Author: has written 5267 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

59 Responses

  1. Natalie
    Natalie May 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm |

    fuck the police

  2. EG
    EG May 24, 2012 at 2:58 pm |

    Seriously. Could the NYPD make it any clearer than they have this year that they don’t consider rape or sexual assault to be problems? And could the city in the form of jurors make it any clearer that that is A-OK with them?

  3. librarygoose
    librarygoose May 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm |

    Next time they should just stick their fingers in their ears and scream, “LALALALALA” anytime anyone says the word “victim”. That’s a sure fire way to avoid doing jack shit to help.

  4. amblingalong
    amblingalong May 24, 2012 at 3:19 pm |

    Yeah, or they didn’t have enough information to make an arrest.

    Police returned to the scene on Wednesday to speak with neighbors and check out security footage.

    From the article it sounds like they’re looking into more sources of evidence; releasing someone != concluding the investigation. This is exactly what police are supposed to do. Generally, we don’t let the police hold someone in jail indefinitely without arresting/charging them, and police don’t arrest people without probable cause.

    I’m not denying that there are widespread problems with the way the police handle allegations of sexual assault, but based on the information in the article, we have zero reason to believe this is a case of the police deciding they don’t care about sexual assault/rape. If the alleged assailent had punched the victim, instead of groping her, we have no reason to believe they wouldn’t have responded the same way (that is, following the law).

  5. Mxe354
    Mxe354 May 24, 2012 at 3:19 pm |

    What on God’s green earth is this?

  6. EG
    EG May 24, 2012 at 3:23 pm |

    They came up here, I told them where the girl was and they just kept on going. They said they had no victim even though we call them back.

    Yeah, sure sounds like they were following the law. I mean, just because a woman says she’s been assaulted and she has a bunch of witnesses who can identify him and shit…I mean, where’s the evidence? They got no victim, no real victim.

    If some dude had followed and then punched some other dude? THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Men, by and large, do not stalk strange men on the street in order to attack them. This is what happens. Asshole men follow and assault women, and then their complaints are dismissed by an NYPD that has had at least three rapist cops revealed, if not convicted, in the past year.

  7. amblingalong
    amblingalong May 24, 2012 at 3:36 pm |

    Yeah, sure sounds like they were following the law. I mean, just because a woman says she’s been assaulted and she has a bunch of witnesses who can identify him and shit…I mean, where’s the evidence? They got no victim, no real victim.

    They’re investigating. That is what they are

    supposed to do.

    If some dude had followed and then punched some other dude? THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Men, by and large, do not stalk strange men on the street in order to attack them.

    I’m pretty sure I didn’t say anything about punching another dude. Did you just make up an argument for me, to refute it?

    This is what happens. Asshole men follow and assault women, and then their complaints are dismissed by an NYPD that has had at least three rapist cops revealed, if not convicted, in the past year.

    If you can show me a single shred of evidence in the article that they “dismissed the complaint,” instead of speaking to the witnesses, checking security footage, and attempting to interview the suspsect, I’ll promptly admit I’m wrong.

    Can you just clarify, for me, if you’re arguing that the police should be empowered to hold people without charge?

  8. Unree
    Unree May 24, 2012 at 4:25 pm |

    amblingalong, there was this sentence: “… [the police] said the guy didn’t want to be questioned so they let him go.”

    Suspect didn’t want to be questioned so they let him go. Maybe there’s some miscommunication, but that looks wrong to me.

  9. gratuitous_violet
    gratuitous_violet May 24, 2012 at 4:46 pm |

    Ahh, the capital city of Stop-and-Frisk-land certainly wouldn’t do anything inappropriate towards someone not formally charged with a crime! It’s unthinkable! Calm down, ladies, nothing to see here.

    Pardon me while I go throw up.

  10. gratuitous_violet
    gratuitous_violet May 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm |

    hey ambling, not all of us are saying that the police should be able to detain someone without cause. What I am saying, at least, is that the NYPD already violates the rights of suspects left and right whn they’re busy trying to make drug cases or search “suspicious” men of color…but try and get some justice for a woman and suddenly everyone’s a civil rights crusader. The discrepancy is telling, to say the least.

