No jail time for Hamilton police officer who sexually assaulted woman he was mentoring, judge rules
No jail time for Hamilton police officer who sexually assaulted woman he was mentoring, judge rules
A former Hamilton police officer will not go to jail for sexually assaulting the woman he was mentoring as she pursued her own career in policing.
Michael LaCombe, 54, will instead serve 12 months of house arrest followed by 12 months of probation after Justice Cameron Watson found him guilty of two counts of sexual assault in January, following a trial.
Watson sentenced LaCombe on Monday at the Ontario Court of Justice in St. Catharines, Ont., describing his crimes and the aftermath as "a spectacular and cataclysmic fall from grace" in his written decision.
"His life has taken an irreparable downward spiral. He is no longer the man he once was," Watson wrote.
Watson also described how LaCombe's conduct "devastated" the victim, who has felt isolated and suffers from panic attacks, among other impacts, in recent years.
You're viewing a single thread.
"His life has taken an irreparable downward spiral. He is no longer the man he once was," Watson wrote.
That is not a valid reason to allow a rapist to escape jail time.
ACAB
But what if he's super duper sorry??? /s
Fuck this "his downfall was his punishment," shit.
That's what we get when we have a punishment system, rather than a justice system. This guy has had his feel bad, so everyone's square!
Public safety? No thank you! We're here to trade mildly reduced visual clarity for an eye!
But the judge said he wouldn't face jail time before hearing both sides. That's pretty normal. /s
Sexual assault, yes. Rape, no.
He removed her shirt and bra and kissed her without consent. No intercourse (including the standard variants thereof) occurred. She protested, and he drove her home.
That's basic sexual assault based on the legal definitions (there are two higher definitions for using weapons or causing bodily harm) and there is no legal minimum for basic sexual assault (of an adult)
The pig should be in jail, and you shouldn't be making excuses for him.
I'm not making excuses, I'm being specific and correct. Rape (which isn't defined in the Canadian criminal code) has a very clear definition understood by the public (and defined in law elsewhere) as requiring penetration of some sort.
You're actually defaming him (and therefore guilty of libel under Canadian Criminal law) for accusing him of something which is not true and could harm his reputation further.
In your opinion, how many years of jail should be given to someone who kisses another person without their consent? Or does that part of this situation not warrant jail time? Should there be a mandatory minimum for any form of sexual assault? How many years then for the more serious offence of removing someone's shirt and bra without their consent?
who kisses another person without their consent
You are seriously are doubling down on defending people who sexually assault people. No consent is assault and that can get you jail time.
The pig was in a position of power and is supposed to be better than the average person.
I'm not defaming him, as it's my opinion that he is a pig and deserves jail time for his actions.
Edit: either a lot of people don't know what defamation is, or they are hand waving sexual assault.
I'm being specific and correct.
You're being pedantic. Caring more about the rules of language than the fact a woman's life has been decimated by a rapey cop doesn't help your argument.
The law is very pedantic.
and I'm not making an argument, I'm just clarifying terminology.
You just fucking said you weren't making a legal argument, that the term was not defined in the law in the relevant jurisdiction. But now that you realize you've crawled out too far on a shaky limb, you're still turning to "it's not my opinion, it's just the law!"
Doesn't work that way.
And placing your perception of language over and above that of a woman whose life has been devastated by a fucking cop.
Maybe you could place what happened as more important than the specific language used.
I think you're missing the point. The law needs to be specific. It describes levels of criminal activity and in this case details how the law differentiates between what the law calls "rape" and "sexual assault".
Sure, from our perspective that girl got raped, and that's how I would describe it. But the law doesn't.
The point of this thread is that a cop got off charges with a slap on the wrist. It is not, and never was, about what he did as much as he faces exactly zero consequences.
He got 12 months house arrest and 12 months probation after that. That's not "zero consequences".
TF you on about bro? This is up there with people going well aktually epehobphila isn't pedophila or some shit.
