Ken Buck cannot be trusted to make decisions regarding women’s rights. As a district attorney, Buck refused to prosecute an alleged rape, telling the Greeley Tribune that he thought the victim may have had “buyer’s remorse.” (Greeley Tribune, 3/1/2006). Buck’s appalling conduct in that case demonstrates extreme disregard for women who are victims of the violent crime of rape, and raises grave questions about his judgment.
That was from an e-mail sent to me from ProgressNow Colorado on behalf of a
Kjersten Forseth. It is almost an exact quote of what they sent me. What they didn’t send me was the link to the article that they were referencing. And after reading the article, you can see why.
The case ProgressNow is referring to happened back in 2005. An unnamed woman (and to be fair, the man was also not named) claimed to have been sexually assaulted in December. The woman invited her “ex-lover” over. The two had had a falling out over something, but apparently were still on talking terms. What happened exactly isn’t drawn out other than the woman was drunk (we don’t know whether the guy was drunk at the same time). But they had sexual contact.
Here’s the part that ProgressNow Colorado took some liberties with:
District Attorney Ken Buck told the woman he could not press charges against her attacker, despite the man’s admission to police that she said no. Buck said he must only prosecute cases in which he has a reasonable chance of convicting someone, and this was not one of those cases.
“A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer’s remorse,” Buck said.
In other words, Mr. Buck is saying that the jury might think that this is a case of buyer’s (or lover’s) remorse. He’s not saying that this is the case. The article also mentions the fact that he sent the case to Boulder county, which has more experience prosecuting sexual assaults for their input.
“I thought, if there’s anything they can see in this case that I can’t, I want to know about it,” Buck said. “They sent back an e-mail saying, ‘We agree with your analysis that this case is not prosecutable.’ ”
And that’s where the case ended. Look I’m not saying support or oppose Mr. Buck based on this case alone. I’m not even saying you have to agree with his analysis that the case was unwinnable. But Mr. Buck was talking about the jury, something that he has to be mindful of. If he prosecutes a case that he thinks he can’t win and comes back with a not guilty verdict, that’s it for the case.
Unfortunately ProgressColorado can’t seem to make that distinction.