# The Degradation of Government Agencies



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2008)

I can only say that this is horrific. 

The actions reported in this link, by the Stark County Police Department, seem to be a symptom of the nature of government since 9/11. That which should be unacceptable is justified. 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/...assaultive-strip-search-on-an-innocent-woman/



> Hope Steffeys night started with a call to police for help. It ended with her face down, naked, and sobbing on a jail cell floor. Now, the sheriffs deputies from Stark County, Ohio who allegedly used excessive force during a strip search 15 months ago face a federal lawsuit, and recently released video wont help their case.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 3, 2008)

How 9/11 enters into this is beyond me. If you have experience in LE/Corrections and can explain to me the differences before and after go for it, but my money is on the "I hate Bush so everything bad is his fault" reason.

Many jails require some prisoners to remove their clothes if they are a risk of hanging themselves with them. Theres a lot of "he said she said" going on here. And why would the LEO's be taping themselves if they didnt believe they were justified in what they were doing?

And lastly, if you think you can make a judgement like that solely off the "facts" listed in that story, its worse than I thought. Theres obviously a lot more to this story that what I saw there.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 3, 2008)

> Although the sheriff's policy requires officers conducting any strip search to be of the same sex, the sheriff contends that the tactic used on Steffey was not actually a strip search. He also questions the validiy of the events leading up to Steffeys arrest.


 
Ummm... then why was she stripped?  They don't seem to have an explination for that.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2008)

Our society has changed drastically since the summer of 2001. 

One example of this is the Federal Government's abandonedment of the Fourth Amendment; monitoring all telephone and interent traffic in the country, without the Constitutionally required warrant. 

Based on the video clip and article, it would seem the governmental authorities in Stark County Ohio believe violating their own policies is appropriate; and that strip searches are appropriate in the event of a 'disorderly conduct' charge. 

That the officers feel their actions are justified *is* the issue. 

How many horrific acts can we see in history in which the authority felt justified?


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 3, 2008)

BTW. Im not saying that these cops were "right". But to say that this is a "symptom of the nature of government since 9/11". Smells like a broadbrush political grudge more than anything else.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 3, 2008)

Proof? Your word??

Dude you apparently havent worked in LE or corrections. Things in the 70's-80's would have your head spinning. Or even in the Sainted Clinton administration.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Ummm... then why was she stripped? They don't seem to have an explination for that.


 
A question was asked of the young lady, "have you ever felt you wanted to hurt yourself". To which she answered, apparently in a sarcastic tone "now or ever". That was, apparently, sufficient to remove all her clothing, so that she could not hang herself in the holding cell. 

(Please replay the song "Alice's Resturant" in your own mind, at this point)


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2008)

Archangel M said:
			
		

> but my money is on the "I hate Bush so everything bad is his fault" reason


 
The choice of language is, however, a quick way to say, "this allegation should be discarded. The person raising the point has an obvious bias, and therefore, all his arguments should be dismissed." 

This is a classic demonstration of an 'ad hominem falacy'. 



Archangel M said:


> BTW. Im not saying that these cops were "right". But to say that this is a "symptom of the nature of government since 9/11". Smells like a broadbrush political grudge more than anything else.


 
So, we see the quick backpedal.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 3, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Our society has changed drastically since the summer of 2001.
> 
> One example of this is the Federal Government's abandonedment of the Fourth Amendment; monitoring all telephone and interent traffic in the country, without the Constitutionally required warrant.


I know you aren't stupid, but, damn boy, you say some staggeringly stupid things.
The population is about 300million. There are about 500 million telephones, cellular and landline in the country. IF (note the big if) each one were used for only one minute per day that would be 500 MILLION minutes to monitor.  There are only 1440 minutes in a day, just how many people do you think the government has listening to phone calls?
The Fourth Amendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.) does not, by the way, apply to foreign nationals beyond our borders. You also might want to scream and wail a bit about the Carnivore program that the Clinton administration instituted and ran, without warrants, or, was that OK? The Fin FISA stands for FOREIGN...


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> just how many people do you think the government has listening to phone calls?


 
To be fair to Mike (yeah yeah I know, I dont usually ever side with him) there are software programs to do that kind of monitoring... you need a lot less people with that sort of thing going on... although I agree its probably not EVERY call.  Could be, I suppose... but I doubt it.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2008)

The monitoring of ALL calls, text messages and emails is actually very easy. They aren't listened to or read individually though, it's done electronically, what happens is that certain trigger words are programmed in and if then used alert the 'watchers' who can then trace the originator. It is easy for computers to do this, no one actually sits and listens anymore, very old fashioned. Your country does it here at RAF Menwith Hill which is actually an American Base and we do it in GCHQ Cheltenham plus some other places. . 
http://explorer.altopix.com/map/2f8462/1/291/Menwith_Hill_Listening_Station.htm?order=d


----------



## Big Don (Feb 3, 2008)

How exactly is the behavior of a locality's police force related at all to the federal government? Answer: It isn't, but, your personal hatred of the Bush administration colors everything you see. Are you going to blame Bush the next time you get a speeding ticket, too? What we have is a woman in an excited situation who GAVE THE WRONG ID to the POLICE. That, from a layman's view, could look suspicious... Then, after she or the cop realized that wasn't her ID, she started acting MORE irrational. Driver's licenses and State issued ID cards, are, by the way, the property of the state, not the person whose picture, etc is on them, therefore, the officer was under no legal obligation to return it to her. What is interesting is that a Google news search for "Hope Steffey" turns up only FOUR articles, while a Google search turns up over 700, most of them to liberal blogs and sites such as the Democratic Underground and the RonPaulforums. Could she have been in the wrong? The articles say she was. What was the reasoning behind the police's actions? We don't know, because the Stark County Police Department is making no effort to try this case in the press or in the blogosphere.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 3, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> To be fair to Mike (yeah yeah I know, I dont usually ever side with him) there are software programs to do that kind of monitoring... you need a lot less people with that sort of thing going on... although I agree its probably not EVERY call.  Could be, I suppose... but I doubt it.


Still, those programs work on keywords, so if you are discussing a history channel program about terrorism, and use the word "BOMB" further scrutiny is applied to the call, at some point an actual person's input has to be involved because computers have not advanced, AFAIK, to the point that they can understand context, tone of voice and usages. This is without mentioning the millions of people in the US who choose to speak a language other than English. Many of the smaller stores where I live are owned by people of Indian ancestry. Many of these people speak 5 or more languages, some, like Ken, down at the corner store, speak Arabic and Farsi, languages sure to garner attention when used.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2008)

I think what Michaeledward is being too polite to say is that faeces travels down hill.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 3, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I think what Michaeledward is being too polite to say is that manure travels down hill.



It surely does, however, Mikey is just a tad too eager to blame absolutely everything on the Bush administration.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> It surely does, however, Mikey is just a tad too eager to blame absolutely everything on the Bush administration.


 
Isn't that his right? It's a free country I've been told!

