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 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.
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!”
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
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”.