Ken Buck Told Rape Victim She Had “Buyer’s Remorse”

There has been a lot of charming rhetoric flying around the political airwaves these days (Carl Paladino is a particularly reliable source for cringe-inducing material), but Ken Buck, the Republican candidate for one of Colorado’s Senate seats, has proved that sometimes, things that happened long ago have a way of coming back to haunt you.  This is not to say that Buck hasn’t put his foot in his mouth lately (you may remember the moment a few months ago when he told voters to choose him because he didn’t wear high heels), but the Colorado Independent’s series on Buck’s legislative positions as they relate to women show that his misogyny goes far beyond glib or unfortunate remarks.

Buck, who is currently the Weld County district attorney, refused to prosecute a rape case five years ago.  The victim secretly (but legally) taped her meeting with Buck, and has now provided a copy of the transcript to the Colorado Independent in an attempt to reveal Buck’s deeply problematic stance on issues like sexual assault.

The alleged assault occurred when, the victim said, a man entered her apartment and had sex with her while she was drunk.  He was a former lover, and she had invited him over, but she said “no” several times as she passed in and out of consciousness.  According to the local police, the perpetrator admitted these facts, but Buck still refused to charge him with a crime, even though the victim says that the police recommended that he be prosecuted on felony charges.

“A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer’s remorse,” Buck explained, adding that the evidence in the case was “pitiful.”  In the private meeting with the victim, Buck told her, “It appears to me … that you invited him over to have sex with him.”  He added that although she hadn’t said yes, “the appearance is of consent.”

And that’s not all – as the conversation progressed, Buck told the woman that because she had been pregnant with the perpetrator’s baby during their relationship, and they had considered an abortion (she later miscarried), that these were extentuating circumstances, “something that might be a motive for trying to get back at somebody.”

Women’s rights activists have added this to the litany of grievances with Buck, including his support for Amendment 62, the “personhood amendment,” which would make some common forms of birth control illegal.

“This shows us how he views women and what he thinks their role is. It shows us that even when a woman is the victim of a rape he will not advocate for her. It shows that he is not a believer in women’s rights. He will not side with rape victims. This case is a statement on what his beliefs really are,” said Kjersten Forseth, the interim executive director of ProgressNow Colorado.

If you live in Colorado, you know what to do: campaign against Buck, and get to the polls on November 2.  Clearly, Ken Buck is not someone who should be holding a local DA position, much less making national policy.

Photo from Lisa Norwood's Flickr photostream.


Craig Buckley
Craig Buckley4 years ago

Ken Buck for Colorado Senate in 2014? NO. Buck is still up to his old tricks: deprivation of rights, failure to protect, etc. Please read about nut-job Ken Buck's newest "rape" case in which he has harassed and terrorized a Longmont, CO family for in excess of 3 years to protect a corrupt judge.

Sarah M.
Sarah M7 years ago

If men like this didn't exist the world would be a significantly better place.

Quanta Kiran
Quanta Kiran7 years ago

this article needed more information.

Shukriyyah H.
Shukriyyah H.7 years ago

I decided that before I would pass judgment on Ken Buck I would check things out for myself. After reading this article and seeing more information about the case, I would agree that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Her word is not enough to say without a doubt that he is guilty of rape. If they can produce evidence of him committing a crime then by all means prosecute, but until then shut up! And Ken Buck did not say that she had buyer's remorse, he simply said that a jury may conclude that she did. And they probably would have. I have doubts myself but I cannot judge without knowing all of the facts.

Madelaine Hanson
Pete Smith7 years ago

Dreadful man. As thick as two short planks.

Manuela C.
Manuela C7 years ago

Unfortunately, these kind of men only understand (or not) that a "no" means "no" and that no woman will ever deserve rape, when it happens to their family!

Allan Y.
.7 years ago

I am so sick about hearing about this idiot,,,,,

Lindsey DTSW
.7 years ago

The article states that the alleged rapist admitted the woman said 'no'. However when I read the transcript of the the private meeting with Buck that the woman taped, it appears that information came from her - based on a telephone conversation she supposedly had with the alleged rapist. And if that's the evidence that the man admits she said 'no', then it's subject only to her word (unless he admitted it to others, of course.)

Based on what this article says - and the transcript - it's quite possible a jury wouldn't find the man guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. And prosecutors always look at such things when deciding whether or not to prosecute any kind of case - whether or not they believe they have a chance of winning a guilty verdict. And whether or not the entirety of the facts make them believe they can prove the perpetrator is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Was this woman raped? Going by what I've read, there's no way to tell - beyond a reasonable doubt. If there are other relevant facts, then my opinion might change.

But the title of this piece is misleading. According to the article, Ken Buck didn't say that the woman 'had buyer's remorse'. He said, "A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer’s remorse." Which is true - juries can conclude many things, right or wrong. And there is a difference between making a conclusion onself and believing that a jury may make a conclusion.

kaisuorvokki m.
kaisuorvokki m7 years ago

Having sex with unwilling, drunk, later passed-out woman is rape. If he believes man DIDN´T rape and woman lied, things are different.

Allan Y.
.7 years ago

What an idiot!