[quote]tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
JD430 wrote:
I dont know what happened here.
Yet you sure seem to have made up your mind alread
If you read his post, it doesn’t look like he has made up his mind at all. He has simply pointed out there are two sides to the story, and gave reasons as to why the police may have acted as they did.[/quote]
Thank you.
I did miss the professor’s anti-police rants, however.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
In a 9-1-1 call, her cousin said Steffey had been assaulted by another cousin.
When a Stark County deputy arrived, he asked for Steffey’s driver’s license. She accidentally turned over her dead sister’s license, which she said she keeps in her wallet as a memento, the lawsuit says.
The deputy refused to give the license back and told Steffey to “shut up about your dead sister,” according to her attorney.
The sheriff denied that in a written response to the lawsuit.
Eventually, Steffey was arrested and taken to the Stark County Jail. She was later charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
After her clothes were removed, she was locked in a cell. To stay warm, she wrapped herself in toilet paper. She remained in the cell for six hours.
JD430 wrote:
When you get booked into jail, you get strip searched
Everyone who gets arrested gets strip searched?[/quote]
In my jurisdiction, everyone with criminal charges. Motor vehicle warrants only are the exception. I don’t understand why that is, however.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
JD430 wrote:
I dont know what happened here.
Yet you sure seem to have made up your mind already.
If you read his post, it doesn’t look like he has made up his mind at all. He has simply pointed out there are two sides to the story, and gave reasons as to why the police may have acted as they did.
Gee, tedro, I did manage to read his post and his information about her actions (as if she would have acted differently) implied that only drug addicts acted that way.
I haven’t made any judgments at all on this woman because I don’t know the full details. [/quote]
All I said was that her reaction was indicative of drunks or drug use(I should add emotionally disturbed persons too) in my experience.
Thats my experience. I dont know what the problem was in this case. Most people thinking half rationally would go along with whatever procedure the jail had in place.
I dont know why I ever tried to explain anything to you anyway.
You are about as closed minded a person as I have ever come across.
[quote]pat wrote:
JD430 wrote:
streamline wrote:
Now that is fuck up. Talk about being in a lose, lose situation. Law suit or no law suit how do you respect a cop after going through that, or for that matter seeing that. Makes that rage inside come to a boil. And yah it could happen to you!
Dont be absurd.
The only thing I saw up front that was probably a violation of policy was there being male officers present. When you get booked into jail, you get strip searched. If you resist or make a scene, what are the guards going to do? Just let you go? I know of one case where someone had a .38 calibre revolver up their ass when being booked into jail. The reality in jails is that there are probably not enough female officers to restrain her, or they are incapable of doing so which may explain why the males are there.
Nobody sees a problem with her behavior inside the jail? I have put plenty of people in jail, and I have only seen people drunk or high on drugs act like that. The news reported this story very cleverly. If you know anything about handling the type of scene that resulted in her arrest, you would know something is missing from the story. Her lawyer saying that this is “the government enforcing their will on a private citizen” is insane. That is what law ENFORCEMENT does.
The family pictures of her and her husband are also ridiculous propaganda. Many of the out of control maniacs I have dealt with had similar pictures on their nightstand.
I dont know what happened here. Details are missing. It could be that every law enforcement officer involved, from initial arrest to booking in the jail were completely out of control. However, to make that illogical jump from that hack news story betrays an agenda.
Uh, most people do not get strip searched in jail dude. Much less forcibly. Did you miss the part where she was the one who called for help. [/quote]
Last time.
Just because you call the police does not mean you are not the source of the original problem or you behavior cant create an entirely new problem in the first place.
The news piece, if you can call it that, didnt actually say what she was arrested for. If someone has those specific details, please forward.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
All I said was that her reaction was indicative of drunks or drug use(I should add emotionally disturbed persons too) in my experience.
Thats my experience. I dont know what the problem was in this case. Most people thinking half rationally would go along with whatever procedure the jail had in place.
I dont know why I ever tried to explain anything to you anyway.
You are about as closed minded a person as I have ever come across.
[/quote]
She’d been the victim of a crime, called 911, and was suddenly being brought to the station and strip searched in front of male officers.