Ref the monitoring, trust me guys Big Brother really is listening in! You have no idea how advanced this places are!


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 3, 2008)

Absolutely its his right. And complaining about it is my right too isnt it? Nobody is trying to stop him from saying what hes saying. Why is our disagreement a case of infringing on his rights? That seems like a fallacy to me.

Maybe hes right.

Rodney King

Abner Louima

Amadou Diallo

All cases of post 9/11...uhhh...never mind.

And nothing like this happened under Bills watch? Paugh!!

How do we determine if things like this are "different" after 9/11 and that we are not just looking at the same old thing with post 9/11 lenses on? The whole point of this thread is the implication that local LE agencies are practicing "brutality" because of Bushes post 9/11 policies and I say thats a load of crap.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2008)

Hey ... if I am just a crazy person who hates George W. Bush ... then we can *ignore* the atrocities that go on in our society. It really is so much easier than actually thinking. 

Rather than discuss ... just attack.


----------



## Bodhisattva (Feb 3, 2008)

Government has always been bad for the freedom of men.  Government is based on the lie of authority.  When men are strong enough to lead themselves, then government will have no power to lie and control.

It's been this way since _long before_ 9/11.  It just was never this _blatant._


----------



## Big Don (Feb 3, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Hey ... if I am just a crazy person who hates George W. Bush ... then we can *ignore* the atrocities that go on in our society.


Not at all, however, blaming one man for everything that has ever gone badly, is just a tad insane.





> It really is so much easier than actually thinking.
> 
> Rather than discuss ... just attack.


How exactly is blaming Bush for what may or may not have happened in this case anything but an attack? We don't have all the facts and those who judge based on only one side of a story are no better than fools.


----------



## Bodhisattva (Feb 3, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Isn't that his right? It's a free country I've been told!
> 
> Ref the monitoring, trust me guys Big Brother really is listening in! You have no idea how advanced this places are!


 

It really _hasn't been_ a free country for _some time now..._

_No one much cares what you were told._


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Not at all, however, blaming one man for everything that has ever gone badly, is just a tad insane.
> How exactly is blaming Bush for what may or may not have happened in this case anything but an attack? We don't have all the facts and those who judge based on only one side of a story are no better than fools.


 
Please show me where I ascribe blame to anyone other than the Stark County Police Department? 

Who was the first person in this thread to mention the name "Bush"? How was the name mentioned?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2008)

The following conversation takes place between a current United States Senator, who is also a former United States Attorney, and the man who wished to be, and has since been appointed the highest law enforcement officer in the land; the United States Attorney General. 

[yt]Gt8v_GAgOK4[/yt]

And here, the now, appointed Attorney General of the United States, tells us *he *would feel that waterboarding is torture if it was done to him. However, the legal position he states tells us that, on behalf of the United States, he does not believe waterboarding is torture. 

[yt]3A1luTdLaSs[/yt]

If the highest law enforcement officer in the land can not make a legal determination ... who then, can we expect to give guidance of appropriate behavior to the Stark County Police Department?


----------



## crushing (Feb 3, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> I can only say that this is horrific.
> 
> The actions reported in this link, by the Stark County Police Department, *seem to be a symptom of the nature of government since 9/11*. That which should be unacceptable is justified.
> 
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/...assaultive-strip-search-on-an-innocent-woman/


 
If only it started that recently we wouldn't be so far along.  This frog started boiling before 9/11, before OKC, before Waco, before the first WTC bombing and before Ruby Ridge.  Maybe back to 1934?

Unfortunately, partisans on each side will rationalize the actions of their own parties regimes while being 'horrified' by the same and similar actions of the regimes of the opposition.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2008)

crushing said:


> If only it started that recently we wouldn't be so far along. This frog started boiling before 9/11, before OKC, before Waco, before the first WTC bombing and before Ruby Ridge. Maybe back to 1934?


 
Such statements beg exposition. You seem to be mixing ideas here, and I can not follow. 

A connection to Waco, and Ruby Ridge might be seen easily; as the state exceeds its authority. We have debated those items here before, and I'm game to discuss them again; in light of over-reaching of government agencies, and mis-use of authority. 

But, your references to 9/11, OKC and the First World Trade Center bombing seem to be out of place. What malicious, and over-reaching actions were taken by the authorities in these instances? Or, what changes in our government were made after these events that justified or allowed over-reaching by authorties?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 3, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> But, your references to 9/11, OKC and the First World Trade Center bombing seem to be out of place. What malicious, and over-reaching actions were taken by the authorities in these instances? Or, what changes in our government were made after these events that justified or allowed over-reaching by authorties?


You are, for once, almost absolutely correct. The Clinton administration did virtually NOTHING about the first bombing of the WTC or the African Embassies.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 3, 2008)

> The actions reported in this link, by the Stark County Police Department, *seem to be a symptom of the nature of government since 9/11. *



Thats the opening statement of this thread. A conclusion we are jumping to based on very sketchy details and from only one side. I find this indicitave that the poster is more concerned with making a political statement and a broadbrush damning of LE based on one incident we dont even have all the facts on than he is any determination of fact. As another poster said. Do a google. A handful of news stories with limited info and a TON of liberal bloggers making as much hay out of it as possible. The story and its connection to the whole point of this thread is bankrupt.

If the thread was titled "Deputies use excessive force". That could be debated. That however isnt the point here. Look at the title.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> You are, for once, almost absolutely correct. The Clinton administration did virtually NOTHING about the first bombing of the WTC or the African Embassies.


 
That you are aware of nothing that was done, does not mean that nothing was done. Of course, awareness and knowlege really put a damper the Rush Limbaugh talking point. 

I am wondering if you are familiar with the person Ramzi Yousef? Do you know his current status? Are you aware of Mohammed Salameh or Amhad Ajaj? Do you know what they are doing today? 

Have you heard of the cleverly named Operation Infinite Reach? 

Yes ... President Clinton, and his administration did ... how do you say ... "NOTHING".  Except when they capture, extradite, and convict the persons responsible. At those times, they proved your talking point moot.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 3, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> If the highest law enforcement officer in the land can not make a legal determination ... who then, can we expect to give guidance of appropriate behavior to the Stark County Police Department?


 
Yeah like the Stark Co PD takes guidance from the Attorney General. ROTFLMAO! "What would the USAG do with this woman? I know lets waterboard her!" Thats rich. Any idea what the USDOJ or the USAG's duties actually are? What relation they have to municipal LE?


----------



## redfang (Feb 4, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Government has always been bad for the freedom of men. Government is based on the lie of authority. When men are strong enough to lead themselves, then government will have no power to lie and control.
> 
> It's been this way since _long before_ 9/11. It just was never this _blatant._


I would love that people had the capacity lead themselves, as you say, which I take to mean govern their behavior responsibly and not require some sort of authority to do it for them. It would put me out of a job, but I would be happy to find work elsewhere if this were the case. However, I think my job is secure. People in this country (i can only speak for the US as I haven't lived elsewhere.), by and large, have little self-control, not much in the way of smarts, emotional maturity, and are more than happy to let someone else do it for them.