Sexual Assault is rape. Fin.
No its not. Rape is a subcategory of Sexual Assault not the other way around. What this guy did was wrong. He is (probably) facing too light of a punishment for it (article says the crown wanted double). I'm just not an expert on these matters at all. But he didn't rape her. Period.
If writing fictional stories about teenagers having sex should result in being a sex offender, why is George R. R. Martin allowed in Canada? Game of Thrones (the books) have multiple graphic passages about the rape of minors, Sansa was 12 years old in the books. Even in the show, which aired in Canada, she was still underage.
Your logic is flawed, writing fictional stories shouldn't be a criminal offense, and even with it being illegal in Canada it isn't applied equally.
Rape is sexual assault, sexual assault is not always rape. Just like an apple is a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.
Words matter, and yours aren't correct. They don't align with legal definitions in countries that define rape, with the common dictionary definitions, or with the common public understanding of the word.
iT's OnLy RaPe If He GoT hIs DiCk WeT
Dear god. Listen to yourself.
Like, straight up, if you're playing apologetics for a fucking cop who sexually assaulted someone by trying to well-akshually rape, you need to deeply probe your motivations there. Because I promise you, you don't have good ones.
ITs OnLy MuRdEr If He DiEs
It's oNlY SuIcIdE If a cOp sHoOtS YoU
Y'all remember when "suicide by cop" was a popular term? But never "murder by coward," huh...
OK then, attempted rapist
He attempted to have an affair. The fact that he stopped when she protested and drove her home instead indicates he didn't attempt or intend to rape her. He still absolutely committed sexual assault though which is why he was found guilty. Consent for any sort of sexual encounter needs to come first, not during or after, and removing someone's shirt and bra definitely requires consent.
When dealing with situations like this, it's important to be very clear and precise. There's unfortunately a lot of actual rapes that occur, and they shouldn't be muddied by situations where someone calls rape when it isn't leading to people downplaying real rapes.
It's the same reason I don't like seeing people put on the sex offender list for public urination just because it happened near a school (even if there were no youth there at the time) or like the case of a man that got put on the list just a couple years ago for writing a short sexual story (completely fictional) simply because it contained teenagers who weren't 18 yet.
Later that month, LaCombe "contrived another opportunity to meet" and picked the victim up in his own car, without initially telling her where they were going, and brought her to a hotel, Paquette said.
He kidnapped her and took her to a hotel room.
In the room, he handed her a dress he bought from Value Village, and she went into the washroom but didn't change into it, the defence said. When she emerged, LaCombe picked her up without her consent, pulled her on top of him, took off her top and bra and kissed her.
Then he wants her to dress up for him AGAINST HER WILL.
What you do is dangerous and can be harmfull for victims. With blowing up the severity of cases like this, you reduce the the severity of kidnapping and rape cases in the minds of people reading your claims.
She wasn't beaten up and dragged into his car, that's what i imagine when i think of kidnapping and it should stay that way.
Taking someone to a place under false pretenses. Then telling her to change into clothes that she didn't want to wear. Then sexually assaulting her.
That definitely sounds like kidnapping and attempted rape to me. Just because she was let go doesn't mean that it wasn't a crime.
He used his authority and position in the community to sexually exploit someone who was vulnerable and IN HIS FUCKING CARE BECAUSE THEY WERE A VULNERABLE PERSON. You're being such an asshole right now, how can you not understand that.
When there is a power dynamic, what might in another context be a simple conflict between two equal people completely changes in nature.
Exactly, I've had my dick grabbed/felt up, and had people try to strip me. It's assault, not rape.
Both are bad and should be punished, but one is way worse. By calling all sexual assaults rape, it almost feels like it's eroding the word "rape" to something lesser.
This predator needs to be punished.
That's exploiting a power dynamic to force themself sexually on an unwilling person. That's rape. Laws don't define words, it does not matter what the definition of the crime of the same name is, that woman was raped.