Yeah… that’s no reason to be in emotional distress at all…
I’m sorry, but if I was the one to have called the police, I don’t even think I would have gotten into the cop car without a damn good explanation as to why they thought I was a perpetrator.
I’ll wait till seeing the cops side of the story to pass judgment, but the video is pretty clear evidence.
There was no reason to strip search her, or at least none I can think or and none they provided.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
JD430 wrote:
I dont know what happened here.
Yet you sure seem to have made up your mind alread
If you read his post, it doesn’t look like he has made up his mind at all. He has simply pointed out there are two sides to the story, and gave reasons as to why the police may have acted as they did.
Thank you.
I did miss the professor’s anti-police rants, however.
[/quote]
I would like you to go find some posts of mine that were “anti-police”.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
JD430 wrote:
I dont know what happened here.
Yet you sure seem to have made up your mind already.
If you read his post, it doesn’t look like he has made up his mind at all. He has simply pointed out there are two sides to the story, and gave reasons as to why the police may have acted as they did.
Gee, tedro, I did manage to read his post and his information about her actions (as if she would have acted differently) implied that only drug addicts acted that way.
I haven’t made any judgments at all on this woman because I don’t know the full details.
All I said was that her reaction was indicative of drunks or drug use(I should add emotionally disturbed persons too) in my experience.
Thats my experience. I dont know what the problem was in this case. Most people thinking half rationally would go along with whatever procedure the jail had in place.
I dont know why I ever tried to explain anything to you anyway.
You are about as closed minded a person as I have ever come across.
[/quote]
You consider yourself “open minded”? I don’t even remember any conversations with you in the past so I guess “memorable” is not a quality we can paint you with.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
She’d been the victim of a crime, called 911, and was suddenly being brought to the station and strip searched in front of male officers.
Yeah… that’s no reason to be in emotional distress at all…
I’m sorry, but if I was the one to have called the police, I don’t even think I would have gotten into the cop car without a damn good explanation as to why they thought I was a perpetrator.
I’ll wait till seeing the cops side of the story to pass judgment, but the video is pretty clear evidence.
There was no reason to strip search her, or at least none I can think or and none they provided.[/quote]
Obviously there was no reason provided. That is the problem with this video. It is only showing one side of the story, without even mentioning the possibility that the police officers may have been acting appropriately, given the situation. It is sad that you consider the video “pretty clear evidence” that the cops were wrong. The media surely wouldn’t misrepresent law enforcement for a story, would they?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I’ll wait till seeing the cops side of the story to pass judgment, but the video is pretty clear evidence.
[/quote]
The video is clear evidence in favor of the police. They taped the video. This was not Rodney King all over again. The police taped the video to protect themselves from exactly this kind of lawsuit and allegation.
The report I heard on the radio last night stated that two people at the scene separately claimed to be the victims, and that this woman escalated a conflict with the police. It further stated that when they asked if she had contemplated self-harm, she said “yes.” Again, according to the report, stripping the prisoner is part of their standard protocol when a prisoner may be a threat to him or herself.
As far as the male officers, they say that she was being uncooperative and had to be restrained. I suppose this is a bad time to bring up the fact that we hire police officers who are physically incapable of doing the job, all in the name of “equality.” Yeah, probably a bad time.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
This was not Rodney King all over again. [/quote]
Well, according to at least two posters in this thread, that is exactly what it is…an alert that white women are now being racially profiled.
Whatever the motivation of the Police, it seems a pretty barbaric way to treat another human being.
I consider myself “pro-law and order”, but that does not entail the police abusing their power, and treating their fellow citizens as sub-humans.
I thought the whole point of having same-sex searches was to give the person being searched some dignity.
In any case I’m sure the woman in question is most thankful that the police were trying to save her from herself.
[quote]tedro wrote:
The media surely wouldn’t misrepresent law enforcement for a story, would they?
[/quote]
The cops refused to talk do to the pending law suit.
[quote] Joe wrote:
Whatever the motivation of the Police, it seems a pretty barbaric way to treat another human being.