Now, about the woman's case. I have mixed feelings. I did not see anything done that appeared to be against the law, but I still believe some of those deputies, or their superiors will be in some trouble. Or not, Stark County might just settle and someone who was likely intoxicated, abusive towards the LEO's, uncooperative and insinuating that she might hurt herself will get a big payday.

The news characterized the woman as the victim. I don't know about that. Did the cousin assault her out of the blue? Were they drinking and both of them had words and a fight started? There is a difference between an assault and an affray. Just because the woman said the cousin assaulted her doesn't make it so. 

Then she gave the deputy a false ID. Momento of her dead sister? Puh-leeze! Conceding that there is a slight possibility of that, as an LEO, that story makes the BS detector light up like Christmas. I'm thinking she's got warrants, thinks she is going to get charged and wants to use someone elses identity in taking the charge, or something similar. And there is no way that I am going to return the false ID after it has been handed to me in a criminal investigation. I mean, c'mon! Even if I confirm her real identity and she's free of warrants, the ID is going back to DMV.

Now what she was charged with are all misdemeanors. The deputies could have cited her and let her be on her way. I have to wonder why they did not do so. A lot of times, I'll arrest someone when I could cite, if their behavior leads me to believe that if left free there will be continuing problems or additional incidents, usually when someone is being drunk, surly and aggressive. 

Here is where they will get hemmed up. It is legal for males to search females and vice versa. But it is always better to let officers of the same sex take care of it if possible. In this case it obviously was, as there were several female officers present. The woman looked uncooperative. She might have been actively resisting the female officers to the point where the male deputies felt that they had to or were requested to assist. I don't know. There are ways to search a female suspect pretty thoroughly without it being overly invasive; they did not do this. It really didn't look like a search so much as stripping her for the sake of stripping her, maybe they will say it was a safety issue. They were at the jail though, I see no reason why some jail scrubs could not have been given to her, especially before seeing the judicial official. If they are worried about her being suicidal, keep an eye on her. I don't know what the policy is in Stark County, but it will probably come out that they violated some directives somewhere. At the very least, they did not seem to think things through to their logical conclusion. 

Its always hard to judge with only a small amount of info. Now I have had people who have pissed me off. I've strip searched people before (Generally because I have a fair inkling that they have something hidden in the nether regions.) but I always try to keep dignity in mind, especially with folks who have gotten me mad, maybe made me put hands on or use force. In doing so, so far I have managed to keep the IA investigations to zero and the complaints to a minimum. (And no law suits yet either.)


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 4, 2008)

redfang said:


> Then she gave the deputy a false ID. Momento of her dead sister? Puh-leeze! Conceding that there is a slight possibility of that, as an LEO, that story makes the BS detector light up like Christmas.


 
This right here speaks to the Objectivity of LEO in general... I train with Cops, my Instructor works in a Support capacity with Cops, and in the early days of my youth before leaving to become a Conservation Officer my father was a Cop.  I hear the same thing out of all of them regarding "Civilians" and that is, if you arent a Cop, you are basically a "Scumbag" and its just a matter of time before you will do somthing to prove it...

LEO work with the criminal element, therefore everyone must be like the criminals they deal with...  because they see the worst in people everyday.  Strippers are the same way... they see the Worst of Men every day, therefore men are all *******s.  

I understand where the Bias comes from... but it doesnt mean its correct.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 5, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> This right here speaks to the Objectivity of LEO in general... I train with Cops, my Instructor works in a Support capacity with Cops, and in the early days of my youth before leaving to become a Conservation Officer my father was a Cop. I hear the same thing out of all of them regarding "Civilians" and that is, if you arent a Cop, you are basically a "Scumbag" and its just a matter of time before you will do somthing to prove it...
> 
> LEO work with the criminal element, therefore everyone must be like the criminals they deal with... because they see the worst in people everyday. Strippers are the same way... they see the Worst of Men every day, therefore men are all *******s.
> 
> I understand where the Bias comes from... but it doesnt mean its correct.


 
And I dont undersand where this bias comes from, if you are voicing your opinion on this particular case. Who here really knows what actually happened here? "A momento of my dead sister"...I just happen to carry around and present to cops. Right.

Theres more to this story. 

However that doesnt mean the cops get a free ride to abuse her. If they overstepped their bounds and did this purely to punish an uncoperative prisoner than they should be punished. Is it national news worthy? Please.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 5, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> And I dont undersand where this bias comes from, if you are voicing your opinion on this particular case.



I was speaking in general actually to the idea that to a cop everyone is a "perp waiting to happen".  I was saying because of the element they deal with evryday they see more "bad guys" than "good guys" so I see how that sort of Bias develops.

And You guys can say what you want about her handing the wrong ID out as well... but when I turned 21, we all went drinking, and my friend left his ID in my car after he drove me home... I tossed it in my wallet and got pulled over a couple nights later and when I took out my ID, I took his out to get to mine and it was very similar... the cop thought I was trying to get away with having an "over 21" ID... (Under 21 were red, over were blue, and mine was still red) Until I convinced him to look at my birthday and see I WAS over 21... So I'll buy it CAN happen.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 6, 2008)

What I find interesting (as in not the obvious question) is why the news media automatically calls the woman a victim.

For the media, which is supposed to be an un-biased teller of information, to immediately, based on partial information, make a judgement (which as I understand it, is not their job) speaks volumes about what our "media" is all about.  

As a law enforcement officer myself (who has family that lives in Stark County, Ohio, and travels there frequently) I will say that I do wonder as to the necessity of a strip search.  But that information, from either party, is never given. 

I can understand how men, in mitigating circumstances, could assist female custody / police officers in strip searching a female, regardless of policy.  Remember, policy is a guideline for actions, not the end all - be all of what is to be done in any given situation.  Perhaps on the face of it, it is a violation of policy (but remember, not necessarily the law), but each case needs to be judged on its own merit.  

I don't know about other states, but in California, a person does not have the right to refuse to submit to an officer's orders, even if the arrest is illegal: 

PC 834a.  If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable
care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace
officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or
any weapon to resist such arrest.

According to the California Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook however (basically the Peace Officer bible):

You may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, overcome resistance, or prevent escape. (Pen. Code, §§ 835, 835a, 843.)  A suspect has a duty to submit and may not resist an arrest, even if the arrest is unlawful. (Pen. Code, § 834a.) *However, if you use excessive force, the suspect may lawfully resist with enough force to resist the excessive force.* 

Therefore, she had no right to resist the strip search (per California law anyway, provided for perspective).  That is not a case of excessive force, *if *she refused to submit to a strip search, and subsequently began actively resisting.  She has a civil recourse to redress her grievences, perhaps even a federal civil rights violation case.  

