Since that's his defense and he was found not guilty at his criminal trial, why isn't the woman who forced him being charged with a sex crime? Forcing someone to perform sexually against their will is a crime, after all. Women shouldn't be exempt when they force men, right?
The answer is simple. She forced him to do what he did by being "an overtly sexual person." Her power was so great that it took him out of his jurisdiction and made him pull her over on a secluded section of highway. This wasn't the first time she'd exerted her power over him. Four months earlier he'd stopped her and she was so powerful that he allegedly ignored the fact that she had broken several laws.
Maybe we should petition for a new criminal statute. Driving while sexy and female.
Too often it seems as if that type of statute is on the books when a woman is accused of lying about what was "clearly" (to far too many people) a consensual encounter. "Just look at her."
This man's defense should be considered not a valid defense but a demonstration of motive and rationalization. That it worked demonstrates how pervasive this motive and rationalization is in our society. No wonder so many girls and women are "raped" each year and then called liars for identifying themselves as real rape victims.
If a woman works at a place with the name Captian Cream Cabaret she becomes something less than fully human and treating her like a sex toy becomes normal manly behavior even when that man is an on-duty patrolman. This attitude is changing, but not quickly enough.
Since this defense was effective, those who are arrested for DUI should be able to claim that they are not criminals because they were overpowered by the alcohol. Cravings are cravings, right?
Yet in a DUI the driver's reason for getting behind the wheel doesn't matter. What matters is that driving drunk poses a danger. The same should be true in sex crimes. Why you violate others shouldn't matter in a trial. The prosecution can either prove that you did the crime or it can't.
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. [...] A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—agreed with [defense attorney] Stokke. On Feb. 2, after a half-day of deliberations, they found Park not guilty of three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors during the December 2004 traffic stop.
Park, 31, was red-faced and unable to control his twitching foot in the moments before the verdict was announced; if convicted, he would have faced prison. When he was found not guilty, he briefly embraced Stokke. [...] Outside the courtroom, surrounded by his family, a smiling Park said he felt vindicated.
The key is "he picked" which means he decided that it was okay, while on-duty and while dealing with another person in an official capacity, to do what he did.
Veteran sex crimes prosecutor Shaddi Kamiabipour—who’d called Park “a predator” during the nine-day trial—said she was disappointed with the verdicts. She also dismissed Stokke’s contention that the Orange County District Attorney’s office had overcharged the case. At stake, Kamiabipour said, was the principle that no one—not even a horny cop who’d once won honors for community service—is above the law. “Park didn’t pick a housewife or a 17-year-old girl,” Kamiabipour said in her closing argument. “He picked a stripper. He picked the perfect victim.”
His actions were quite rational. And as this trial shows, he guessed right that he could find others who would see his actions as within the law.