  11. EG
    EG May 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm |

    They’re investigating. That is what they are supposed to do.

    Investigating by saying they have no victim and not following up with her?

    I’m pretty sure I didn’t say anything about punching another dude. Did you just make up an argument for me, to refute it?

    OK. You just said punching. Men, by and large, do not follow strange women in order to assault them in a non-sexual fashion. Now you can fill in the rest of my point about trusting the NYPD vis-a-vis sexual assault.

    Can you just clarify, for me, if you’re arguing that the police should be empowered to hold people without charge?

    At the moment when you clarify for me how witnesses and a victim aren’t evidence enough for an arrest, and how saying “we have no victim” dovetails with your generous theory that they were merely following the law. Can you explain why they had to return to look at security footage? Rather than, you know, looking at security footage while they were there?

    If you can show me a single shred of evidence in the article that they “dismissed the complaint,”

    The part where they said they HAD NO VICTIM. How is that not dismissing the complaint?

  12. valentifan69
    valentifan69 May 24, 2012 at 4:56 pm |

    If some dude had followed and then punched some other dude? THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Men, by and large, do not stalk strange men on the street in order to attack them.

    LOL at the cluelessness. That’s exactly what did happen. Some bloke ‘cornered’ or ‘ran the man down’ – and let’s be absolutely explicit about what that’s a massive euphemism for so that no-one else misses it: assaulted and detained the guy – without actually being there when the crime happened or for that matter having any first-hand evidence the dude had done anything.

    Then from the police’s PoV it sounds like they only got hearsay evidence of an assault on the woman, some of which is coming from a man who has prima facie committed an assault. Basically looks like they freed the guy from some vigilante, when there didn’t turn out to be much in the way of evidence to back up his treatment.

  13. EG
    EG May 24, 2012 at 4:58 pm |

    Seriously. “Turn out your pockets” and strip searches the NYPD has no problem with, but detaining some dude who assaulted a woman? That’s POLICE STATE territory, buddy.

  14. Iris
    Iris May 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm |

    @amblingalong:

    I’ve never been arrested or accused of a crime, so I don’t know anything about it except news reports and/or media presentations.
    Perhaps, you could explain to me how it happens that the guy wasn’t even hauled in for questioning? What, in a police officer’s mind, would cause them to question a person accused of a crime, let them go and then come back later to investigate?
    It seems amazingly trusting of the police to think the guy will be available later, should they find something in their investigation to make the police want to arrest him.
    NDAA aside, isn’t there something like a 24/48 hour rule where the police can detain someone without any charges being filed? Police seem (and I emphasize “seem”) to have no problem with detaining journalists at protests without ever filing charges.
    Please help me to understand.

  15. Donna L
    Donna L May 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm |

    It sounds to me like they let the guy go before they spoke to the victim, because she wasn’t at the place where the neighbor was detaining him and the police showed up. Even though they were told where she lived. And by the time she was able to speak to the police, they had let him go. He was already “stopped”; I wonder if they “frisked” him like they’ve done to 8 trillion other people already in the last year. If so, it’s probably too bad he didn’t have a joint in his pocket. Then they would have arrested him.

  16. EG
    EG May 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm |

    Actually, now I’m trying to imagine this going down with a tourist who’s been pickpocketed on the Upper West Side. He yells, people come out, and see the thief, who’s apprehended up the block by a neighbor. Unfortunately, the thief managed to drop the wallet down a sewer while running. So the only evidence is what the victim says happened…and a bunch of witnesses who came out. Do the cops shrug their shoulders all “no evidence, sorry, can’t apprehend him without sufficient evidence, that’s the law, kids”?

  17. EG
    EG May 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm |

    Some bloke ‘cornered’ or ‘ran the man down’ – and let’s be absolutely explicit about what that’s a massive euphemism for so that no-one else misses it: assaulted and detained the guy – without actually being there when the crime happened or for that matter having any first-hand evidence the dude had done anything.