I know that as a Police Officer, I serve the community.  I don't look at everyone as a "scumbag", as was claimed earlier.  For those not having been in the position of a law enforcement officer, I find it interesting that they claim to know their minds, no matter what they have been told.  Case in point, my wife believed that most of my beliefs regarding how officers react to deadly force threats (a la Amidu Diallo) were completely wrong..... until she became a cop.  No amount of me telling her about the physiology of a deadly force encounter, mindsets, etc. would change her mind.... until she was put in similar situations herself.

And none of this, generally speaking, has to do with 9/11.  That is a straw man argument.  Local law enforcement to day goes on as it has for years, with the possible exception of those assigned to terrorism related duties.  Which, by the way, for the most part are use-of-force free.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2008)

Did you see resistance? 

Not in that clip. She was restricted by at least four persons and in a detainment cell.

There was questioning, but asking what is going on, and why it is going on, qualifies as resistance?

Or maybe you are projecting your biases onto the video clip.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2008)

This is what happens when the government feels like it owns all or a part of you.  Because you cease to be an individual, it can mechanically violate your human rights on a whim.  

The fact that I can't understand why a single person in that group did not try to do anything different is why I am not a cop.  

To be perfectly honest, I'd probably get canned because I didn't follow "procedure".


----------



## redfang (Feb 6, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> This right here speaks to the Objectivity of LEO in general... I train with Cops, my Instructor works in a Support capacity with Cops, and in the early days of my youth before leaving to become a Conservation Officer my father was a Cop. I hear the same thing out of all of them regarding "Civilians" and that is, if you arent a Cop, you are basically a "Scumbag" and its just a matter of time before you will do somthing to prove it...
> 
> LEO work with the criminal element, therefore everyone must be like the criminals they deal with... because they see the worst in people everyday. Strippers are the same way... they see the Worst of Men every day, therefore men are all *******s.
> 
> I understand where the Bias comes from... but it doesnt mean its correct.


Yes, cops work with criminals, they also work with victims, people needing directions, children, the elderly. You are simplifying and overgeneralizing the attitude and mindset of thousands of individuals. There are some cops who get jaded. It's easy to do. But most of the cops that I know, while wanting to clear cases, are still going to ultimately be working to uncover the truth of what happened at an incident and take appropriate, objective action. Her actions were suspicious based on the totality of the circumstances. The deputies were there investigating a crime. The person to whom they are speaking is involved somehow. Yes, she said that she was the victim, but I bet the other party is saying that they, not she, are the victim. Then in the course of your investigation, she tries to give you false information about who she is. I think any objective person would think that is suspicious.

Again, if you read my original post, you will see that I am not saying that what these officers did was right. If even half of the allegations are true, then they are at least guilty of stupidity. And on its face, it looks like at least half of it is true. But, in keeping with your wish for objectivity, I will refrain from making a wholehearted judgement until I am presented with all of the facts.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 6, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Did you see resistance?
> 
> Not in that clip. She was restricted by at least four persons and in a detainment cell.
> 
> ...



1.  As the deputies are attempting to pull her pants off, she is holding them by her right hand in order to prevent them from doing so.

2.  If she was not resisting at all, why was it difficult (although not very) for the deputies to put her legs in the "pretzel" position?

3.  According to the media report and shown video, she begins to scream as the deputies are removing her bra and underwear.  You can clearly see that she is wiggling and moving around in their grasp, under her power, not because she is being moved by deputies.

4.  Later in the program, you can see the black deputy having trouble trying to keep her legs down.

There is the evidence regarding resistance that I can provide from the limited video shown on the news.  And in those segmented clips, there is evidence that she is resisting, whether you agree that the force used by the officers was reasonable or not.  And that is for a jury to decide.

As a personal interpretation, I have a hard time believing that while yelling, "Stop it!", she is merely lying there passive.

Now, having said all of that, I can't deny that some other actions, such as the alleged "knocking down" of Steffey occurred without provocation, which like I said in Cali could provide some basis for resistance on her part.  We don't know what happened, by way of video, what happened at the original location where the call was generated.  But that sword cuts both ways.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is what happens when the government feels like it owns all or a part of you. Because you cease to be an individual, it can mechanically violate your human rights on a whim.



Who is this entity that you choose to call a government?  A government can do nothing.  It is the individuals in the government that can perform actions.  Now you seem to be painting all government employees with a broad brush.  You do this on several occassions, actually.  But, yet you lambast the police officers for doing the same when you believe they all believe that civilians are "scumbags".  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that you can make negative generalizations about police officers and be right about your assumptions, but when police officers do the same they are wrong?  Seems you want it both ways.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 6, 2008)

If I were to say "Some of my best friends are Black" on a racial based thread Id be laughed at or scorned. But if you say "I know a lot of cops" now you are an authority on police officers.

Thats not aimed at any particular person. Just a trend I seem to see on these types of threads.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 6, 2008)

I also find it interesting how the opinions of the media, the bloggers, and the internet viewers get "packaged together" here. It seems that any questionable [which mean that the cops were over the line -OR- "I wet my pants when I actually see what cops have to do out there"]use of force by the officers means that the arrest was unauthorized in the first place.

Is the issue here the validity of the arrest or the treatment of the prisoner while in custody? 

99.999999% of the people arrested say that they are innocent at the time of arrest. How does this video provide ANY information about the arrest? It doesnt.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Who is this entity that you choose to call a government? A government can do nothing. It is the individuals in the government that can perform actions.


 
All I'm saying is that the zeitgeist seems to be toward a government that places less and less value on individual freedom and human rights.  People vote for this government, but that is another thread entirely. 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Now you seem to be painting all government employees with a broad brush. You do this on several occassions, actually.  But, yet you lambast the police officers for doing the same when you believe they all believe that civilians are "scumbags".


 
Actually, this was my first post in this thread.  I did not make broad assumptions about police officers nor did I make assumption about what they think of "civilians".  All I did was wonder outloud how a victim of an assualt could have her rights violated in this manner and NOT ONE of the people doing it question whether or not what they are doing is the right thing.  It's very disturbing that we have these books of rules that leave so little wiggle room.  It's even more disturbing that people follow them without question.

I could never be a cop.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that you can make negative generalizations about police officers and be right about your assumptions, but when police officers do the same they are wrong? Seems you want it both ways.


 
See above.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 6, 2008)

Has it been determined that she was the "victim" of an assault and not the perpetrator?

Has it been determined/proven that the deputies acted beyond the scope of their duties?

NO!

Some folks are assuming a lot of things here. And I think that illustrates a lot about those making them.

Even if these officers are proven wrong. It only means that they were guilty, not an entire profession. Just like not all "non-cops" are not "scumbags".


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2008)

Okay, for me, if a person was crying, struggling, and begging me not to forcibly remove her clothing, I would stop.  I realize that LEO live in a world of gray areas, but where is the line they will not/can not cross?  How far has this line been pushed since 9/11?


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 6, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Okay, for me, if a person was crying, struggling, and begging me not to forcibly remove her clothing, I would stop.  I realize that LEO live in a world of gray areas, but where is the line they will not/can not cross?  How far has this line been pushed since 9/11?