[/quote]
Barbaric? You mean to tell me looking out for the well-being of the police officers and any other person that may be in contact with the “victim” is barbaric? There is a reason that law enforcement follows certain protocols, and most of them are actually pretty fair and purposeful.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
tedro wrote:
The media surely wouldn’t misrepresent law enforcement for a story, would they?
The cops refused to talk do to the pending law suit.[/quote]
And your point is?
Good for the cops. Let the court of law figure out the case, not the media and public opinion.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
JD430 wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
JD430 wrote:
I dont know what happened here.
Yet you sure seem to have made up your mind alread
If you read his post, it doesn’t look like he has made up his mind at all. He has simply pointed out there are two sides to the story, and gave reasons as to why the police may have acted as they did.
Thank you.
I did miss the professor’s anti-police rants, however.
I would like you to go find some posts of mine that were “anti-police”.[/quote]
Where? In every damn police thread you ever got involved in.
Perhaps your bias is so total and complete you can’t even recognize it as such.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
nephorm wrote:
This was not Rodney King all over again.
Well, according to at least two posters in this thread, that is exactly what it is…an alert that white women are now being racially profiled. [/quote]
Well it is. And if she doesn’t get justice, watch out! There’ll be looting on Wall Street and in every Home-Depot across the nation!
I always thought that when you are arrested you are booked and then strip searched. Not strip searched then charged and then booked. I was also under the assumption that once you were strip search you were given coveralls to wear not toilet paper. Or marched to booking with only a flax jacket.
Now I don’t know the whole story, but if you don’t charge me first or state a reason for detaining me I’m not getting in a cop car. It’s a lose, lose situation but you have to stand up for your rights or the cops will have their way and you’ll be living in a police state.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
JD430 wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
JD430 wrote:
I dont know what happened here.
Yet you sure seem to have made up your mind alread
If you read his post, it doesn’t look like he has made up his mind at all. He has simply pointed out there are two sides to the story, and gave reasons as to why the police may have acted as they did.
Thank you.
I did miss the professor’s anti-police rants, however.
I would like you to go find some posts of mine that were “anti-police”.
Where? In every damn police thread you ever got involved in.
Perhaps your bias is so total and complete you can’t even recognize it as such.[/quote]
No, I asked you to find those posts because I am well aware of what I write on here. The last thread on police action I was involved in was about an old woman who was killed in her own apartment when police mistook her home for a drug dealer’s house. That case turned out to be in favor of the old woman. How is that “anti-police” because I found that action wrong?
I asked you that question because I know that the only way you can label me with being “anti-police” is to completely mis-interpret or deliberately lie about what the discussion was about.
Why lie?
Go find those posts. I promise I’ll wait.
Until then, don’t put words in my mouth that were never spoken.
I don’t know about Ohio jail procedures,laws,etc…but from my own experiences, you can’t strip search just because its an arrest.
A strip search is only acceptable if there is REASONABLE CAUSE for the search…i.e…is the strip search relevant to the arrest?..such as:
1)drug related crime
2)violent crime
3)previous arrests related to those offenses…or PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR(had they dealt her previously?)
4)reason beyond a doubt justifying the search(hiding evidence,contraband,etc.)
Other than that…A STRIP SEARCH WILL NEVER BE JUSTIFIED. And the opposite sex cannot conduct the search or be in the same room. I’m sure thats universal. If their laws and procedures regarding strip searches are anything like Texas…they violated them unless of course this was due to a “suicide watch.”
If she was PROPERLY evaluated and was being placed on “suicide watch” then the strip search would be justified…but only under the SAME PROCEDURES(done by same sex,etc.) and given at least a paper gown,suicide vest.
From my experiences,people will answer “yes” to questions about suicide,etc. and want to change their minds when they realize they have to strip and be placed in a single cell with nothing but a paper gown or suicide vest. Jail and medical staff will take your answers seriously for obvious reasons. If she refused to cooperate after supplying answers that warranted a suicide watch…they are justified in forcibly removing her clothes. Their methods in doing so is another question though.
Even with that,this whole arrest was fubard to begin with. Possibly poor judgement on the arresting officer,jail staff…and even maybe the lady that was arrested. We shall see.