    Yeah…hearing a woman yell for help after being sexually assaulted and grabbing the guy who did it as he’s trying to run away…that’s just like picking out a woman you’ve never seen before on the subway, following her, and then assaulting her. Good comparison.

  18. Donna L
    Donna L May 24, 2012 at 5:12 pm |

    I think the difference here is that the victim wasn’t standing right there, and they didn’t feel like waiting for her, or, God forbid, going out of their way to talk to her.

  19. EG
    EG May 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm |

    If so, it’s probably too bad he didn’t have a joint in his pocket. Then they would have arrested him.

    Well, I’m glad the NYPD has its priorities in order, and I’m being kept safe from the hordes of pot-smokers just waiting to…hang out in the park, I guess, and eat cookies.

  20. David
    David May 24, 2012 at 5:15 pm |

    You can’t hold people without charge indefinitely….

    People have a right to silence. This is quite an entertaining lecture, explaining why the fifth amendment exists.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
    If the suspect is adamant that he won’t talk, there is no point holding him in custody for hours.

    The police know where he lives. They can re-arrest him when they have the evidence. Which they have been gathering. I don’t see the problem…

  21. Chiara
    Chiara May 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm |

    Then from the police’s PoV it sounds like they only got hearsay evidence of an assault on the woman, some of which is coming from a man who has prima facie committed an assault. Basically looks like they freed the guy from some vigilante, when there didn’t turn out to be much in the way of evidence to back up his treatment.

    Well except for the bit where the woman screamed and the guy is running away? Seems pretty fucking obvious what was going down. Furthermore they have testimony from the woman herself, check this:

    woman was returning home from her job at a Manhattan night club when she exited the 4th Avenue/9th Street F/G station. As she walked on 16th Street between 4th and 5th Avenues she noticed a man was following her, but thought that she’d shaken him.

    Who’d you think they got that bit from? If it wasn’t from her? So it’s hardly ‘hearsay’ evidence. Also I think you’re like some kind of troll, I’ve seen you on here before and you’re always posting total BS.

  22. Donna L
    Donna L May 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm |

    The police know where he lives. They can re-arrest him when they have the evidence. Which they have been gathering. I don’t see the problem…

    I’m sure he gave them his real address.

  23. amblingalong
    amblingalong May 24, 2012 at 6:57 pm |

    amblingalong, there was this sentence: “… [the police] said the guy didn’t want to be questioned so they let him go.” Suspect didn’t want to be questioned so they let him go. Maybe there’s some miscommunication, but that looks wrong to me.

    Well, it’s awkwardly phrased, but what they’re really saying is “they brought him in for questioning, he exercised his 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and so they had no choice but to let him go.” Which is how it should be.

    hey ambling, not all of us are saying that the police should be able to detain someone without cause. What I am saying, at least, is that the NYPD already violates the rights of suspects left and right whn they’re busy trying to make drug cases or search “suspicious” men of color…but try and get some justice for a woman and suddenly everyone’s a civil rights crusader. The discrepancy is telling, to say the least.

    As a card-carrying member of the ACLU, my position had been pretty much the same all along.

    Perhaps, you could explain to me how it happens that the guy wasn’t even hauled in for questioning?

    He was. That doesn’t negate his right to refuse to answer questions, at which point the police pretty much have to charge or release him.

    NDAA aside, isn’t there something like a 24/48 hour rule where the police can detain someone without any charges being filed?

    Depends. Police have to show ‘probable cause,’ which is a mid-level standard, higher than ‘reasonable suspicion’ but lower than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Essentially, they need to be able to demonstrate that a cautious person would, upon examining the available facts, be convinced the suspect was probably the one to commit the crime. If the victim hadn’t come forward and the only evidence was a neighbor who said he apprehended the suspect after hearing screams, there’s almost no way the police could have held their suspect.

    Incidentally, it’s important to note I’m not saying I don’t think the police did anything wrong, I’m just saying that based on the facts presented in the article, we don’t have particularly good reasons to think the police did something wrong.

