we need to amend the rules of criminal procedure to clarify under what circumstances it would be appropriate for the judge to literally throw the gavel at counsel.
Posted by: DaveL | December 21, 2009 12:44 PM
Wow. Any volunteers to have a similar accident with this overtly sexual cop, with the roles reversed?
I have seen strippers, and generally attractive women, while out and about, and yet didn't whip it out, or ruin my pants. Do I have some superhuman control over my labido?
Posted by: Chris | December 21, 2009 12:47 PM
Wow. Any volunteers to have a similar accident with this overtly sexual cop, with the roles reversed?
I have seen strippers, and generally attractive women, while out and about, and yet didn't whip it out, or ruin my pants. Do I have some superhuman control over my labido?
Posted by: Chris | December 21, 2009 12:50 PM
The anger, directed at the lawyer, I believe; is misplaced. As much as his conduct offends, it is his job to defend his client to the best of his ability. The jury is the group that the anger should be reserved for.
Again this is only my humble opinion.
Posted by: bob | December 21, 2009 1:04 PM
There might not have been enough evidence to put the perp away for this crime, but there's no excuse for letting him continue to wear a badge and remain on the taxpayers' payroll.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 21, 2009 1:29 PM
Bob (#32):
It is absolutely well-placed. There should be plenty of anger for the jury as well, but claiming "she was asking for it" as a legal defense is a sure sign of an unethical low-life, lawyer or not.
Posted by: Merle | December 21, 2009 1:31 PM
Stokke: She got what she wanted. She's an overtly sexual person.
Prosecutor: Objection!
Judge: I'm going to allow it. It characterizes the plaintiff as a slut.
@Sadie: Your rage is justified, but I can't seem to summon up the requisite anger. Every time I read that line (dozens of times so far today) my eyes well with tears. I'm on the verge of a massive crying fit, which is inconvenient when I'm at work. I've tried leaving it alone, but I can't stop thinking about it.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 21, 2009 1:31 PM
Strippers and other sex industry workers ought to be able carry tasers, if not guns.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 1:32 PM
There should be plenty of anger for the jury as well, but claiming "she was asking for it" as a legal defense is a sure sign of an unethical low-life, lawyer or not.
Insert lawyer joke here.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 1:34 PM
Anyone want to write to his bar association to get him disbarred?
Posted by: Katharine | December 21, 2009 1:43 PM
It is absolutely shocking that such a defense would have been effective, and it just shows how sexism and misogyny are still alive and well in this country. This is the classic tactic to excuse and justify the behavior of a rapist: it is never the male rapist's fault that she raped a woman; indeed, he is the victim of her sexuality.
I just wonder how many people who agree with the above sentiment also condemn the treatment of women in Middle Eastern countries. The conditions there may be more extreme and overt, but the same mindset exists in the minds of this defense attorney (and, presumably, the jury members) as exists in the minds of Vice and Virtue patrols in countries like Saudi Arabia.
In both cases, the sexual offense emanates from the woman. Indeed, all sexuality is defined as feminine, and is regarded as "sinful". Thus, the female herself is sinful, and deserves whatever treatment she receives from the "innocent" men upon whom she inflicts herself.
Posted by: thinkoplex | December 21, 2009 1:55 PM
I strongly disagree.
Being a defense council doesn't exempt him from all ethical standards whatsoever. We can still hold him responsible when he says something morally outrageous, and the "She wore skimpy outfits, so she wanted to get raped" defense is about as outrageous as it gets.
Imagine if there were a case where a white man murdered a black man, and the defense argued, "He was a black man. He probably did something to deserve it." Would you pass that off as, "He's just doing his job," or would you call him a racist idiot?
Posted by: Wes | December 21, 2009 2:03 PM
As a former cab driver, I can say - from experience - that the majority of hookers, strippers, massage girls, etc. are more honorable and decent than many of their opposite numbers in the law enforcement community.
As a former passenger of cabs I can say from experience that the majority of cab drivers are unthinking moral idiots.
People who sell their bodies for money are more honorable than people who put their lives at risk to fight crime and keep society safe.