There's not nearly enough given in the article on this for me to have much of an opinion as to the right or wrong of the behavior.  But... you start out in a bad place when you're drunk (as I understand she was) AND give the cops the wrong ID.  It goes downhill fast when you make a suicidal statement at booking.  Because, in the jurisdictions that I've locked folks up in, that means you will be stripped and placed in one of the "special" cells.  You won't have anything that might be used to hurt yourself.  (As an aside, it's also standard practice for people booked on drug charges to undergo a strip search.)

As to the presence of male deputies and the numbers involved... she appeared to be, at best, non-compliant, if not actively resisting.  What little, edited video I saw showed male deputies restraining her while females actually undressed her.  I don't see a problem with the way it was done.  I don't know if it was justified or not.

And... incidentally... I've found myself arresting the alleged victim on more than one occasion in a domestic-type situation.  (Even arrested EVERYBODY one time!)


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 6, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Okay, for me, if a person was crying, struggling, and begging me not to forcibly remove her clothing, I would stop. I realize that LEO live in a world of gray areas, but where is the line they will not/can not cross? How far has this line been pushed since 9/11?


 
What if she was crying and begging not to get arrested? To get out of her traffic ticket? To be left alone so she could jump off a bridge? Refused to be searched and brought a gun into the station and shot someone? Where do YOU draw the line?

If the officers had a job to do (and it was legal) what do you expect them to do? Leave her clothes on and when she hangs herself with her pants then blame them for letting it happen?

Which still leaves the question, why tape it? Probably so she couldnt accuse them of things that didnt happen.

Yes that DOES happen.

And WTF does 9/11 have to do with it? What do you believe your local cops are doing post 9/11 that they didnt do before? Situations like this have been going on since the dawn of law enforcement. Its been said by others here already, 9/11 has had almost no impact on the way municipal LE does things. Just because you may want to make a connection doesnt mean there is one.

If anything LE kinder and gentler now than ever in the past. Ask anybody who ran afoul of the law in the 70-80's what the difference between then and now is.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2008)

For all of those who can not comprehend what was meant by the reference to 911 ... Try this phrase from the first post ... 



> symptom of the nature of government


 
Your government, yesterday, through the United States Attorney General admitted to waterboarding persons in custody on our behalf. In the past, our same government convicted persons of this act and sentenced those who partook to fifteen years hard labor. 

Since 911 ... the power of government as become, in their own mind, absolute. The Adminstration will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and it will make attempts to justify the unjustifiable after the fact. 

If these are the observable actions of the Administration ... and they are (apparently) successful at these abuses ... why wouldn't local law enforcement follow their lead? 



			
				Captian Picard - quoting Judge Aaron Satie said:
			
		

> With the first link, the chain is forged, the first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom deinied - chains us all, irrevocably.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 6, 2008)

Regardless of everything else said in this thread one fact remains true and undisputable:
We are hearing ONLY one side of the story.
The litigious side, by the way...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 6, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Actually, this was my first post in this thread.  I did not make broad assumptions about police officers nor did I make assumption about what they think of "civilians".  All I did was wonder outloud how a victim of an assualt could have her rights violated in this manner and NOT ONE of the people doing it question whether or not what they are doing is the right thing.  It's very disturbing that we have these books of rules that leave so little wiggle room.  It's even more disturbing that people follow them without question.



Sorry about that.  I accidentially attributed a statement to you that was stated by Cryozombie.  My apologies.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Okay, for me, if a person was crying, struggling, and begging me not to forcibly remove her clothing, I would stop. I realize that LEO live in a world of gray areas, but where is the line they will not/can not cross? How far has this line been pushed since 9/11?



And that is why not everyone can, nor should be, a police officer.  We do the things that others can't / won't do that are sometimes necessary.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> All I'm saying is that the zeitgeist seems to be toward a government that places less and less value on individual freedom and human rights. People vote for this government, but that is another thread entirely.



And that is the nature of governments, in general, in any period of human history.  It's one of the reasons why the founders of the U.S. Constitution put in the protections of the Bill of Rights.  And we (the citizens) are allowing those to be slowly eroded, by all sides, liberal/conservative, Democrat / Republican.  And we ohly have the citezenry to blame. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> If these are the observable actions of the Administration ... and they are (apparently) successful at these abuses ... why wouldn't local law enforcement follow their lead?



So you have no proof that these so-called abuses are new, you just believe that they are.  And we are to be persuaded with this line of reasoning why?

Tell me, what did 9/11 have to do with Rodney King, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc?  You talk of new abuses since 9/11, but I can give you more numerous examples of "abuses" prior to 9/11 then after, and over a similar period of time.  What about the civil rights violations of the 50's and 60's?  You have shown no evidence that the actions of local law enforcement has gotten worse since 9/11, though you continue to make that supposition.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 6, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> For all of those who can not comprehend what was meant by the reference to 911 ... Try this phrase from the first post ...
> 
> 
> 
> Your government, yesterday, through the United States Attorney General admitted to waterboarding persons in custody on our behalf. In the past, our same government convicted persons of this act and sentenced those who partook to fifteen years hard labor.


There are actions that are illegal in one circumstance, but legal -- or even required! -- in another.  A soldier shooting someone in the back in the streets of Washington, DC, will likely be prosecuted for murder.  That same soldier, in the streets of Baghdad, shooting someone in the back is a hero.  If someone were to walk up to a person in the street and put handcuffs on them and take them away against their will -- they're a kidnapper.  But, if that person is a police officer with an arrest warrant in hand... it's a very different situation.

I'm not condoning torture; it's unreliable and doesn't produce good information, almost as a rule.  But the comparison, especially in this instance, is absurd.  We have, at best, only a fraction of the story here.  There's really no way to know what was going on, with the little bit of information at hand.  We know that the police were called because this woman was attacked.  We know that she, whether in error or deliberately, gave a false ID to the responding officers.  We know she apparently made a statement the deputies interpreted as suicidal.  We know that she didn't comply with directions, and was forcibly stripped.  (Every jail I've been in generally wants the prisoner to strip themselves, instead of having to undress them.  Those of you who have tried to dress or undress an uncooperative child can well imagine why.)  We've heard nothing to explain why she was assaulted.  We don't know if she was the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant, or if her behavior was so disruptive that the best course of action was to somehow get HER out of the situation.  (Been there, done that.  I've arrested people because I knew if I didn't, I'd just be back in an hour... and someone would probably be hurt.)

There's a simple fact.  ANYTIME law enforcement uses force, it's not pretty.  (Unless it's Walker, Texas Ranger -- but we're not all Chuck!)  And, it's very easy to misconstrue what happened when you only have part of the story.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 6, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> For all of those who can not comprehend what was meant by the reference to 911 ...


We get it. You blame Bush for EVERYTHING. Global warming, extinction of the dinosaurs, 1906 San Fransisco earthquake, EVERYTHING, we get it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 7, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Tell me, what did 9/11 have to do with Rodney King, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc? You talk of new abuses since 9/11, but I can give you more numerous examples of "abuses" prior to 9/11 then after, and over a similar period of time. What about the civil rights violations of the 50's and 60's? You have shown no evidence that the actions of local law enforcement has gotten worse since 9/11, though you continue to make that supposition.


