Posted on 09/29/2006 7:45:48 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
You don't see a conflict here? First, do you consider prostitution a legitimate way to make a living? If he'd have given her 20 bucks instead of her suggested retail of 30 is it still rape? If a prostitute gets stiffed of her pay has she been raped? Get real.
#32
Hub officer charged in detail pay scheme
By Donovan Slack, Globe Staff | February 24, 2005
A Boston police officer is charged with felony larceny for allegedly forging signatures on timecards last year and collecting pay for detail shifts he never worked, prosecutors said.
Patrolman Michael Lopriore, who has been on the force since 1994, allegedly was paid $1,102 for five shifts he did not work at an East Boston construction site in January and March 2004, according to Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley.
Conley's office filed a criminal complaint against Lopriore on Friday, alleging larceny by scheme. If convicted, Lopriore could be sentenced to five years in state prison.
"The evidence suggest a serious breach of public trust," Conley said in an interview yesterday.
Boston police officials declined to discuss Lopriore's status in the department, citing a policy against commenting on cases before they are resolved.
A phone number for Lopriore could not be found last night, and police officials declined to contact the officer on the Globe's behalf.
Conley said an Avon-based construction company, D'Allesandro Corp., sent a letter to the Police Department in April 2004, saying executives believed fraudulent detail timecards were being submitted for payment.
Police officers are routinely hired by private companies to provide security or direct traffic at road construction sites. Officers submit timecards for the details to the Police Department, which pays the officers and bills the companies.
The timecards are supposed to be signed by supervisors at the detail job sites, attesting to the officers' presence. Conley alleged that Lopriore forged signatures of D'Allesandro representatives on five occasions.
An investigation by a special prosecutions unit in Conley's office and the Police Department's Anti-Corruption Unit found that in 2004 on Jan. 7, Jan. 10, March 18, March 19, and March 20, the officer submitted timecards and collected pay for details at a construction site on Chelsea Street. Prosecutors say he never worked those shifts.
"Any employee in the private sector -- a janitor, a food service worker, or a bank teller, anyone -- would not be allowed to get away with filing out false timecards," Conley said. "Nor should a police officer, who is sworn to uphold the law, be allowed to fabricate details and make money fraudulently."
A Globe investigation in September disclosed extensive problems with the Police Department's detail payroll system, finding that payroll records indicated that 396 officers had been paid to work two details in separate locations at the same times between December 2001 and July 2004.
Police officials concluded that many of those cases were clerical errors: Either officers wrote the wrong dates or times on timecards, or data entry clerks entered them incorrectly on the payroll computer, causing the appearance of overlapping shifts.
Seven officers are facing disciplinary action after internal affairs investigations determined they were paid for overlapping shifts that could not be explained by clerical error.
Since September, police officials have ordered regular audits of detail pay, to ensure that officers are not paid for shifts they have not worked.
A police spokesman, Sergeant Thomas Sexton, said yesterday that the department is continuing its overhaul of the detail system to prevent cheating.
"The Boston Police Department continues to work to have the most efficient system in place to ensure that sworn personnel abide by and are held accountable to the rules and regulations of the Boston Police Department as they pertain to details," Sexton said.
Donovan Slack can be reached at dslack@globe.com.
Really? Would you cite a legal source to support that "idea?" Because...I think the law thinks you're full of it....as do most normal thinking people.
Oh...and stealing is still stealing. Abuse of power is abuse of power. Rape is Rape...is has to do with forcing it upon someone else...and is not dependant upon the other's morals. I guess in your eyes...she deserved it.
The police in our city always carry baby seats in the police cars. Sadly, there's sometimes a baby in the home of criminals. And, said baby needs a ride when mommy and daddy get arrested.
Rape is non-consensual sexual contact, plain and simple. This girl didn't consent, the cop raped her. He should do the same time as any other scumbag rapist.
He's not lucky, he's a cop. Different standards for cops breaking the law and everyone else breaking the law. Couple of years ago a Boston cop killed a girl (Snelgrove) who was a bystander to some rowdy partyers - probably be accident, but if you or I killed someone by accident we'de still be looking at serious jailtime. He wasn't even reprimanded.
Also, it says "the 19 year-old". Is she 19 now or 19 then? If 19 now wouldn't that make her underage when this happened in 2004?
I couldn't agree less.
The car in question wasn't the officer's police car, but his own personal vehicle.
Rape is a crime and sex is the weapon.
Go preach that on child molester threads.
Sorry, actually, upon reflection I think he should do harder time than other rapists.
1. He's a cop, which means he used and abused a position of public trust and authority. I'm reminded of the old East German line, "When the police are beating you up, who do you call for help?"
2. He used his public authority to assault someone with unusually little power. He thought he could get away with it, because who's going to trust a prostitute's word against a cop's? What's a prostitute going to do, go public and hold a press conference?
It doesn't seem like rape to me. Rape implies something precious was taken. This is like stealing a loaf of bread that was already for sale.
_______
Does this comment actually make sense to you? I have read it over and over and it is still pretty nonsensical to me.
Which again is a crime. Doubly so because it was perpetrated by a law enforcement officer.
Keep up that attitude and you ain't gonna last long here...
Makes them susceptible to bad judges too. And pretty much every other bad person involved in the criminal justice system. Are the perps to be denied their rights b/c they committed a crime or are committing a non-violent crime? (Especially a victimless crime, as some might say.) I'm not talking "detainees" here. Real American criminals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.