Posted by: AreaMan | December 21, 2009 2:12 PM
I wouldn't actually resort to violence, Mike (unless I was actually threatened or someone I loved was). Peaceful means of bringing authoritarian idiots down are probably more effective, anyway.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 21, 2009 2:17 PM
Mr. AreaMan,
I see you are an idiot yourself for not having actually read the article.
Posted by: Katharine | December 21, 2009 2:18 PM
Living in Orange County (where this took place), I can unfortunately attest to the possible quality of the jurors that let this sleazy piece of sh*t off the hook. OC is a socially conservative bastion, especially in the area where this likely went to court. I can guarantee that if the defense put the victim and her profession on trial (as it sounds it did), it would have a hell of a lot more traction here than elsewhere in California.
Just because these are the same people with the money that visit the strip club doesn't mean that they think those who work there are worthy of equal protection. And if the victim had been Latina, I doubt it would have even gone to court (though I'll admit the last part is possibly just cynicism on my part -- or so I hope).
Posted by: Sam S | December 21, 2009 2:28 PM
AreaMan @41:
People who sell their bodies for money are more honorable than people who put their lives at risk to fight crime and keep society safe.
It's not even a question of who is more honorable, as I see it.
The most dishonorable folks out there still have the right to be free from sexual harassment and assault. Even if this woman had been a prostitute soliciting sex illegally, she STILL had the right not to be sexually assaulted. Even if this guy had been a 911 hero firefighter who had singlehandedly saved an entire daycare's worth of kids while jeopardizing life and limb, that still wouldn't have given him the right to sexually assault and ejaculate without permission onto a lowly stripper.
I have to disagree with the previous posters who said this was a case of rape, though. I think it's more properly termed a case of egregious sexual assault. I believe the legal definition of rape implies penetration of some sort--although if he penetrated her with his fingers, as the story seems to allude to, then that would qualify as rape. But ejaculating on her, as disgusting as that is, is sexual assault and not rape.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 2:30 PM
Fair or not, this was honestly my first thought when I saw where the event transpired.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 21, 2009 2:34 PM
AreaMan @41
Do you have any idea how dangerous being a prostitute is? These men and women risk their lives to bring a little joy to the masses. That’s way more honorable than being part of some government run protection racket.
Posted by: TSFN | December 21, 2009 2:38 PM
Legally, I think you're correct. But I'm standing by my original comment. He's a rapist in the first degree.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 21, 2009 2:44 PM
"She got what she wanted," said Stokke. "She's an overtly sexual person."
*rages incoherently*
*vomits*
I sincerely hope this piggie becomes someone's prison bitch and learns just what it's like to be raped.
Posted by: WMDKitty | December 21, 2009 2:50 PM
Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2009 3:14 PM
The cop is a rapist. And in a decent world, attorneys who used the grossly immoral "she got what she wanted" defense would be disbarred.
Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2009 3:19 PM
"And if the victim had been Latina, I doubt it would have even gone to court (though I'll admit the last part is possibly just cynicism on my part -- or so I hope)."
How do you know she wasn't? Where is her ethnicity stated?
Yes white women are so privileged to be humiliated in court by leering judges and juries and lawyers!
OJ was acquitted because of the prosecution's tactics (the jury was totally fair), but in this case we can blame it on the jury since they were biased white men. Interesting.
Also why post this two year old story like it just happened?
And if this is true where were the protesters? Why are we just now hearing about it?
Posted by: Isabel | December 21, 2009 3:34 PM
The lawyer Stokke acted differently when his "overtly sexual" daughter became the object of unwanted attention. You would think he would be more sympathetic.
http://deadspin.com/264051/how-to-detract-attention-from-your-attractive-teenage-daughter
Posted by: carl | December 21, 2009 4:04 PM
Isabel @52:
OJ was acquitted because of the prosecution's tactics (the jury was totally fair), but in this case we can blame it on the jury since they were biased white men. Interesting.
Did I miss something? I didn't see where in Ed's post it said the jury was all-white.
Yeah, there was possibly anti-white/pro-black racial bias in the OJ jury too. But, as SLC pointed out, the prosecutors played a huge part in sinking their own case there. Even with a completely impartial jury, they well may have lost.