 
The picture is a lot broader then just law enforcement agencies.  We got the Patriot Act.  We've got secret prisons.  We've got the government torturing people.  We've got mass monitoring of telecommunication and internet traffic.  We've got the installation of survailance cameras everywhere.  We've got Homeland Security.  

I feel that after 9/11, our society became one motivated by fear and suspicion.  Our security and law enforcement agencies are more vigilant, which isn't neccesarily bad, but we have paid a price for it.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> We get it. You blame Bush for EVERYTHING. Global warming, extinction of the dinosaurs, 1906 San Fransisco earthquake, EVERYTHING, we get it.


 
Once again, Who was the first person to use the name 'Bush' in this thread?

And, Big Don, it is apparent that you don't, or you won't "get it"; either by choice, or not. But you can keep right on attacking me, or defending the indefensible.

P.S. By the way, in a rather timely news report, it was confirmed over the past several days that the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, waterboard (at least) three "high value detainees" since President Bush took office. And, that the use of waterboarding was authorized by the President of the United States.  http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN06286822  This really shouldn't be 'news' to anyone who was paying attention. But it is, in fact, confirmation. 



			
				jks9199 said:
			
		

> There are actions that are illegal in one circumstance, but legal -- or even required! -- in another. A soldier shooting someone in the back in the streets of Washington, DC, will likely be prosecuted for murder. That same soldier, in the streets of Baghdad, shooting someone in the back is a hero. If someone were to walk up to a person in the street and put handcuffs on them and take them away against their will -- they're a kidnapper. But, if that person is a police officer with an arrest warrant in hand... it's a very different situation.
> 
> I'm not condoning torture; ....


 
By selecting the quote you did, and following up with the language you did; it certainly seems that you are justifying torture; even as you claim to not be condoning it.

The United States Government prosecuted waterboarding as torture in the last century. What has changed that makes it no longer torture? 

I might suggest watching the circular reasoning of the Attorney General of the United States from the recent Senate Committee hearings.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 7, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The picture is a lot broader then just law enforcement agencies.


 
Not in THIS thread it isnt.


----------



## redfang (Feb 7, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Okay, for me, if a person was crying, struggling, and begging me not to forcibly remove her clothing, I would stop. I realize that LEO live in a world of gray areas, but where is the line they will not/can not cross? How far has this line been pushed since 9/11?


Just the other day, I was in an ER with a combative female patient who needed medical treatment. There was myself, another male officer and various female nurses. Me and the other male officer had to assist in restraining her because she was fighting the nurses. They had to removed her shirt at one point. She did not want them to with us present. We turned the other way while continuing to restrain her legs and they blocked her as best that they could with a sheet while they worked. By your logic, we should have let this person who was hurt and had been drinking and using way too many drugs just ya know do her own thing, leave her alone, be a free spirit n all.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 7, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Once again, Who was the first person to use the name 'Bush' in this thread?


Yeah, I'm sure you weren't blaming the Bush administration here:





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Our society has changed drastically since the summer of 2001.
> 
> One example of this is the Federal Government's abandonedment of the Fourth Amendment; monitoring all telephone and interent traffic in the country, without the Constitutionally required warrant.
> 
> ...


 Or HERE


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 7, 2008)

The Sheriff himself has requested an investigation.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/rss_article.aspx?ref=RSS&storyid=82866

All along most LE here have stated that the issue here isnt the rightness or wrongness of this particular incident. Only that theres not enough info to make a judgement on it. Most of us just object to the implication government agencies have degraded after 9/11 and that somehow they all think that trampeling rights is acceptable. The Sheriffs action here shows that he doesnt think so. 

All the same, Im still waiting to hear the LE side of this incident.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2008)

Big Don said:
			
		

> We get it. You blame Bush for EVERYTHING.


 


Big Don said:


> Yeah, I'm sure you weren't blaming the Bush administration here:


 
Well, which is it  .... are you accusing me of blaming "Bush" or "The Bush Administration"?

Words actually have meanings, don't you know.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The picture is a lot broader then just law enforcement agencies.  We got the Patriot Act.  We've got secret prisons.  We've got the government torturing people.  We've got mass monitoring of telecommunication and internet traffic.  We've got the installation of survailance cameras everywhere.  We've got Homeland Security.
> 
> I feel that after 9/11, our society became one motivated by fear and suspicion.  Our security and law enforcement agencies are more vigilant, which isn't neccesarily bad, but we have paid a price for it.



That may be true.  However, what you have mentioned all is under the perview of the FEDERAL law enforcement agencies, not local agencies.  But the supposition of this thread is that local law enforcement agencies have changed for the worse due to 9/11.  The two don't jibe, and there has been no evidence to show that local law enforcement is worse after 9/11.


I also find it interesting that I rebutted michaeledwards statement of "Did you see resistance?  Not in that clip.", and nothing has been said, either in the positive or negative.  Nor did he answer why it must be necessary that local law enforcement be changed just because the Federal rules have changed.

The silence is deafening......


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2008)

Why you find the silence deafening, is beyond me. It simply means I no longer wish to converse with you. 

A prisoner, in a cell, is handcuffed, is held down by upt to six law enforcement officers and is forcibly stripped. 

And you expect her to be smiles???

If they weren't in uniform, _we would call that Gang Rape_!!!



Yes, she cried out. Yes, she attempted to remain clothed. Yes, she asked why such a thing was taking place. If that is "resistance" ... then I would resist too. 

To justify strip search and six hours of forced nakedness, I just don't get.

I thought we were a better country than that. I thought my fellow citizens would show more decency than that.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Why you find the silence deafening, is beyond me. It simply means I no longer wish to converse with you.
> 
> A prisoner, in a cell, is handcuffed, is held down by upt to six law enforcement officers and is forcibly stripped.
> 
> ...



So you say she wasn't resisting, and now you seem to be saying that she may have been.  And because of that you no longer wish to converse.  That just means you are arguing just to argue, not engage in a discussion.  

You sir, in my opinion, have no intellectual integrity.

WEAK!!!


And now, you are arguing that people should resist the police whenever they do something that you simply don't like.  Seems like you would prefer anacrchy.

Oh, and I don't expect her to smile, but I do expect her to cooperate.  Maybe then she wouldn't have to be held down.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 7, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Why you find the silence deafening, is beyond me. It simply means I no longer wish to converse with you.
> 
> A prisoner, in a cell, is handcuffed, is held down by upt to six law enforcement officers and is forcibly stripped.
> 
> ...


 
No -- that is not gang rape.  That's not even close to gang rape.  Trying to equate the two is insulting to the deputies involved in this incident, and even more insulting to those who have truly been the victims of gang rape.

