211

No jail time for Hamilton police officer who sexually assaulted woman he was mentoring, judge rules (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 1 year ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 year ago

The pig should be in jail, and you shouldn't be making excuses for him.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago

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?

[+] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca -8 points 1 year ago

I'm being specific and correct.

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.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 year ago

The law is very pedantic.

and I'm not making an argument, I'm just clarifying terminology.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

You just fucking said you weren't making a legal argument, that the term was not defined in the law in the relevant jurisdiction. But now that you realize you've crawled out too far on a shaky limb, you're still turning to "it's not my opinion, it's just the law!"

Doesn't work that way.