And, to be fair, perhaps were other factors in this stripper's case that we aren't aware of that tilted things away from her favor. Hard to imagine, yes. But then again, we weren't there. OJ's case sounded open and shut too, on the surface of it. You can argue that very likely this poor woman didn't receive justice because she was a stripper abused by a cop, but we can't say it with 100% certainty. Maybe just 95% certainty.
llewelly @51:
The cop is a rapist.
No, he's not. Or, at least, he's not a rapist if all he did was ejaculate on her sweater. Don't conflate sexual assault with rape. I'm not excusing what this cop did by any means, and you can correctly call this particular case of sexual assault as bad as any rape...but rape means a very specific type of act. Sorry, it's just that I get annoyed when people expand rape to mean all sorts of sexual improprieties like coercion. Just as I get annoyed when pro-lifers call abortion "murder", when "murder" has a very specific meaning too.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 4:06 PM
Ironically enough, I believe Al Stokke's daughter found unwanted fame an an athletic "poster girl" (putting it politely) when photographs of her competing found their way onto the intertubes.
Posted by: Adam | December 21, 2009 4:19 PM
On the up side, we finally know what you’re gonna do when they come for you. Sue the bastards.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 21, 2009 4:21 PM
Wow. What morons. What next - every rape victim got what they were asking for? That lie must be told at every single rape trial, but it's finally worked - will miracles never cease?
Posted by: MadScientist | December 21, 2009 4:24 PM
It makes me wonder if the jury was religious, in which case they'd have the "whore got what she deserved" attitude. The cop should thank the jurors by jacking off on them - they deserve it.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 21, 2009 4:30 PM
Hey MS @58, I'm about the biggest opponent of religion on here, but even I think you're making a bigoted statement there about what "religious" people think. I know a few conservative Christians who would find this acquittal appalling, even as they would denounce the stripper's job choice.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 4:33 PM
What the young lady should have done is tell the asshole she needed to lube him up and then put some Heet on the offending member. That would have been hard for him to explain.
Posted by: democommie | December 21, 2009 5:20 PM
Forget Heet. How about habanero pepper sauce? Maybe every sex worker should start carrying that too.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 5:22 PM
Anyone else find it interesting that the father of a young woman who's famous across the Internets for being photographed in tight-fitting pole vaulting gear at a high school track meet (SFW, if creepy) is saying that the victim "asked for it" because she's a stripper?
Posted by: Chuck | December 21, 2009 5:30 PM
All you people defending the rapist cop:
Still not rape?Posted by: aratina cage | December 21, 2009 5:35 PM
Also,
And we have Adrienne here telling us it's not rape?Posted by: aratina cage | December 21, 2009 5:42 PM
Unless he penetrated her vaginally with his finger, then yes, it's not rape. It's sexual assault. But fer chrissakes, that doesn't mean I'm *excusing* it.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 5:50 PM
I think his is an incredibly hypocritical position for any man with a daughter* to take, let her be ever so homely and wearing a burqa.
*or a wife, or a mother, or a sister, etc.
Posted by: DaveL | December 21, 2009 5:57 PM
Here in Australia a female judged let off 9 men who gang raped a 10 year old girl because she was asking for it. She must have been overtly sexual too!
Posted by: Steve | December 21, 2009 6:22 PM
This creeps me out almost more than the assault:
To make sure she arrived home safely? Since when do cops call you at home to make sure you got there ok? OK, I could see if she were a victim of an attack or something and they were genuinely being nice- but for a traffic stop? Creep-y. If that ever happened to me I'd be freaked the fuck out. Good for her for suing, but the bastard belongs in prison.
And I don't have any qualms about calling him a rapist. In court that might not fly, but I don't live in court. I feel perfectly ok about it. Plus, "assaultist" isn't really a word.
Also, lawyer joke:
What's the difference between a lawyer and a carp?
One's a bottom-dwelling scum-sucker and the other is just a fish :)
Posted by: Leni | December 21, 2009 7:46 PM
Also, Steve, that is effed up. I hope she had a very, very good reason. Like they were innocent. (I'm guessing not, though.)
