No one can deny that the married William Hackel erred when he
met up with an awestruck young lady at a meeting of the Michigan
Sheriffs' Association in October of last year, and willingly
accompanied her to her hotel room at her suggestion. The events
that followed ended a career for the respected and dedicated
lawman and elected official.
At the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort in Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan, a 25-year-old employee of the Michigan Sheriffs'
Association, who had just met Mr. Hackel for the first time,
suggested that they have lunch--via room service--in her hotel
room, where she suggested they "kick back and relax."
Once there, as the story goes, the unnamed woman placed her head
on his chest and remarked about the excessive rate of his
heartbeat, prompting a kissing and petting session, which was
followed by the act of sexual intercourse.
According to his testimony, the sex was purely consensual.
According to hers, she said no. Hence, the beginning of another
rape trial where the jury is expected to render a decision on
the basis of "he said-she
said."
A definition of rape consistent with most North American
statutes is "unwanted sexual penetration perpetrated by
force, threat of harm, or mental or physical inability to give
consent." A despicable crime that many believe deserves the
punishment of castration in the most violent cases, rape has
been resonantly politicized by a modern feminist movement of
male-hating fanatics, especially since the increase in reported
rapes on college campuses during the 1980s. It was at this time
that feminist rhetoric began its assault on male-female
relationships by looking at sexual relations gone bad in terms
of trying to sort through various degrees and types of rape and
"rape," by trying to define how one gives or does not
give consent. What has followed is twenty years of what George
Gilder--in his book Men and Marriage-has called feminists
"palavering endlessly" about rape.
The palavering in regards to the William Hackel rape case has
been scathing, and most of the chinwag has been biased in favor
of the typical sentiment: if the woman says it was rape, it must
be rape. However, Sheriff Hackel's case is not helped by the
fact that he is a fifty-something white male in a position of
power. In fact, even the local media has referred to the verdict
as "a lesson about rape for men in power."
The unnamed woman--the so-called victim--was caught on
security cameras (placed in the hallway of the hotel) calmly
escorting Sheriff Hackel to her room. Once in her room, she
proceeded to sit next to him on the bed, and pulled barrettes
and bobby pins out of her hair in the process of letting her
hair down. To most reasonable people, this behavior represents a
sexual invitation, or at least an attempt to get "very
comfortable" with the man whose company she coveted. At the
least, one can be led to believe that this behavior was hardly a
response to an act of coercion. But the woman says she did not
want, nor intend to have sex with William Hackel that day. The
woman testified that, as the Sheriff laid her down on the bed
and began to undress her, she decided not to resist him out of
fear that she was "turning him on even more." Less
than an hour-and-fifteen minutes later, the video shows Sheriff
Hackel calmly leaving her room. He then dined with his wife, and
then checked out several hours later. None of the video footage
of the Sheriff arriving at the hotel room or leaving showed any
signs of force, or fear of wrongdoing on his part.
There were several unusual elements of testimony brought to
light during the trial. One slice of testimony revealed that the
woman had said after the attack that she was repulsed by the
smell of Hackel and his cologne on her hands. Yet Hackel and his
wife testified that he had not worn cologne in five years, due
to an asthmatic condition. Also, the woman's (former) boyfriend
testified that she promised to buy him a snowmobile, or other
items, if she got one million dollars from suing the Sheriff, as
she expected that she would do. Sounds more like a woman with a
mission if you ask me.
And what was that mission? Was it a mission to make a man pay
for a disappointing sexual experience that represented nothing
more than lust on his part? Or was it a mission of hate; hate
for a man of position and power who valued the woman no further
than reaping the benefits of her willingness to provide him with
her bodily pleasures? It was as if the unnamed woman expected a
more romantic interlude; one that played on her feminine needs
of love, romance, partnership, and possibly, a relationship.
Well, William Hackel did not offer the woman a relationship.
Nor did he offer her flowers, a love story, or even the
prospects of good and unselfish sex. In fact, he didn't even
offer to take her out to a nice dinner. All he did offer was to
buy her a sandwich from room service after the encounter. Hardly
what any woman would hope to get from a sexual encounter with
such a man as Mr. Hackel.
The feminist politicization of rape has led society to buy
into the belief that rape, or date rape as is the case here, can
be so loosely defined that no man could ever possibly know the
boundaries of what constitutes "legal" sex unless he
can discover the meaning of female logic and its inner workings,
something that no man other than maybe Alan Alda has ever
claimed to know.
The merits of "Yes" and "Maybe" and
"No" as being the true meaning of a woman's intentions
toward a sexual encounter have been debated from an ethical
standpoint as well as a legal one. Women don't even know what
these words mean, so how could one expect a man to figure it
out? Just never forget that post coital regret can never fall
under the legal definition of rape. But a good attorney, and a
young, pretty, crying face on the stand can make a jury forget
legal definitions and rule on the basis of emotion.
The local news channels aired exclusive interviews with the
woman, her face blurred to protect her identity, and not one
single piece of the emotional petition on her part seemed even
the slightest bit genuine. What I saw was a woman emotionally
scarred by regret, and her own dislike of herself.
The facts here tell us that a woman met up with a man whom
she admired and by whom she was smitten. She then invited him up
to her hotel room, just the two of them alone. She then sat next
to him on the bed, which made the situation even cozier for what
was to come next. The fact that a woman such as myself could
have little or no empathy for this woman should not be
surprising. If the unnamed woman invited sex in her room, and
later cried foul because she regretted her actions, how can she
expect the compassion that is usually reserved for the real
victims of violent rape?
William Hackel is guilty. Guilty of cheating on his wife,
sexual promiscuity, and an overall stupidity for putting his
career at risk for the sake of satisfying a sexual urge. But did
his lack of good judgement and proper discretion deserve a
vilification from the community which he served for so long, and
does it deserve the destruction of a career, and a 15-year
prison sentence in the name of defending the honor of a smitten
woman disappointed by her sexual experience? Does his improper
behavior with the young lady who took him up to her room mean
that he is a threat to society, or to other women as a sexual
predator? Hardly. Sheriff William Hackel was found guilty of
rape by a jury of individuals who were turned off by what they
saw as his apparent lack of morality, their disgust of his
misguided, penile-controlled behavior, and his lack of
faithfulness to his wife. None of these are crimes, however.
Clearly, this was just another of the many assaults on men,
and male sexual behavior in general. After all, current
victim-minded logic has everyone believing that it would be
politically incorrect to believe the male side of the story in
any date rape case. If she says it's rape, then it's rape. On
this as on every other question, count me as politically
incorrect. 
Karen De Coster is a politically incorrect CPA, and an MA
student in economics at Walsh College in Michigan. She can be
reached at austrian-accountant@home.com.
