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.
Sexual assault, yes. Rape, no.
He removed her shirt and bra and kissed her without consent. No intercourse (including the standard variants thereof) occurred. She protested, and he drove her home.
That’s basic sexual assault based on the legal definitions (there are two higher definitions for using weapons or causing bodily harm) and there is no legal minimum for basic sexual assault (of an adult)
Exactly, I’ve had my dick grabbed/felt up, and had people try to strip me. It’s assault, not rape.
Both are bad and should be punished, but one is way worse. By calling all sexual assaults rape, it almost feels like it’s eroding the word “rape” to something lesser.
This predator needs to be punished.
OK then, attempted rapist
He attempted to have an affair. The fact that he stopped when she protested and drove her home instead indicates he didn’t attempt or intend to rape her. He still absolutely committed sexual assault though which is why he was found guilty. Consent for any sort of sexual encounter needs to come first, not during or after, and removing someone’s shirt and bra definitely requires consent.
When dealing with situations like this, it’s important to be very clear and precise. There’s unfortunately a lot of actual rapes that occur, and they shouldn’t be muddied by situations where someone calls rape when it isn’t leading to people downplaying real rapes.
It’s the same reason I don’t like seeing people put on the sex offender list for public urination just because it happened near a school (even if there were no youth there at the time) or like the case of a man that got put on the list just a couple years ago for writing a short sexual story (completely fictional) simply because it contained teenagers who weren’t 18 yet.
He kidnapped her and took her to a hotel room.
Then he wants her to dress up for him AGAINST HER WILL.
What you do is dangerous and can be harmfull for victims. With blowing up the severity of cases like this, you reduce the the severity of kidnapping and rape cases in the minds of people reading your claims.
She wasn’t beaten up and dragged into his car, that’s what i imagine when i think of kidnapping and it should stay that way.
The pig should be in jail, and you shouldn’t be making excuses for him.
I’m not making excuses, I’m being specific and correct. Rape (which isn’t defined in the Canadian criminal code) has a very clear definition understood by the public (and defined in law elsewhere) as requiring penetration of some sort.
You’re actually defaming him (and therefore guilty of libel under Canadian Criminal law) for accusing him of something which is not true and could harm his reputation further.
In your opinion, how many years of jail should be given to someone who kisses another person without their consent? Or does that part of this situation not warrant jail time? Should there be a mandatory minimum for any form of sexual assault? How many years then for the more serious offence of removing someone’s shirt and bra without their consent?
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.
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”.
TF you on about bro? This is up there with people going well aktually epehobphila isn’t pedophila or some shit.
Sexual Assault is rape. Fin.
iT’s OnLy RaPe If He GoT hIs DiCk WeT
Dear god. Listen to yourself.
Like, straight up, if you’re playing apologetics for a fucking cop who sexually assaulted someone by trying to well-akshually rape, you need to deeply probe your motivations there. Because I promise you, you don’t have good ones.
ITs OnLy MuRdEr If He DiEs
It’s oNlY SuIcIdE If a cOp sHoOtS YoU
Y’all remember when “suicide by cop” was a popular term? But never “murder by coward,” huh…