    I’m sure he gave them his real address.

    That is not a strong argument in favor of letting the police detain people whenever they feel like it, indefinitely.

  24. Donna L
    Donna L May 24, 2012 at 7:06 pm |

    That is not a strong argument in favor of letting the police detain people whenever they feel like it, indefinitely.

    I didn’t say it was.

  25. amblingalong
    amblingalong May 24, 2012 at 7:27 pm |

    I didn’t say it was.

    Sorry, I read it as a continuation of my exchange with EG et. al. Apologies.

  26. Dominique
    Dominique May 24, 2012 at 8:22 pm |

    Please do not feed the troll. I think it’s pretty obvious who this is.

  27. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable May 24, 2012 at 10:17 pm |

    4th Avenue/9th Street F/G station.

    Popping in to say this is one of my two subway stops and I CANNOT WAIT to fucking move. Did they even catch the groper who was around here? Could it be the same guy?

  28. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh May 24, 2012 at 10:35 pm |

    Popping in to say this is one of my two subway stops and I CANNOT WAIT to fucking move. Did they even catch the groper who was around here? Could it be the same guy?

    Damn, very sorry to hear that, PrettyAmiable, I hope they get off of their duffs and catch the groper, and I hope you’ll be ok.

  29. William
    William May 24, 2012 at 11:19 pm |

    Ambling: No one here suggested detaining the guy indefinitely. What people seem to be suggesting is…police work. Theres been an altercation, both guys get held by the initial responding officers, call another car to gather up the witnesses and the alleged victim, take some statements, make a decision. That didn’t happen here. Given my experience I’m going to, until some evidence to the contrary comes along, go ahead and assume that its due to some combination of lazy assholes in uniforms that cover tiny dicks and pressure from above to keep sexual assault complaints artificially low so a bunch of shit ticks in poorly fitting dress blues can pat each other’s porcine backs for tricking the proles into thinking that the city is safer for their harassment of black kids.

    Drop the straw man of indefinite detention, we’re not talking about Guantanamo, we’re talking about holding someone for the minimum period of time necessary to interview a victim and witnesses within jogging distance. Maybe you’d have a point about civil rights if the NYPD had a record of being scrupulous when it comes to liberty, but given that these cops responded to the call as a break from a hard days friskin’ I’m not likely to assume good intentions from donut grease stained thugs.

  30. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh May 24, 2012 at 11:21 pm |

    What people seem to be suggesting is…police work.

    I know, shocking huh?

    (agree with you completely, btw)

  31. Matt
    Matt May 24, 2012 at 11:40 pm |

    William, you could have made that post without using tiny dicks as an insult. That’s not really appropriate. Generic insults like asshole are okay, but using something that is used to demean and humiliate people as an indication of lack of manliness or something, which is the general usage, is not okay. Check yourself.

  32. Partial Human
    Partial Human May 25, 2012 at 1:44 am |

    Hmm. Nothing here about Charles Hynes then?

    While this woman has had a terrible ordeal, it’s awkwardly noticeable that NYPD/the DA’s horrific policy of protecting men who sexually abuse kids does not even make a blip on the radar.

    They’re failing women like this one and families preyed on by sick perverts, while the perps escape justice and start all over again.

    Is there any chance of New Yorkers protesting the sorry state of law enforcement?

  33. valentifan69
    valentifan69 May 25, 2012 at 4:57 am |

    Furthermore they have testimony from the woman herself, check this:

    Chiara – you don’t understand what hearsay is. It’s evidence from someone with no direct experience of an event. They don’t have have direct evidence from the woman herself, what you quoted is evidence from a third party who has spoken to the woman. That’s hearsay.

    imagine this going down with a tourist who’s been pickpocketed… He yells, people come out, and see the thief … evidence is what the victim says happened…and a bunch of witnesses who came out.

    EG – you don’t understand what witnesses are. They aren’t witnesses to a crime, people don’t witness a pickpocketing if they come out after it has happened. You seem to be making an argument for the law to be based on some sort of denunciation, rather than direct experience.

