Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Deputy Under Investigation For Sexual Misconduct Resigns Thursday

Distressing story on so many fronts I don’t know who to believe. I don’t know that I believe everything the girl is saying and I can’t believe that grown men and law-enforcement professionals we do something so low. Hopefully the findings of this investigation will be shared with the public. It should be.

Sheriff David Livingston said, “We earn the public trust through honesty, transparency and accountability. Although this case involved one deputy out of the over one thousand Sheriff’s Office employees, we will not tolerate even a single breach of the public trust we work so hard to earn.”

Well said. Hard to live up to every day. Abuse of power is inevitable. Accountability after the fact is veeerrrrrrryyyyy important! Give the man a fair hearing, but come down hard if the allegations are borne out. It helps everyone resist that temptation, and it helps preserve the trust that is critical in a free society.

Sexual misconduct and abuse of power happens all the time. Sex with an underage girl isn’t “resisting temptation.” It’s a crime, and makes you a pedophile.

Resisting temptation would be sexual attraction to a mature adult. There’s a big difference.

Throw the book at ALL the officers who were involved. Let them resign, and take away their pensions.

We ask a lot of law enforcement because we given them our trust and faith. We don’t yet know the extent of this deputys involvement with this girl but I would presume he didn’t resign or was forced to resign because he chatted with her online. Law enforcement does not need this right now and yes some transparency about the circumstances of this case would be nice. In fact — transparency is demanded.

Is there a lot of faith in police investigating crimes allegedly committed by other police officers? Apparently there were already questions about how that was being conducted in Oakland, is there any guarantee this case is being fully and competently investigated?

@Danielle: “Sexual attraction” is not rational thought. It is primal. Moral judgment, when it happens, happens somewhere else, in my opinion. Preying on the immature or vulnerable is wrong, in my belief system. Temptation to do something very, very wrong or just wrong is still temptation, is it not?

@Danielle: sex with a person younger than the legal limit in your jurisdiction does not, by itself, make you a pedophile– or even an immoral person. Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Sex with a 17 year old (by a person over 18) is a crime in California, but legal in 38 states in the U.S. Are pedophilia and sexual morality dependent on the accident of which state you are in at the time? Sex with a 17 year old prostitute is not the same as being a child rapist. That said, cops should not break laws (even dumb ones) and should not use their position of authority in this way. It is akin to protection money / “gifts” from crooks to avoid arrest. As such, I have no problem with firing the cops in question (if they did what is accused).

Yes, by definition, pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. He would be (by definition) a child molester. ANYONE who has sex with someone under the age of 18 (as an adult) is SICK, especially if they are PARENTS. Whether you’re a man or a woman, you’re not only sick, you are immoral.

Also, she was younger than 17, and her mother is equally responsible if she had anything to do with this. As a dispatcher, she knows these cops, and her role as a mother is to PROTECT HER CHILD.

Also, sex with a prostitute is IMMORAL (and ILLEGAL), even as an adult. Needless to say, character counts.

I do realize that men and women view this “differently,” but there are a lot of men who would agree with me. Character is the MOST important attribute to anyone, and I’m saddened by people who LACK CHARACTER.

Anyone who defends sex with an underage girl (man or woman) isn’t thinking clearly. Wow.

I am merely saying: (i) “underage” definition (apart from biological reference) is arbitrary and California is in the minority is setting that to 18; (ii) peodphilia is not the same as statutory rape and (iii) laws against prostitution are paternalistic (“malum prohibitum”) and are not grounded in universal moral principles (such as murder, theft, assault) (“malum in se”).

I would add that (iv) your moral conclusions are your subjective opinions.

Full disclosure: I, as an adult, had sex with a 17 year old girl. Judge me if you must. Mercifully, she didn’t make me pay– I asume that makes you feel better about it. I was 18 at the time. We’re still married.

The cops should be fired for corruption / abuse of authority.

“Full disclosure: I, as an adult, had sex with a 17 year old girl. Judge me if you must. Mercifully, she didn’t make me pay– I asume that makes you feel better about it. I was 18 at the time. We’re still married.”

Good stuff!!

Full disclosure (one last post).

I was a cheerleader in high school (a local one), and I ran for homecoming queen (I didn’t win). I’m either blogging under my first name or middle name (one of the two). I don’t care if 18 year olds have sex with 17 year olds. Congratulations on your long term marriage. I’ve been happily married over 30 years myself.

Thanks for the legal info, but doctors and lawyers run in the family.

I don’t understand the mindset of having sex (as a grown man) with a teenager. Even if it is legal (in some states) you’re still having sex with a CHILD.

If I felt any differently (as a lady) I would be disrespected by men and women both.

I am who I am, and we’re all entitled to our opinions.

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY!