If we step back, the jury’s acquittal isn’t unreasonable.  The absence of DNA evidence of rape, or even sexual intercourse, was a huge hole in the proof.  That she was so drunk that she couldn’t quite remember much didn’t help either, plus opened the door to all nature of inquiry that wasn’t going to make her sympathetic.

But still, it was wrong.  And it was disgusting.  And the Chief of the New York City Police Department, Ray Kelly, was not going to have these two on his force.

“The guilty verdicts involved violations of the officers’ oaths of office and, as a result, warrant immediate termination.”

The two cops, Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata, were convicted of three counts of official misconduct, which under most circumstances would hardly engender such a reaction from the big guy.  A sharp rebuke and a week without pay is usually more than sufficient to appease the the public’s expectations that cops behave like cops, if you happen to dress in blue daily.  Not this time.

The woman had described snippets of a harrowing night in which the officers, called to help her because she was extremely intoxicated, instead abused her. They insisted no rape occurred, with one allowing only that he snuggled with her while she wore nothing but a bra.

And she was stone drunk. And the cops were there to help her home, to protect her and get her home without incident.  Except of their own making.

The jury’s decision also underscores the difficulty of obtaining favorable results for women who say they were sexually assaulted, and who often are subjected to scrutiny and skepticism that keep many of them from speaking out. In this case, defense lawyers pounced on the credibility of the woman because she was very drunk on the night in question and did not remember many details.

As hard as it is to accept, whether by those who contend that any alleged rape becomes inherently sacred or by those whose distrust of cops makes them presumptively guilty, this is how it’s supposed to work.  Guilt must be based on proof, not bias either in favor of the “victim” or against the cops.  Of course, it seems that the system invariably works far better when it’s a cop sitting at the defendants table than any other time.

But just as the rights of all are tested when the worst defendant is in the dock, these same rights must be afforded defendants who are believed to be afforded favor when the rest are not.  We keep arguing that every defendant deserves a fair trial, and a verdict based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  That includes cops too.  We hope it applies across the board.

Had this not been a drunken woman, and had this been a beating instead of sexual encounter of some sort, would Kelly have been so quick to fire the cops?  Would the police department have issued a statement of condemnation, or an excuse for their retention due to their brave and honorable service marred only by a single mistake?

Cops violate their oaths all too frequently, yet that almost never results in such a harsh response by the Chief, nor their summary discharge.  It should.  It should be all that’s required to strip a cop of his gun and shield and toss him into the gutter.  But it’s not.

The difference here is that their conduct, even assuming that no rape occurred, violated the inside rules of chivalry.  It was creepy and disgusting.  Even in the cop world, real men protect womanhood.  Only pervs take advantage of a drunken woman.  It’s not just the aberrant sexual allegations, as Abner Louima can attest, but that these men did it to a non-mutt woman.  That’s where the line is drawn.

While the verdict is unsatisfying, largely because few people believe that these two cops, or at least one of them, didn’t engage in intercourse with this drunken woman, it was a correct verdict.  The proof fell short.  That it would have been sufficient to convict a non-cop isn’t the point and can’t be proven. The fact remains that the evidence wasn’t there and they were acquitted of the rape.

And they were summarily fired from the police force, without the routine official excuses and spin as to why creepy and disgusting cops are entitled to our admiration and respect, and should be given a medal for their conduct.  It may not feel right, but it is. 

And in the end, Ray Kelly did the right thing.  Maybe it will feel good and he’ll do it again next time, even when the cops’ violation of their oath involves a black man and a beating.  We can only hope.