Remember the charmingly-nicknamed NYPD "rape cops" who were acquitted of rape and burglary but charged with "official misconduct" back in 2011 for having sex with a drunk woman whose taxi driver had called 911 out of concern for her wellbeing? (Not to be confused with that other "rape cop," Michael Pena, who struck a plea deal last June. We know, there's so many "rape cops" out there that it's hard to keep track.)


Now they're trying to clear their records of those "official misconduct" charges by arguing that they didn't really do anything wrong when they eventually had sex with the intoxicated woman whom they were supposed to help — as police officers, not "friends" or "lovers" or "formerly alleged rapists who were probably acquitted because the jury thought drunk girls are usually asking for it." Sure, they'll admit that they re-entered the woman's building a few times. So what? It was just "goofing off on the job"!

The Post explains:

In arguments already rejected by the trial judge, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro, Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata are insisting that to properly win a conviction on official misconduct, prosecutors had to prove that the cops received a benefit, such as cash or a free meal, in return for being derelict of duty.

Yes, it was derelict of duty for Moreno and Mata to return three times to the East Village apartment of a drunken, 27-year-old fashion exec, but the two were acquitted of collecting the "benefit" of rape and burglary...No rape, no burglary, no benefit — and so no official misconduct, their lawyers argue.

"By statute, it's not a crime," for the two to have merely "hung out" at the woman's apartment, Mandery said. "At worst, it's goofing off on the job — an administrative matter."


I can't even.

A final decision could take weeks or months. Until then: don't drink and call the cops! Because you'll deserve whatever happens to you if they decide to "goof around" while on duty.