  34. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable May 25, 2012 at 7:32 am |

    Stop and frisk was heavily protested, and as far as I can tell, Bloomberg’s response was “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALA”

  35. EG
    EG May 25, 2012 at 7:53 am |

    I believe it was “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALA and I CAN SO have a third term.”

    The will of the people is not so big around here.

  36. amblingalong
    amblingalong May 25, 2012 at 8:34 am |

    The will of the people is not so big around here.

    Or at least the will of people who aren’t white, wealthy, and connected. I don’t have any polling to substantiate my claim, but I’d bet anything Bloomberg is hoping that he’ll gain more among people who are scared of young black men than he’ll lose among the people protesting. The sad thing is he’s probably right.

  37. DoublyLinkedLists
    DoublyLinkedLists May 25, 2012 at 8:53 am |

    I can’t believe this was a controversial topic for the comments.

    And seriously William, can you stop oppressing the cops with your insults? Check yourself.

  38. Donna L
    Donna L May 25, 2012 at 9:04 am |

    And seriously William, can you stop oppressing the cops with your insults? Check yourself.

    Yeah, I mean, I was tempted to say something about cops and donuts, and their having been too fixated on their next donut run to wait to talk to the victim, but decided that it would be inappropriate to go there, so I didn’t. (Paraleipsis can be such fun!)

  39. amblingalong
    amblingalong May 25, 2012 at 9:26 am |

    (Paraleipsis can be such fun!)

    I’d argue your post rises to the level of proslepsis.

    (Sorry, these are just excellent words I never get to use).

  40. William
    William May 25, 2012 at 9:47 am |

    I accept the check on the tiny dick comment. I was trying to imply insecurity, but I didn’t do a great job of it and less gendered comments would have been both more appropriate and more effective.

    The rest, though? I’ll gladly stand by what I said. The police do not deserve my respect, nor my deference, nor my kindness. They deserve, at most, the barest tolerance and even then only when they are behaving themselves. They are not an identity group, they are hired thugs who draw a paycheck for oppressing the disempowered. Any effect they have on actual crime or injustice is either incidental or PR. If the words which I use to express that feeling somehow offends the sensibilities of a heavily armed thin skinned hog then so be it, I’m sure they can find a bullet riddled cop bar to drown their sorrows (and sclerotic livers) before bravely facing another heroic day of beating up brown kids and ignoring sexual assault victims.

  41. amblingalong
    amblingalong May 25, 2012 at 10:19 am |

    Any effect they have on actual crime or injustice is either incidental or PR.

    It’s almost as if in order to make a point effectively, you have to overstate your argument in the most hyperbolic terms possible.

    before bravely facing another heroic day of beating up brown kids

    Because all cops are white, don’t forget.

    they are hired thugs who draw a paycheck for oppressing the disempowered.

    As a member of one or two disempowered groups myself, you’re still an idiot. I’ve had nasty run-ins with asshole cops, and I’ve met cops who worked every day to make a positive difference in their communities. Cops are people exactly like everyone else; they just have more power, so the assholes can do more damage (and the good ones can do more good, not that they’re the ones who make the front page).

  42. Mxe354
    Mxe354 May 25, 2012 at 10:30 am |

    donut grease stained thugs

    LOL I love this

  43. ohplease
    ohplease May 25, 2012 at 11:40 am |

    I don’t see the problem…

    Really? That’s so shocking coming from a DUDE WHO DOESN”T HAVE TO EVER BE WORRIED ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULT.

    FOAD.

  44. Iris
    Iris May 25, 2012 at 1:35 pm |

    @amblingalong:
    So, if I have understood your response correctly, your contention is the author of the piece has not met your journalistic standards for making an informed decision around the argument that the NYPD is not interested in arresting sexual predators and/or protecting and serving the residents of New York City. And so, we should just give the NYPD the benefit of a doubt because they are investigating, for Pete’s sake.