Posted by: Leni | December 21, 2009 7:48 PM
A stiff fine.
(insert own joke here.)
Working construction. Case closed. (at least he's working.)
She drove a BMW. Therefore, deserved a roadside finger-bang and spunkbath.
What is it with cops and strippers? A hollywood cliche come to throbbing life.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | December 21, 2009 7:59 PM
You guys are forgetting that this was a 6' 3" man, armed with gun and taser and all, versus a 5' unarmed woman. It's entirely understandable that she was much too afraid for her own well-being to do something like that.
Posted by: Wes | December 21, 2009 8:00 PM
For sure Wes, but it's still nice to dream. Revenge fantasy kind of thing, you know.
Posted by: Leni | December 21, 2009 8:07 PM
In case you were wondering, I'm also the guy who says "That's physically impossible" during action movies. ;)
Posted by: Wes | December 21, 2009 8:11 PM
You should watch more Joss Whedon, Wes- It's good for the soul :)
Posted by: Leni | December 21, 2009 8:30 PM
Interesting comeuppance on that DA - his daughter is Allison Stokke, the 18 year old pole vaulter whose picture has been all over the internet. (Google "Allison Stokke pole vaulter"). Daddy dearest is reportedly not happy with all the attention her, um, assets are getting.
A man who has repeatedly tried to shift the blame of sexual assault onto the victims has a daughter who is now being perved over by millions of guys on the Internet. Nice.
Posted by: Elizabeth | December 21, 2009 9:36 PM
@75: That's terrible. It /is/ poetically fitting, but I'd still rather it not happen.
I really freaking hate how "She was asking for it" is considered at all plausible by juries. I just don't understand what goes through the heads of people who claim that. If she'd asked for it, she probably wouldn't be crying rape, for gods sakes.
Posted by: Rutee | December 21, 2009 9:40 PM
Here is more about Stokke's reaction to the male attention his daughter's photos were garnering back in 2007:
Posted by: Dr X | December 21, 2009 10:32 PM
He probably is more sensitive to "these things". If anyone knows how easy it is to make someone look like they want to be stalked, Stokke would know apparently it.
Piece. of. shit.
Posted by: Leni | December 21, 2009 11:35 PM
Not than I'm an expert or anything (you'll still find backwards idiots who think that belly dancers are strippers), but women are strippers precisely because they don't want the men to touch them.
Posted by: Kristine | December 21, 2009 11:40 PM
I don't know about all of you but this sounds like one of those sex fantasies with the cop or pizzaboy that never happens to me. LMAO!
Posted by: Dr. Feelgood | December 22, 2009 12:02 AM
Except it did happen. And one of the parties wasn't all that excited about it and the other was a cop.
HA HA HA HA. Yeah. Super funny.
Posted by: Leni | December 22, 2009 12:31 AM
Casey Serin should be imprisoned and subsequently executed.
Posted by: Frog Prep | December 22, 2009 1:09 AM
This kind of defense working (for rape & other sexual crimes) is extremely common. I would encourage everyone to look into it and get active with rape education groups. The mindset of the general population is the real problem here; this is why this kind of thing is allowed to continue on so often.
Posted by: skeptifem | December 22, 2009 2:41 AM
skeptifem is absolutely right. That's why I pointed out that this was done by a jury made up almost entirely of men. This clearly is a pervasive attitude among men in this country or that argument simply wouldn't work. And that fact should be very, very disturbing to us all. I know it is to me.
But what do I know? I run this "cesspool of white male privilege."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 22, 2009 4:47 AM
I wonder: would it have been different had the woman in question had a job that puritans find more "acceptable"? Would the jury have disregarded, or at least have been more likely to disregard, that stupid "she was askin' for it" defense? I know that a lot of people tend to take the police's word on everything without question, but what if the woman in this case was an insurance executive or a librarian or a teacher or even a fellow cop?
Posted by: jws | December 22, 2009 5:55 AM
@jws: don't tar the puritans; for the most part they wouldn't tolerate the cop's behavior. Don't confuse all religious folks and their bizarre ideas with the puritans (who have their own set of bizarre ideas).
