Weld County, Colorado District Attorney Ken Buck is drawing fire for his insensitivity in refusing to prosecute a man who probably didn't commit a crime:
When Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck refused to prosecute a rape case five years ago, he probably had no idea that anyone beyond a small circle of people would care. …
The victim, a Weld County rape awareness advocate, admitted she invited her ex-boyfriend over, and admitted that she got drunk with him, and admitted that they had sex, which she was unwelcome as she, in her stumbling drunkenness, as she passed in and out of consciousness during the act, said she said "No" to.
In explaining why he wouldn't prosecute the case to the victim, Buck, who's now running for U.S. Senate against Michael Bennet, the man who did more than any other to destroy the Denver Public Schools, explained that a Weld County jury, charged with finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, would likely conclude that this was a case of "Buyer's Remorse." Meaning that she invited her ex over, they had sex, and she felt bad about it in the morning. So, being a rape victims' advocate, she called the police to arrange a vindictive prosecution, which, being a rape victims' advocate, she knew can be easily arranged.
A frank expression of the case. The complaint against Buck is that he was honest. That's precisely what a conscientious jury would conclude, by a reasonable doubt, might have happened.
Buck may be honest, but he's a troglodyte. We can't have Senators who are honest about their beliefs. It's wrong to say such a thing to a woman, even one who knows better than most how the law works. To tell a woman, whose work revolves around rape, that yes, you may have been stupid to invite your ex-boyfriend, with whom you'd had a sexual relationship, over to your home, then to get so drunk with him that you kept passing in and out of consciousness. That maybe you should have known better, and maybe, horrid as it seems, even if you're telling the truth, a jury might not buy your story. (That maybe, and here goes my political career, she should have taken some personal responsibility before opening that second bottle of wine.)
Assuming, of course, that she was telling the truth, and that it wasn't a case of buyer's remorse. Which is the first thing that pops into MY troglodyte mind when I read this story.
I'll go further, and alienate 99% of our readers: A woman who invites her ex-boyfriend over to her house, gets him drunk, and gets herself drunk, at night and alone, is asking for it. Especially if she's a rape awareness advocate, who has to know that this is exactly how date rape happens and why it's so damned difficult to prosecute.
Assuming, of course, that it wasn't buyer's remorse. Only she and the ex know. Which is precisely what a jury, charged with finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, would have concluded in finding the ex not guilty.
And so the rap against Buck is, not that he did his job commendably, refusing to carry a rape prosecution which was a sure loser all the way to the end to burnish his credentials as tough on crime and for political gain. It's that he was frank, and honest. Or insensitive, which is the way honesty is condemned by scoundrels.
God forbid we have frank, honest people in the Senate, who call it as they see it. Better that we continue with a legislature that does what's popular, and tells us what we want to hear. That's what's made America the greatest country in the world, and will keep it the greatest country in the world as we embark on our second American Century.