Let me make a simple observation.  No matter why you're there... if you're in a jail, do what the staff there tells you to do, unless it's going to be physically harmful to you or another person.  You're in their house, and you will lose if you don't go with the program.  There are channels to address the appropriateness of an action later.  Yeah, it sounds a lot like what I suggest you do if you're in a police encounter.  For the same reasons.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2008)

I wonder why you choose to make this about me?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> No -- that is not gang rape. That's not even close to gang rape. Trying to equate the two is insulting to the deputies involved in this incident, and even more insulting to those who have truly been the victims of gang rape.
> 
> Let me make a simple observation. No matter why you're there... if you're in a jail, do what the staff there tells you to do, unless it's going to be physically harmful to you or another person. You're in their house, and you will lose if you don't go with the program. There are channels to address the appropriateness of an action later. Yeah, it sounds a lot like what I suggest you do if you're in a police encounter. For the same reasons.


 
Disorderly Conduct ...

Stripped ... and left naked for six hours.



			
				Yackov Smirnov said:
			
		

> What a country !!!


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 7, 2008)

Well I fail to see the point here anymore. the original poster apparently just wants to express his political opinion and not discuss or support it.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Well I fail to see the point here anymore. the original poster apparently just wants to express his political opinion and not discuss or support it.


 
It is not a political opinion, in any way. 

The officers of Stark County police department, in my opinion, grossly mishandled a situation with a young lady. They took her into custody, forcibly stripped her (for what reason remains less than cogent) and left her naked in a cell for a protracted time period. 

I find that behavior abhorrent. 

If they weren't in uniform . . . . . what would be an accurate description of the behavior?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 7, 2008)

Assault.
Sexual assault maybe, if she was subjected to a cavity search by a male deputy, which if memory serves may be considered 'object rape' or aggravated sexual assault. Some definitions below.

Object rape: A person commits object rape when the person causes the penetration or touching, however slight, of the genital or anal opening by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, not including a part of the human body, with intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to the child or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

The United States Code uses two terms to distinguish between different sexual activities:

    * Sexual act: contact between penis and vagina or penis and anus that involves penetration; contact between the mouth and genitals or anus; penetration of the vagina or anus with an object; or direct touching (not through clothing) of the genitals of an individual under the age of 16.

    * Sexual contact: intentional touching of the genitals, breasts, buttocks, anus, inner thigh, or groin with no sexual penetration.


Here's some more reading on terms, etc.
http://pc.brooklyn.cuny.edu/sexaslt.htm


----------



## LuzRD (Feb 7, 2008)

just to see if i understand what happened...

a woman (Steffey) was arrested after one of her cousins called the police for help citing that Steffey was assaulted by another one of their cousins. (this would be the first part that makes Steffy the victim)

Steffy accidentally handed the officer a license that she should not of had in the first place (with an excuse that i find stupid but plausible).

then suddenly (the article missed a few small bits here)...

Steffy was arrested for reasons not cited (only vague generalizations of crimes) in the article linked by the OP (the embedded video is no longer available). 

then 7 jail workers (does that mean police, sheriff, deputy, janitor, other?) thought it would be ok to attack the bound woman on the floor (this is the second part that makes her a victim). sheriff said it wasnt a strip search. were they concered for her safety? well "During that time, she was not allowed to use a phone or seek medical assistance for injuries she accrued that night, including a cracked tooth, bulging disc, and bruises." she could have been restrained AND clothed at the hospital she wasnt allowed to go to. 

now maybe the video made clear some of the logic missing from the story reported in the article (reason for arrest, reason it SEEMED ok to forcibly strip someone for no known reason, deny someone a phone call, deny someone medical attention), however this post has been in direct response to the article (and i trust the media about as much as i trust the government (not very much at all))


NOW did this sort of thing happen before 911? id bet it did.
is this sort of thing likely easier to get away with AFTER 911? ill bet it is.

are all cops jerks that hate everyone not wearing blue? nope
are some of them? yup

do alot of people have negative feelings about certain (or all) politicians? lol yup

does everyone need to run about online stating their opinions as fact? not really but sometimes theres nothing better to do i guess

IF (big if BTW) the events occured like the article says then im disgusted!
however its unlikely anyone but Steffy and the arresting officer will know the actual events (each with their own version im sure). 

so whatever, im gonna go play tontie


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 8, 2008)

I agree with all but the "its easier to get away with it since 9/11" part. 9/11 has changed virtually nothing about the way local LE operates. What is it that everybody thinks 9/11 has done to change the way their local cops do business?

One of the only things of note is that SOME departments get more grant cash from the feds or perhaps some equipment.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 8, 2008)

And as to the "what if they werent in uniform" question. THEY WERE in uniform and there are many things that can and have to be done when you are wearing it. What would you call someone not in uniform making someone place their hands behind their back and applying handcuffs to them? What would you call someone not in uniform pulling over a car driver and asking them for their license? Spraying someone in the face with pepper spray and forcing them to the ground? Its a weak argument. The story given by the cops here is that the woman was suicidal and refused to remove her clothes as per jail policy regarding suicidal subjects. What should they do, let prisoners have their way? 

Now was that what was actually going on here? Who knows? I dont? There is the one side of the issue being presented and some are making ASSumptions out of themselves. If this is not the case, then someone needs to be punished. If it was than I have no problem with it. 

The issue here is that someone is taking a little bit of data from the press and making a grand implication with it.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Feb 8, 2008)

2 comments

1 - LEO abusing their positions should be removed from those positions and subjected to the highest possible penalty

2 - Smart Asses need to wake up and not be smart asses

3 - Does anyone know where the uncensored video is?

4 - The above is not a smart *** question. Some scenes appeared to involve improper contact, however without clear footage it is impossible to tell.

5 - 5 looks like 2 after a couple beers.

That is all.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 8, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> I wonder why you choose to make this about me?



I'm not.  But it is your thread and your hypothesis, after all. 

At least others a making more coherent and plausible statements, rather then venting.


----------



## BrandiJo (Feb 8, 2008)

I do not see any reason why this woman should have been treated the way she was. IF they felt she was likely to harm herself they should have allowed her proper medical attention AND proper supervision while she remained clothed. I do not care how combatant she was or "dangerous" she was 2 men and 4 women should not have held her down and undressed her, that should be a female only task, (or male only if the victim here was male) Also having a chipped tooth and bludding disk are two very painful injuries one that should be treated as soon as possible, yet she was denied care for 7 hours... why? unless the officers involved where hiding something or getting a kick out of it some how.  It makes me sick to think that in our country we would allow such a crime to take place and have so many defend it.

I have nothing against police officers, or jail house guards i have family who work in both fields and neither of them would ever come close to doing the things described in this artical or in the video.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I'm not. But it is your thread and your hypothesis, after all.
> 
> At least others a making more coherent and plausible statements, rather then venting.


 
You most certainly are making this person, and personal toward me. 



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> So you say she wasn't resisting, and now you seem to be saying that she may have been. And because of that you no longer wish to converse. *That just means you are arguing just to argue*, not engage in a discussion.
> 
> *You sir, in my opinion, have no intellectual integrity.*
> 
> ...