Posted by: MadScientist | December 22, 2009 7:31 AM
But what do I know? I run this "cesspool of white male privilege."
Her real problem appears to be that the comment threads here are a cesspool of white males.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 22, 2009 9:38 AM
Skeptifem nails it, but Ed misses a vital point. Although educating men is definitely important (for reasons I hope are obvious), educating women is also necessary. Far too many women buy into the "She's a slut. She was asking for it" mindset.
When women who have been raped or sexually assaulted can't even get sympathy, let alone justice, we've got a serious fucking problem.
Would you like to hear a really scary story? No? Then stop reading.
A few years back a friend of mine was living in Vancouver. She was very active in both the BDSM and swinging communities, and she was quite public about her involvement with both. It should be noted that my friend is bisexual when it comes to sex play.
At the time of this story, she was volunteering with a number of gay rights organizations. While working there, she met a woman who was about 20 years older than she was. My friend really admired this woman, both for her efforts in fighting for gay rights, and for being an out-and-proud lesbian.
One day, my friend invited the woman over to her apartment to discuss something they were working on together. They ended up having a few glasses of wine (it was Friday) and the older woman made a pass. That wasn't a problem, of course. Anyone involved in the lifestyle learns very early on to turn people down gently.
But a simple "no thanks" didn't work. The woman got more and more aggressive, and started calling my friend a slut, and saying that she did it with "all those people" she should be willing to do with it her.
My friend resisted to the best of her ability, but she's not a fighter. Never has been.
She was beaten, with fists, and a ruler, and a shoe. She was cut with a kitchen knife. And she was raped. Because she was a "slut," she had apparently given up the right to say no.
A rare occurence? Thankfully, yes. But when it comes to rape and sexual assault, one is too many.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 22, 2009 9:40 AM
Her real problem appears to be that the comment threads here are a cesspool of white males.
Umm, how are you supposed to be able to tell someone's race by their commenting handle? Sometimes it's easy to tell their sex, too, but sometimes not. Case in point: I thought Raging Bee was a woman.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 22, 2009 10:04 AM
Helpful link.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 22, 2009 10:43 AM
Okay I don't want to be a dickhole or anything, but really guys, I think I've been commenting here long enough for you to know not to take me literally all the time.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 22, 2009 10:46 AM
Awww, not even in your snarky responses to Comrade Poopy-Pants? Maybe those are all tongue-in-cheek, but I find many of them to be absolutely accurate, literally.
Posted by: Spartan | December 22, 2009 11:21 AM
I thought Isis the Scientist was the originator of "the cesspool of white privilege" comment, but maybe it was skeptifem. I'm not even sure if that comment was meant in jest or in seriousness, either.
And sorry, Tyler, I thought you were making sarcastic fun of the cesspool comment.
I don't even think that "white privilege" belongs in a "cesspool". How about a "country club swimming pool" of white privilege? Or a "WASP's nest" of white privilege?
Posted by: Adrienne | December 22, 2009 12:02 PM
Oh sorry, that would be a cesspool of white MALE privilege.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 22, 2009 12:04 PM
It was (I think) Skeptifem. It was in a thread from a few days back. Ed shut down the thread because it had become, in his words, "toxic." It had. It had become less of a discussion and more of a pissing contest.
If you're interested in reading it, look for the post titled "Pervert? I'm a Health Nut!"
Please, for the love of Dog, don't drag the discussion over here. We're all having a good time, decrying rapist cops and arguing with Adrienne over whether or not he's actually a rapist, instead of being an asshole who stalks and sexually assaults women.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 22, 2009 12:08 PM
Oh yeah, the Pervert? thread. I didn't even wander into that one. As soon as I read Ed's blog post, I smelled trouble on that one.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 22, 2009 12:46 PM
I agree, this case was truly outrageous (and I drive Laguna Canyon road home every night -- luckily, I'm a middle-aged guy, not an attractive young woman). In this part of Orange County, especially, cops can do no wrong in the eyes of the mostly white, mostly middle-class and up populace.
