Woman falsely accuses police officer of sexual assault, no charges filed

I think it's fair to point out ways in which some group ("A") is privileged relative to another ("B"). A and B can be groups of groups, or can be individuals, with neither A nor B having to be both of one type (e.g., if A were a monarch and B his/her subjects, then A is clearly privileged as compared to B). Sometimes MRAs identify some way women are privileged relative to men, and vice versa, etc. But coddling is a different matter. Coddling is using an excess of indulgence/sympathy relative to the circumstances to the point that it may create a "moral hazard" in some way (encourage wrongdoing, embody unjustifiable favorable treatment, etc.). Between a desire to coddle and in this case, avoid looking like plain old nasty meanies, the police are reinforcing a moral hazard and evincing unjustifiably favorable treatment of someone wholly undeserving of it.

Funny thing is, when ppl get coddled, they typically don't want it to stop. Assuming at some point in our lives we were coddled, esp. as children (perhaps as toddlers), would it be reasonable to expect us to have wanted it to stop? No. Why would you? Coddling meant getting away w/ all manner of things, so why want it to end? But until a person loses this desire to be coddled by consciously disavowing it, maturing, taking personal responsibility for one's life, and becoming a true adult is impossible.

So really, as long as so many women like and in many cases insist on being coddled, and as long as so many men like to and insist upon coddling women, so many women will not ever really reach full adulthood no matter their chronological age. If it were men treated this way, the same'd be true of men as well. It's human nature in action, that's all.

Soon, everyone'll have lapel cameras. Well, maybe not *real* soon, but at some point. Also, they might not be on one's lapel -- perhaps they won't even be cameras as such, but maybe implanted devices that tap one's optic nerve signals, recording one's entire visual experience for playback at any time (scary...). So he said-she saids may no longer be so easy to get away with when one/both of them takes to lying. But that won't mean the coddling of women will end. After all, this officer showed how her accusations were utterly baseless and still, no charges filed. Coddled.

Give me a break - no false claims charges filed? She should be charged,
just as a man would be. This case clearly illustrates the two classes in the
legal system. The privileged are allowed to do nearly whatever they want,
and they often get away with it, and it's really not necessary with this
audience, for me to even say which gender I'm talking about. But the poor
underprivileged gender, the best we can do is exonerate ourselves with
video evidence, to protect ourselves against unjustified accusations. We
can't even assert our rights. The cop should sue her for defamation of
character. Is he going to do that? Of course not. It's more important to
not "discourage other potential victims of sexual assault from coming
forward" (translation for those who have not swallowed the red pill: if
you're a man, you're rights exist only on paper, and get used to it --
women have created a set of laws that support only them, so don't
press your luck by trying to file a false accusation charge against any
woman).

Guess I'm going to get me one of those concealed video cameras to
wear in every interaction with a woman...