In a case that is as disgusting as it is familiar, two NYC cops were found not guilty of raping a drunk woman they had escorted home, despite staggering evidence against them. There was video footage of the cops escorting her home, and then leaving and re-entering her building (with a false excuse) three times. The video footage shows one cop standing outside and keeping watch, while the other one enters and remains for awhile. The woman called a friend the next day and said "I think I was raped last night," and then contacted the police officer in question, who initially denied having sex, and then admitted he'd had sex with her, but insisted he'd worn a condom. In court, he claimed they had only "cuddled," and that she had come onto him. She says he pulled down her underwear and then penetrated her while she was face down in her own vomit.
So how, despite video evidence, a recorded confession to having sex, and the woman's testimony that it was nonconsensual, did the police officers both get off? Well, the woman was drunk, so her memory was fuzzy, and the prosecution somehow pulled the argument that the woman was too drunk to know if she was raped but not drunk enough to legally be unable to consent. Don't even get me started on the logical inconsistencies in that line of reasoning. Feminite has a brief post about this atrocity too. If you ask me, this case just comes back to good old victim blaming, combined with the unreasonable prejudice in favor of a police officer's confession in court. While I have great respect for most police officers, a person's testimony is not more reliable simply by virtue of that person owning a police badge.