But, this went down almost 3 years ago. Why are we hearing about it now?
Posted by: Dr. Shrinker | December 22, 2009 2:00 PM
Dr. Shrinker: "But, this went down almost 3 years ago. Why are we hearing about it now?"
I don't know. But if you look at the 24 comments in the Orange County Weekly, you'll find all are from 2009, and all but the first two date from Dec. 17 or later. My guess is that it's linked to the ongoing attention being paid to young Allison's photos. Someone probably Googled "Stokke" and came up with the story.
(Most of the comments, by the way, express outrage in some fashion.)
Posted by: Chris Winter | December 22, 2009 4:00 PM
Good God. I hope your friend reported this to the police, and they caught the person who did it.
I've never really heard of a situation like that. Men raping both women and men is common. And I've heard plenty of stories about both men and women (but mostly men) sexually assaulting children. And I've even heard a few stories about women sexually assaulting men. But that might be the first story I've ever heard of a woman raping another woman.
Posted by: Wes | December 23, 2009 1:16 AM
I think there seems to be a little confusion about the legal system. The legal systems works with having two opposing sides. The job of the lawyers is to argue as strongly as possible for their side, even if they're wrong, and even if they know they're wrong.
In this case, let's pretend, just for a moment, that what the defence said, which is essentially that the sexual act was consensual, was true. Is it theoretically possible that that's true? Yes. Would it mean he shouldn't be charged sexual assault? Yes.
Therefore the legal system basically demands that defence lawyers always bring up this defence in rape and sexual assault cases where the defendant pleads not guilty but obviously did engage in some kind of sexual activity.
So each side presents their case to explain the evidence and to ideally put forward the strongest case for their side and then the jury weighs the evidence and makes a decision.
That's not to say I agree or disagree with this, just that all the people expressing outrage should aim that at our legal system, not at this particular defence lawyer, because that's a defence that basically has to be brought up in all sexual assault and rape cases under these kinds of circumstances, and for a defence lawyer to not raise it would be them not doing their job as it is expected for the legal system to work.
I have two other separate points to make. Firstly I think it's always best not to be too quick to be judgemental about legal cases based on media reports. We don't know all the evidence that was presented and we don't know why the jury made the decision that it did. There are other possibilities that could have led to a not-guilty verdict. In particular it's possible (although this is just speculation) that the victim didn't express any objections directly to the cop. That's not to justify his behaviour in any way, and the events clearly would still justify him losing his job and her getting the pay out, but he obviously can't be found guilty of sexual assault or rape if it appeared to be consensual.
I want to reiterate again, I'm not making any kind of moral judgement on the issue, I'm merely trying to understand the decision that was made and putting forward a possible scenario that would make it the legally correct decision. Whether or not it's the morally correct decision is a different matter, and I understand and sympathise with the feeling of injustice regarding this case.
The other point that flows from this is that the legal system is far from perfect. A lot of people feel that it's especially problematic in dealing with sexual assault and rape cases where the question is whether the actions were consensual or not. The legal system works with the idea of "innocent until proven guilty," but how do you prove that a sexual act was consensual or not, especially when most sexual assaults and rapes are carried out by people who know the victim fairly well? This makes the system obviously biased towards the attackers. Of course it would also be a terrible injustice if innocent people were found guilty of these kinds of crimes, so it's complicated in finding the right balance, *but* there's a lot of work around the world in trying to come up with better systems that address these issues. So people are aware of the problems and trying to fix them. In the meantime, it's inevitable that some people that seem to be clearly guilty of sexual assault or rape, as is suggested by this article, will be found not guilty. Is there really a solution?
Posted by: Jeremy | December 23, 2009 8:08 AM
No, what was essentially said was that consent was implied by the fact the victim was a stripper and an "overtly sexual person". That's not really a consent defense, but rather a "victim belongs to a group whose consent is not required" defense.
I was actually considering a similar line of thought this morning. Clearly the claim that the victim belongs to a group of approved rape targets is not a legally colourable defense. However, given the social context it is a culturally viable one, reprehensible as it may be. It often plays well with juries and can work to secure an acquittal.
