Congressional candidate is raped while repairing her campaign signs
5 days ago by velma to c/politics
It was just after 2 a.m. on a pitch-black Friday morning when Bernadette Greene-Placentia’s life changed. The Democratic candidate for Congressional District 8 strolled across a parking lot to repair a damaged campaign sign. It was a routine she’d followed all summer. This time, she only made it a few yards.
An attacker smashed her over the head. She blacked out. She woke up to find a strange man on top of her.
Greene-Placentia struggled to open her eyes. She felt a sharp pain below her waist. The attacker was pulling his penis out of her.
She heard him mumble something like, “-ic bitch, not a very good fuck,” which her mind filled in as “Democratic bitch,” she recalled. She wasn’t sure that was exactly what he said.
One leg was out of her jean capris. She wore brand-new tennis shoes and a campaign t-shirt. Another man came over. Greene-Placentia felt his weight nudging her left leg further apart. She began swinging her foot at him. “Not even worth it,” she heard the man say as he moved away. He wore black boots and had small feet, she recalled.
The two men left Greene-Placentia face down in the parking lot. The hatch of her silver Jeep Grand Cherokee was still open. The car was still running. She heard music.
She doesn’t remember pulling up her pants or picking herself off the asphalt parking lot. She doesn’t remember closing her Jeep’s hatch and putting her foot on the gas. She doesn’t remember pulling her car into the driveway and collapsing into her bed.
“It’s just these little tiny flashes of things that I do remember,” Greene-Placentia said in an interview with Phoenix New Times. “As much as I don’t want to remember, I’ve tried very, very hard to remember more stuff. But that’s where I’m at.”
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
i don’t like this story. i mean other then it’s a rape case.
first of all, while a woman should be able to go any where and do anything without the fear of this happening… her story about going to a secluded location at 2am to fix a campaign sign, in a remote unrecorded parking lot, alone is absurd. “it’s not hot at 2am” is a WILD reasoning. her campaign has staffers that do this work, and road side work alone is dangerously for many reasons. but sure, if there was evidence that this was a habitual action then fine.
second, she was targeted and attacked within…YARDS!? of leaving her running vehicle…. in a parking lot… at 2am. ok? that is impressive distance coverage, or a straight up ambush.
she did not see the attack coming and was hit hard enough to concuss immediately, when she started to come too she did not see anything identifiable even when in direct contact. ok, maybe the memory is fuzzy, she has more important things to think about at the time.
what she does remember is that they said “…ic bitch” and pointed at this being a political motivated attack and pointing at republican assailants… except ingrained in the republican lexicon, they specifically do not use the word “democratic” to refer to people of the dnc. they say “democrat bitch” because they are trying to decouple the power of the name from the democratic process. it is an open strategy of their culture war. listen to their shock jocks, they will ONLY refer to democrats as democrats even in situations were saying the full title is warranted. well maybe she miss heard?
this is aperently a two man ambush, no identifiable characteristics other then republican.
they then left her there, and left, apparently confident they could not be identified by her or surveillance.
she then drives concussed back home, and when safe collapsed. that was irresponsible and dangerous to her self and others, she needs an ambulance right away! But she was running on adrenaline and people do not make the same choices as from hind sight from someone not facing such terror.
she then wakes up, AND DESTROYS ALL THE EVIDENCE OF THE ATTACK AFTER REGAINING HER WITS! excuse me!? what the fuck? …maybe she somehow didn’t know that they could get primary evidence from her clothes?
well at least she went to the police so they can search the scene. SHE WAITED TWO WEEKS BEFORE INFORMING THE POLICE WHICH GUARANTEED THAT THERE COULD BE NO USABLE EVIDENCE RECOVERABLE AT THE SCENE?!?!?!?!?!? … ok um well… maybe she was so distraught that she had to convince her self to not cover up the attack?
… expect she openly reported the attack right after telling police, using the platform of her candidacy? and implying it was because of republicans?!
i don’t understand this, like this reads as if a republican AM radio host invented the details of the attack to build a straw man to spend the next few days attacking before the truth comes to light. this makes her look bad, if i was on her campaign, i would SERIOUSLY PUSH to keep the matter private, unless she was going to outright accuse her opponent as the one who raped her. because at no point, not a SINGLE action she took, before, during, after, the medium she used, and the means she accused a political ideology, did her ANY favors.
so please tell me this is a warped story by a lieing republican shock jock. if this is true then… well she won’t have to worry about having an instigation or a court case interrupt her campaign
save