 
The phrase, specifically 'intellectual integrity', is about a close to calling a person a "liar" without using that word. 

Cheers!


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2008)

The Last Legionary said:
			
		

> 3 - Does anyone know where the uncensored video is?


 
[yt]6Ku7pbvOr2Y[/yt]

[yt]iw8GIyF91Xk[/yt]


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 8, 2008)

Whos "defending it"? We are just not jumping to conclusions based on the little snippet given here. If they did this to punish a mouthy prisoner [which indeed could be what happened here] then yes they do deserve to be punished. I dont think anybody has said otherwise. Most of us "defenders" are just objecting to the implication that in some way LE in total has become "degraded" because of post 9/11 policy, and this is an example, which was the initial statement on this thread.

As to "friends and family" in LE or corrections. Unless you go to work with them everyday, you really dont know what they do [or have done or seen] out there, you will just have to believe me on that one.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Why you find the silence deafening, is beyond me. It simply means I no longer wish to converse with you.
> 
> A prisoner, in a cell, is handcuffed, is held down by upt to six law enforcement officers and is forcibly stripped.
> 
> ...


Gang Rape? Were you not the poster proclaiming words have meanings? Gee, I guess they don't when you want to exaggerate and place blame while only hearing ONE SIDE OF THE STORY.


----------



## BrandiJo (Feb 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> As to "friends and family" in LE or corrections. Unless you go to work with them everyday, you really dont know what they do [or have done or seen] out there, you will just have to believe me on that one.


Nah but i talk to them almost daily, so i have a pretty good idea about the day they have had, what they have seen( some pretty nasty stuff) and had to put up with from people it can get ugly and it can get rough but my male relatives would never hold down and strip a woman unless her harming herself was immanent and then they would do the best they could to relax the situation BEFORE it came to that point.

As for defending it, anyone who has said anything along the lines of this is what happens after 9/11 is in some way defending it. You all are saying because some people few some plains into a building it is ok for our LEO to do this because we dont know the whole story. What is there to know the video, i think tells it all pretty clear.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 8, 2008)

I dont think you have really read this thread. Nobody is saying that. 

If you believe that any media presented here tells "all there is to say" you are naieve. In defense of the LEO's or against them.

If you think that you hear everything from these "relatives", you are mistaken.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 8, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> You most certainly are making this person, and personal toward me.



So stating that this is your thread, and contradicting your arguments (and their form, or lack thereof) is an attack upon you personally?  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The phrase, specifically 'intellectual integrity', is about a close to calling a person a "liar" without using that word.
> 
> Cheers!



And I am not calling you a liar.  I am saying that you know you have no basis for your argument, and you still insist on your propsition without addressing the arguments to the contrary.  That is intellectuall weak.  And I have seen you do much better.

And how else am I to address a comment by *you* without commenting about what *you* say?

Anyway, this is pointless.  If you want to comment or not upon my arguments against your position, that is your choice.  But that says more about you then me.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 8, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> [yt]6Ku7pbvOr2Y[/yt]
> 
> [yt]iw8GIyF91Xk[/yt]




I'm sorry, but the video presented looks edited and cut to me.  And the fact that the "news" casters have made judgements as to the "fact" that she is a victim, could cause one to believe that the editing is done in such a way as to prove their bias.

And you are presenting this as "uncensored video" why?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 8, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> Nah but i talk to them almost daily, so i have a pretty good idea about the day they have had, what they have seen( some pretty nasty stuff) and had to put up with from people it can get ugly and it can get rough but my male relatives would never hold down and strip a woman unless her harming herself was immanent and then they would do the best they could to relax the situation BEFORE it came to that point.



Of what they have seen, I have no doubt.  I think your use of the word never is interesting.  How do you know?  How do they know unless presented with this type of particular situation?  And how do you know that the deputies didn't try to "relax the situation before it came to that point?"  

The point I'm trying to make is that you are making an absolute statement, without 

1.  Your relatives being in that situation
2.  Not knowing what the deputies' side of the story is.



			
				BranidJo said:
			
		

> As for defending it, anyone who has said anything along the lines of this is what happens after 9/11 is in some way defending it. You all are saying because some people few some plains into a building it is ok for our LEO to do this because we dont know the whole story. What is there to know the video, i think tells it all pretty clear.



When people in this thread are saying that this is what happens after 9/11, they are saying that local law enforcement has gotten worse since that time.  Not that this should be allowed to happen since this time.  And they are saying that many in this country have come to accept this due to 9/11.  They are not trying to justify it because of 9/11.

And unfortunately, the video doesn't say it all.  I wish I still had an example of how segmented and cut video, potentially all of the available video, doesn't say it all.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 8, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> I do not see any reason why this woman should have been treated the way she was. IF they felt she was likely to harm herself they should have allowed her proper medical attention AND proper supervision while she remained clothed. I do not care how combatant she was or "dangerous" she was 2 men and 4 women should not have held her down and undressed her, that should be a female only task, (or male only if the victim here was male) Also having a chipped tooth and bludding disk are two very painful injuries one that should be treated as soon as possible, yet she was denied care for 7 hours... why? unless the officers involved where hiding something or getting a kick out of it some how.  It makes me sick to think that in our country we would allow such a crime to take place and have so many defend it.
> 
> I have nothing against police officers, or jail house guards i have family who work in both fields and neither of them would ever come close to doing the things described in this artical or in the video.


Based on my experience... if you make a suicidal statement at booking, several things will happen.  You will be placed into a special cell, with frequent to constant monitoring.  You will have your clothing confiscated, and may be provided with either a blanket or a jail jumpsuit depending on the exact circumstances.  This is for a simple reason; the jail staff will do all they can to ensure that you have nothing to hurt yourself with.  You'll be examined by the jail's mental health professional at the earliest opportunity -- which might be the next morning.  Even a non-suicidal prisoner at the facilities where I've locked people up has their shoelaces, belts, jewelry, and even bras in some cases, taken away.  They're only allowed certain articles of clothing.

You have to understand that when someone is in custody, their safety is the responsibility of the officers or deputies.  They are not free, by definition.  They are not in control of the situation, by definition.  Things happen that are far removed from the normal course of events because of this situation.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 17, 2008)

Now if we were talking about THIS event.

Deputy dumps man out of wheelchair

Id have to be against the deputy. There is no reason for this.

But again, 9/11 has nothing to do with it.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 17, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Now if we were talking about THIS event.
> 
> Deputy dumps man out of wheelchair
> 
> ...


I agree.  That incident is shameful.  And that it apparently wasn't reported by any of the other deputies is even more shameful.  

I can't see why there wasn't thorough documentation of what happened; at the jails where I deliver prisoners, any injury to a prisoner is thoroughly documented.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 26, 2008)

I wanted to post this before, but didn't have a link for it.  Here is why a video doesn't always show the whole truth....

http://blutube.policeone.com/Clip.aspx?key=BC26982214F7DEA2


----------