So my question to the lawyers here is this: clearly an attorney has a duty to his client to provide the best legal defense he can. However, does a lawyer have an ethical obligation to advance a defense with no legal merit if it will play well to a jury's prejudice, even if it undermines the cause of justice in the long run?
Posted by: DaveL | December 23, 2009 8:23 AM
The context of his statement isn't given. The news article implies what you're saying, but we don't know that's the case. Personally, in every single time a story involving something I'm strongly involved with has been published (or at least nearly every time), it's been full of errors. I don't put a lot of weight in the accuracy of the details. I think the story is clearly presenting a particular view on the case. It may well be the morally correct view to take, but it's possible it isn't.
But also, lawyers don't know much about anything except the law. If this lawyer was trying to play something to the jury's prejudice, it's just as conceivable that he actually thinks that what you're suggesting he argued is true. There's no obligation to back up these kinds of opinions with evidence in a court, and if the argument actually was true (obviously it isn't), then it's obviously legally relevant.
What I suspect is actually happening with that quote is that he was trying to describe her general character to support the defence's scenario of the events, which was presumably that she was pulled over and offered to give the officer a hand job. I think it would be fairly acceptable that an "overtly sexual person" would be more likely to offer to give a police officer a hand job if they were in trouble than a less sexual person. So it's definitely a legally valid point to be making, and it's very common in these kinds of cases.
Of course I'm just speculating, as I said before, we don't know the actual context of that statement at all, apart from an insinuation by a newspaper.
Posted by: Jeremy | December 23, 2009 8:49 AM
@67; "Here in Australia a female judged let off 9 men who gang raped a 10 year old girl because she was asking for it. She must have been overtly sexual too!"
This is completely false. The 9 people pled guilty, so the judge didn't even have the opportunity to let them off. Of the 9, 7 were also under the age of consent, two of which were under the age where their is any legal defence for sex with a minor (as in, if two 15 year old's have consensual sex, technically they are both having sex with a minor, but due to the proximity of their age, they probably would be found not guilty). The two that were over the age of 17 were both mentally handicapped. Even more importantly the prosecution didn't ask for jail sentences, and so in a practical sense, the judge had no option but to not give the attackers jail sentences. Sending children and mentally handicapped people to jail is not ideal, and the prosecution tried to avoid that. Not being sent to jail is not the same as getting "let off," and there are all kinds of options open to the legal system for punishing offenders that aren't incarceration.
Posted by: Jeremy | December 23, 2009 9:07 AM
@ Wes.
She never reported it. She moved back to southern Ontario and tried her best to pretend it never happened. I only know about it because it came up in pillow talk.
Women are considerably more at risk than men when it comes to violence, rape and sexual assault. However, that doesn't mean that women are never the ones committing the assaults. Nor, of course, does it make the thankfully rare sexual assaults committed against men okay.
It's not a contest. And if it were, I would be the first to admit that women "win." They are invariably handed the shitty end of the stick in our society. And every other society I've ever heard of. However, characterizing rape, sexual assault, and abusive relationships as solely being a men's issue is disingenuous. It dismisses and trivializes the victims of both women on women violence, and women on men violence.
I've worked with men who are victims of violence perpetrated by women, and I am one myself. Too often when I bring this issue up, people take it to mean that because I point out that men are sometimes victims, that this somehow makes violence against women okay. It fucking isn't.
Women are very often less able than men to defend themselves, physically, economically, and socially. Therefore, in a completely accurate way, violence perpetrated by men is a MUCH bigger issue. In another completely accurate way, it isn't, because the victim in every case is an individual who has had the rights to their body violated.
I suspect that the best solution is to simply continue the "bad touch" training that children receive at a young age. As they age, introduce more complex and adult issues. Hopefully, by the time they reach puberty, every child will accept in their bones that it is not okay to grope, it is not okay to rape, and it is not okay to abuse, belittle, and sometimes murder their partner.
