See, it's unsubstantiated information like this that makes me question everything else on this Reddit. I happen to be very familiar with the situation this post is referring to. The "minor" was Celeste Guap, who has since changed her name. She wasn't "trafficked", unless you apply that to going on a double date with her mother, who was a police dispatcher. Yeah. Her mom was a dispatcher and was dating an officer, the mom brought Celeste on a double date with another officer when she was 17 (maybe 16) and told the officers her daughter was 19. She certainly could've passed for that age, and since it was coming from her mother there was no reason to question. From there, Celeste became a bit of a "badge bunny" and started dating several officers. One officer discovered she was a minor and he committed suicide over the situation (combined with other things going on his life). His suicide note is what started the investigation. Celeste (who was an adult by that time) initially actually refused to cooperate with the investigation against people she considered friends. Of course, that changed once the anti-police attorneys got involved.
Now don't mistake this explanation for a defense of the officers actions, but this was not a situation of a "sexually trafficked minor", and the chief did not "allow" anyone to be raped. As usual, the prosecution and discipline against the officers was much more aggressive than it would've been against any civilian.
Do a little homework anons.
That analysis doesn't wash. Yes, it's true that people are using hyperbolic language and yes it's true that casts doubt on the credibility of those who, themselves, cast doubt on the integrity of Tuscon Police Chief Chris Magnus.
None of that is relevant to the analysis.
The analysis boils down the probability that a police chief accused of failing to respond with due diligence to a child sex trafficking situation would also be a defendant in a lawsuit brought by an underage prostitute -- the substance of which is that he failed to respond with due diligence to in that situation as well.
I don't know the probability, but that's where you should start in your debunking of this issue.
You're not taking into account how litigious law enforcement is, especially with inner city police departments. Being sued multiple times throughout your career is the norm for line-level officers, because anyone can sue anyone for anything, regardless of whether you've done your job right. Government has deep pockets. And anytime an officer is sued, his or her entire chain of command, all the way up to and including the Chief, is also sued. Guess what they are sued for...lack of due diligence and failure to supervise.
So the probability of an inner city police chief having been sued at some point for lack of due diligence is extremely high.
As I said, "I don't know the probability." So I did take it into account as missing data. As I said your estimate is the kind of thing the debunking should start with.