    My contention is the NYPD is comprised of individuals who have no respect for the law and/or for civil rights, so I see no reason to give them the benefit of a doubt. While I don’t follow the antics of the NYPD, per se, they have an egregious history. There is a theory that the best predictor of present and future behavior is past behavior.

    If the written word does not sway you as to the poor (and amazingly stupid – do they not know about phone cameras? Or perhaps, the rot is so entrenched, they do not care.) behavior of the NYPD, perhaps this video of a real live NYPD member will (TW – threats of sexual assault and murder):

  45. Iris
    Iris May 25, 2012 at 1:40 pm |

    Hmmm – I only wanted to provide a link – not embed the video. Can someone tell me what I did wrong?

  46. amblingalong
    amblingalong May 25, 2012 at 3:40 pm |

    your contention is the author of the piece has not met your journalistic standards for making an informed decision around the argument that the NYPD is not interested in arresting sexual predators and/or protecting and serving the residents of New York City. And so, we should just give the NYPD the benefit of a doubt because they are investigating, for Pete’s sake.

    Wow. That’s just such poor reading comprehension. What I said was that based on the article, there’s no reason to believe the police acted negligently in this specific case.

    I tend to take civil liberties pretty seriously, and am wholly unsympathetic to the idea that we should ignore them when the suspect in question has been accused of a crime we find particularly distasteful.

  47. amblingalong
    amblingalong May 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm |

    And there are 35,000 members of the NYPD, so a video of one of them is going to convince me of shit.

  48. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve May 25, 2012 at 4:34 pm |

    If some dude had followed and then punched some other dude? THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Men, by and large, do not stalk strange men on the street in order to attack them.

    EG, I hate to point this out, as everything else you’ve said on this thread is brilliant, but…have we already forgotten Trayvon Martin?

  49. Iris
    Iris May 25, 2012 at 4:48 pm |

    @amblinalong:
    You could have restated your position without attacking my reading comprehension. Did someone pee in your Cheerios this morning, sunshine?
    As to the video, there were 3 or 4 of the cop’s homies standing around him. What’s that Latin saying? “Who will guard the guards?” I don’t see the police policing themselves. If there are indeed “good cops” in the NYPD, their allowing this sort of behavior from their peers makes them just as dirty. As long as I’m slinging cliches around, here’s another – “All that’s required for evil to flourish, is for good men to do nothing.” You know, like promoting rape culture by staying silent in the face of rape jokes.
    It’s pretty obvious you have a burning need to be right, no matter what. And, you’re not above attacking me personally to do it.
    It might have been an interesting conversation. Instead, it’s just you, pounding your chest. So problematic.

  50. EG
    EG May 25, 2012 at 7:06 pm |

    EG, I hate to point this out, as everything else you’ve said on this thread is brilliant, but…have we already forgotten Trayvon Martin?

    You’re right, Steve. My apologies. White privilege showing big and bright, there.

    And it’s a good point, because indeed, when a crime is racist, cops are happy to ignore it and let the killer go, just as here when in a misogynist crime of far less violence and awfulness, the cops are happy to do the same. This does not make me think better of them. (Not to imply that you were saying it should, Steve.)

  51. IrishUp
    IrishUp May 25, 2012 at 7:39 pm |

    One cop, eh?

    What about a class action suit?

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/judge-allows-class-action-status-in-stop-and-frisk-lawsuit/

    How about the numerous substantiated claims of various precincts and officers juking the stats by reclassifying crime reports and ignoring assaults?

    http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-03-07/news/the-nypd-tapes-confirmed/

    http://www.copinthehood.com/2010/02/juking-stats.html

    Nope, this shit is a feature of NYPD operations, not a bug.

  52. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable May 25, 2012 at 8:34 pm |

    The cop who sexually assaulted the woman he walked home then threatened to sue the city?

  53. Potential Sexual Assault Suspect Not Questioned Because "He Didn't Want To Answer" | Care2 Causes

    [...] Feministe, a Brooklyn blog reports that the victim, “[W]as returning home from her job at a Manhattan [...]

  54. Potential Sexual Assault Suspect Not Questioned Because “He Didn’t Want To Answer” | 2012 The Awakening

    [...] Feministe, a Brooklyn blog reports that the victim, “[W]as returning home from her job at a Manhattan night [...]

  55. Zumi Vance
    Zumi Vance May 28, 2012 at 2:27 am |

    The incidents of women being groped on NYC streets needs to be reported and taken seriously by police. Like a boulder being pushed into motion, these acts will start to be taken seriously by NYPD when women start treating them reporting them like the crimes they are. I hope the young woman keeps the pressure on until the NYPD follow through; I had a similar situation happen to me.
    I was returning home one evening to my home in Astoria, Queens in 1997, and was groped by a Hispanic man on a bike. I was almost to my door, saw him riding across my path and tried to move out of his way. He wobbled and steadied himself, and as he did, he reached out and grabbed my back side.
    Stunned, I stumbled into my apartment building. I told my roommate what had happened. She urged me to call the police and report it. Although it was late and I was reticent, I did. I told the male and female cop what transpired, and they looked at me, expecting a more actionable ending to the story.
    Half-heartedly, they said they’d “see what they could do”. I was ashamed and questioned myself for calling attention to what was treated by the cops as a “non-issue”.
    God bless my roommate. She assured me I did the right thing, and that attitudes will start to change when we women start calling attention to these crimes by reporting them. They are serious! We are worth it!
    I’m sorry that the young NYC woman was grabbed in the early hours, coming home from her job. Women should be able to feel safe in the world and have the protection of the police to back us.
    Keep going! Things need to shift.

  56. Jackie
    Jackie May 29, 2012 at 8:50 am |

    I wish Olivia Benson was real, so she could tell these cops how much of a complete fail they are, but I’d settle for a Law & Order SVU where the same message is put across.

  57. amblingalong
    amblingalong May 29, 2012 at 2:24 pm |

    And it’s a good point, because indeed, when a crime is racist, cops are happy to ignore it and let the killer go, just as here when in a misogynist crime of far less violence and awfulness, the cops are happy to do the same. This does not make me think better of them. (Not to imply that you were saying it should, Steve.)

    All cops being white men as they are.

    For fuck’s sake, people. Cops are people. When cops fuck up we hear about it, and when they don’t, we don’t. Any profession is going to have its assholes and heros, sociopaths and saints; cops simply have power, which magnifies their capacity to do good or bad. Incidentally, it’s a lot more of the former than the latter. Really, I hope nobody is really listening the guy up there claiming the crime rate wouldn’t go down if there weren’t any law enforcement.

    Saying “cops ignore racist/sexual crimes; cops don’t do anything aside from further oppressing the oppressed; fuck cops” is about as stupid as saying “taxi drivers won’t pick black men up at night; taxi drivers don’t do anything aside from oppressing black men; fuck the taxi drivers.”

    You could have restated your position without attacking my reading comprehension. Did someone pee in your Cheerios this morning, sunshine?

    Apologies. I was frustrated by the amount of mindless hatred towards members of my family, here. Latino cops exist, assholes (not you, Iris).

    It’s pretty obvious you have a burning need to be right, no matter what.

    In this case? I am.

  58. Sally
    Sally May 29, 2012 at 6:13 pm |

    Disturbing and typical. And making individual excuses for each individual lapse serves as an attempt to conceal what is a systemic failure to deal with crimes against women.

    Quick, slightly off-topic question (I did try Googling): is it standard journalistic practice to identify the race of the offender and not the victim?

  59. Anon for this
    Anon for this May 31, 2012 at 7:08 pm |

    Just imagine if there was a cop who has made numerous arrests for sexual assaults, has a passion for protecting kids, and works hard on domestic violence cases gaining accolades from the district attorney for it.

    Imagine if that same cop takes great care when helping trans people to use respectful and appropriate terminology.

    And imagine, and I’m way out there on this one, that same cop is a regular reader of Feministe and has been for years.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.