I'm also glad to say that NOW is on the case:
According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, "domestic violence affecting LGBT individuals continues to be grossly underreported . . . there is a lack of awareness and denial about the existence of this type of violence and its impact, both by LGBT people and non-LGBT people alike."18Myths regarding gender roles perpetuate the silence surrounding these abusive relationships; for example, the belief that there aren't abusive lesbian relationships because women don't abuse each other. Shelters are often unequipped to handle the needs of lesbians (as a women-only shelter isn't much defense against a female abuser), and transgendered individuals. Statistics regarding domestic violence against LGBT people are unavailable at the national level, but as regional studies demonstrate, domestic violence is as much as a problem within LGBT communities as it is among heterosexual ones.
Note that they don't say anything about male victims. This is fine by me. They're the National Organization of Women. Shifting the focus on to male victims of violence would make them less effective. It's simply not their job.
One last thing: to the men who have been victims of violence, and complain that there are little to no resources for us, there is a solution. It's the same one women used. Don't think that those rape counselling programs were the brainchild of the government or of concerned men. Women had to build them all on their own. We have to do the same.
Sorry for the long post. I should probably just get my own damn blog.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 23, 2009 10:22 AM
At the moment the only Mr. Stokke we have before us is the one from the article. If he is being misrepresented then I retract my statement. Otherwise I will stand by my statements until such time as other evidence become available.
If what argument is true? That strippers' consent is automatic, even in the face of her own protests to the contrary? A person admitted to the bar is blamable for promoting such nonsense because even if they believe it to be true, they have a professional duty to know otherwise.
It doesn't matter if she's Slutty McSlutterson from West Cocksuck, Handjobia and works as a milker at a semen dairy. A person detained by a police officer can't possibly give meaningful consent by virtue of the officer's position of power and authority over her.
It is most definitely not a legally valid point to infer consent from a person's occupation (and what does it mean to be an "overtly sexual person"? Does Mr. Sokke wear his wedding ring where it can be seen? Should that be taken as an invitation to ejaculate on him?).
Posted by: DaveL | December 23, 2009 10:36 AM
The difference between a court case and a newspaper is a court case has to consider the possibility that the accused is innocent as rigorously as possible. That's the way the system is set up.
I don't accept your claim that the defence was saying that the consent was inferred by the person's occupation. The defence doesn't stand up and put forward one single point. According to the story it was a 9 day trial. So clearly this single comment that you're addressing was just a tiny part of the defence's case.
Posted by: Jeremy | December 23, 2009 10:50 AM
"It doesn't matter if she's Slutty McSlutterson from West Cocksuck, Handjobia and works as a milker at a semen dairy."
I'm stealing that bit.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 23, 2009 10:56 AM
I don't think any more can be learned about this case without poring over the trial transcript.
I assume that is available to the public, but I might be wrong. It can't be obtained on-line. This is all I found by searching on the defendant's name at:
http://visionweb.occourts.org/Vision_Public/Index.do
So I guess someone would have to find out which division of the Orange County courts handled the case, then pay a visit there.
Posted by: Chris Winter | December 23, 2009 4:28 PM
I agree 100%, and I certainly didn't mean to minimize sexual assault between women. I hope my comment didn't come across that way. I was just pointing out that it's much more rare than sexual assault of women by men (or of men by men).
Posted by: Wes | December 23, 2009 8:08 PM
By that I mean latching on to this or that latest, most innovative idea that some self styled money making guru has put out in the hope it’ll go viral and make them a lot of money off the backs of all the headless chickens who will follow them blindly down a blind alley. Its a shame but a truism nonetheless that people will follow where someone they see as an expert leads. Even if they lead them to certain disaster, which is what most of the gurus tend to do to their flocks.
The trick is to recognize a shadow when you see it!
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Posted by: ridwanzero | December 31, 2009 8:11 AM
She knew the facts--that the officer had waited at least eight or nine minutes before stopping the stripper on a secluded section of a highway that was out of his jurisdiction.
Posted by: Houston Escort | March 22, 2011 1:51 PM
There's a lot of link spamming going on on scienceblogs. Don't click on the names of posters until you've checked they're not trying to scam you into going somewhere that wants to take your money.
Posted by: Wow | March 22, 2011 1:55 PM