Victim-Police Ignored me?

LOL! You need a hug. And I prefer cheesecake thank you very much.

Is it really necessary to bash on the OP when she comes to this forum for help?

To the OP, I would say to be very honest and upfront with whoever it is you deal with in this matter. I do not know all the details, but if what you say is true, you should not regret having called the police or having come to this forums (although the responses you got here are somewhat regrettable...).

Best of luck to you.

:::shaking head::: BASH the poster?? At no time did I reference her character, her behavior, OR her morals. I addressed the LEGAL ramifications of her posting and explained to her as a matter of LAW why what she is relating does not make sense---from a LEGAL standpoint. The questions and issues I raised are exactly the same ones HER attorney will ask--a defense attorney will crucify her on the witness stand with ONE discrepancy----pointing them out to her NOW is BASHING? Surely some one refined enough to enjoy cheesecake knows the difference between the application of legal information and personal attacks?

Perhaps you misunderstand the point of this forum.This isn't a chat room or message board. LEGAL advice. Now, if this were a counseling message board, offering psychiatric related discussions, and/or encouragement, I would have said things like "Aww, you poor dear. I'm sure you must have felt so awful after such a terrible experience. Tell me how you are coping..." yada yada. That isn't the purpose of this forum---the purpose is to provide legal information which is precisely what I have done.

Being uninformed because you don't like what you hear, or because it wasn't the answer you wanted is, at its most simplistic level, ignorance.

Knowledge is power.

Cherries or strawberries? Do say neither. Cheesecake is perfection in and of itself.

Personally, I think you should discuss this immediately with a licensed attorney in your area. This is serious stuff. Date rape/assault is common but it comes with its own nasty consequences when you attempt to pursue it. A good attorney should listen at first; absorb all details and then quietly question each and every nuance, every single incident. Then, after thorough examination and research, he/she should be able to give you a good idea 1) if it's even worth pursuing or 2) give you the 'head's up' that you have a good case. (There could possibly be others this person has assualted just as afraid to step forward.) Either way, your initial reaction to that attorney should be a good one .. that you finally have some strong support .. as trial date nears, he/she will begin to "put you through the wringer" in preparation. It won't be easy, but again, you will have professional support who have your best interests in mind. This situation is, after all, about you.

That being said, (I really should copyright my little idiom) I think you may want to consider some professional counseling there. Your postings seem to me a combination of anger, fear and confusion that probably need to be aired ... not in a court of law. If you decide to proceed, again with qualified counsel, you need a little more strength to follow this through. Accepting your post at face value, it seems to me you've already "regretted" enough .. it's time to start doing something.

Good luck.

*In answer to your original question (and again accepting the post at face value,) I'd also question whether or not the police response was entirely adequate. That being said, officers are trained to make a swift (and constant) assessment of every single call the moment they arrive on the scene. (Yes, I know 20/20 hindsight is simple.) If you believe your situation was not handled well, you have a right to file a complaint with the department ... but again, I would NOT remotely recommend you do this on your own. As stated elsewhere above, there are undisclosed circumstances that need to be thoroughly discussed (I, for one, don't find that necessary on a public forum) before you do anything. Again, good luck.

For anyone seriously interested, I'd recommend the following link and books/publications : Legal psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Psychology Law: A Critical Introduction by Andreas Kapardis and The International Journal Of Law and Psychiatry. Personally, I find the relationships both logical and rather interesting.

Question for everyone who thinks the police did not act "adequately". Define, please, the legal definition of the word adequate.

I'll wait. Go ahead.

The Supreme Court test of an officers behavior in those situations where a police officer must act ( keeping in mind he is not, as a matter of law, REQUIRED to respond ) is reasonableness. Did an officer act in a reasonable manner? Clearly, he did. No one has offered any tangible action the police could have legally done to contradict that fact. Go back to the house with her in the squad car? Leave her standing by the side of the road while they went in to investigate--knowing full well she would, in all likelihood, follow?? According to 1983, either of those two options WOULD have opened them up to liability had they followed either of those ideas. That being said--any other ideas?


Now, whatever answer that popped into your head, keep it in mind while reading the prior Supreme Court rulings on police conduct--feel free to start with the one I already posted which states very clearly what you or I feel or believe an officer SHOULD have done is irrelevant from a legal standpoint. The LAW says an officer is NOT obligated to offer assistance. Period. Therefore, filing a claim against an officer without being able to offer any OTHER (legal) option they could have exercised will do little more than garner you ill will with the police--oh yes, and good luck calling them NEXT time you need assistance. Now, if they had ridiculed her, made racist remarks, or harmed her, that would be completely different. In any regard, by all means, complain at will--it is your right as a taxpayer to be heard if you are dissatisfied.

Far be it from me to point out that it is not an attorneys job to determine "if criminal charges are worth pursuing". She and her attorney, if she hires one, can ASK the PROSECUTOR to bring charges, but--it is not their decision to make, nor can they BRING charges against ANYONE ( unless, of course, it is small claims court/civil trial). If she hires an attorney, it would be to act on her behalf--NOT in prosecuting the young man, NOT in determining if the case is "worth pursuing", but in guiding her through the process if the STATE brings charges against the young man. The prosecutor does not act on behalf of the victim. The prosecutor acts on behalf of the STATE. The DA (prosecutor) is the one who makes the determination if the case has enough evidence to proceed and she will be a witness for the State.

It is NOT "all about her"---telling her this gives her a false impression that the state is bringing this case against this young man for HER. This is untrue. It is NOT "all about her"--it is all about The Law being broken. The case is not HER vs. the defendant, it is the STATE vs. the defendant--the victim, aside from being a witness in the STATES case , is incidental. Any victim that goes into a trial expecting to be revered and served with deference is going to be alarmed and in all probability, deeply pained. ANY attorney will promptly tell her, it ISNT all about her from a legal standpoint.

Another misunderstanding about the attorney "advice"--even if she DOESN'T want to proceed, the STATE can proceed without her. So, once again, what SHE or HER ATTORNEY thinks of the merits of the case is immaterial.

Example: She alleges rape ( hypothetically ). The police investigate, decide to pursue charges against the young man. She decides for whatever reason she doesn't want to participate---she doesn't want to "press charges". Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that the STATE still wants to press charges, and there is nothing she OR her attorney can do. This happens in cases where they discover, for example, that the alleged rapist has committed other crimes against other women. The State can subpoena her as a hostile witness and she can be forced to testify against her wishes. Obviously, this is extreme for the alleged charge she is describing, but the point is--it CAN and DOES happen. The STATE is the only entity that can bring criminal charges.

Obviously, there is a relationship between forensics, crime, law and psychology. Peruse a law school curriculum in your free time--you will see that to be the case. However, I do not see "criminal psychology" as one of the categories of this forum, nor am I qualified to dole out psychological advice (got to love it when a person sticks to their discipline--if, in fact, they actually HAVE one). And, in fact, the poster wasn't ASKING for psychological advice. She was asking for PROCEDURAL LEGAL advice, which, fortunately for her, is precisely what I've given.