Quote:
Originally Posted by masraum
I'm sure that there was probably a ton of sexual harrassment in the early days, and it needed to stop. At the same time, I have no doubt that there are people that will use and abuse that sort of thing. By going to the training, you learn exactly how to exploit the system, the buzzwords to use, etc....
.
|
Around 2010 when McCaskil and Gillibrand got everyone spun up in Congress about SH and SA that they believed was rampant but was not. They were claiming something like 25,000 sexual assaults per year in DoD. I had been doing criminal solely for the preceding 6 or 7 years and at that point was a magistrate. No way that their numbers were correct. Plus they wouldn't take into account dismissed cases, Not Guilty verdicts, cases rejected after investigation. We all just had to accept their BS.
So the classes that got generated around that fiction were just a joke. Usually led by some 'trained' mid-grade NCO that probably had a GED. They would regurgitate the material on the DoD or Army level slides and have no idea what they were talking about.
One line in particular... If you have one drink, just one, you cannot consent to sexual intercourse. It wasn't an order but more of a legal opinion that your consent is invalid. Blahahahaha. The number of cases I had where alcohol was nearly 100% and usually just involved 2 drunk folks that had sex.
I would sit in those classes and my head would be on the verge of exploding. I remember one when a guy I knew was present, he was the attorney in charge of the prosecution assistance and training program for the whole Army. The 'Teacher' made that statement and he challenged her on it. It got pretty heated and was a treat to watch. Everyone else just sat there with that uncomfortable feeling you get when there is an argument that you aren't an involved party.