If it was your daughter/wife/mother would you wonder what we were talking about? Yeah right, and you wonder why I see that as a pro-cop question? How is it not?
There's a lot of shit out there that I wouldn't want my daughter involved in. That's also irrelevant to the conversation. Does anyone actually know if it's legal to do cavity searches? I was under the understanding that it was legal.
If it was your daughter/wife/mother would you wonder what we were talking about? Yeah right, and you wonder why I see that as a pro-cop question? How is it not?
There's a lot of shit out there that I wouldn't want my daughter involved in. That's also irrelevant to the conversation. Does anyone actually know if it's legal to do cavity searches? I was under the understanding that it was legal.
It's not irrelevant, this woman is a daughter/sister/wife/mother to people who matter no less than you. Cavity searches may be legal under certain circumstances but you would have to be an idiot to think those laws were created to be used in this way. You don't seem to care at all whether a cop uses the law in a justified way or uses it as a technicality to deliver oppression.
If it was your daughter/wife/mother would you wonder what we were talking about? Yeah right, and you wonder why I see that as a pro-cop question? How is it not?
There's a lot of shit out there that I wouldn't want my daughter involved in. That's also irrelevant to the conversation. Does anyone actually know if it's legal to do cavity searches? I was under the understanding that it was legal.
It's not irrelevant, this woman is a daughter/sister/wife/mother to people who matter no less than you. Cavity searches may be legal under certain circumstances but you would have to be an idiot to think those laws were created to be used in this way. You don't seem to care at all whether a cop uses the law in a justified way or uses it as a technicality to deliver oppression.
It does not matter if I would want my daughter to go through with this. My opinion, along with yours, is irrelevant. What is relevant, is if it is legal to do such an act. If it is not, then yes, the cops should be charged with some sort of crime. If what they did was legal, then as I said, what are we discussing?
If it was your daughter/wife/mother would you wonder what we were talking about? Yeah right, and you wonder why I see that as a pro-cop question? How is it not?
There's a lot of shit out there that I wouldn't want my daughter involved in. That's also irrelevant to the conversation. Does anyone actually know if it's legal to do cavity searches? I was under the understanding that it was legal.
It's not irrelevant, this woman is a daughter/sister/wife/mother to people who matter no less than you. Cavity searches may be legal under certain circumstances but you would have to be an idiot to think those laws were created to be used in this way. You don't seem to care at all whether a cop uses the law in a justified way or uses it as a technicality to deliver oppression.
It does not matter if I would want my daughter to go through with this. My opinion, along with yours, is irrelevant. What is relevant, is if it is legal to do such an act. If it is not, then yes, the cops should be charged with some sort of crime. If what they did was legal, then as I said, what are we discussing?
The answer to the question is that, no, it wasn't legal.
We are discussing police abusing the rights of Americans, and this is obviously such a case. You seem to think of legality in black and white terms, but it is far from absolute. If you are unwilling to discuss the justice of laws then you are complicit in abuse using unjust laws.
Do you think this woman was violated in an unjust way? Do you think suspicion of possesion of a small amount of marijuana justifies a roadside cavity search without consent?
Of the three circumstances where a legal body cavity search can be done NONE of them met the situation of the body cavity search above. A warrant, border body search or incarceration body search, besides the woman did not give consent to do so. What I don't understand was no weed was found in her car but she was arrested for resisting arrest (probably due to the internal invasion) and for .02 amount of weed found on her. Where that weed come from?
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
The reason for the search is in the headline. Again, how would you change the bias? That would involve justifying the police actions in some way, would it not?
Is this woman a drug dealer? Had there been a surveillance team watching her? These are types of things that might explain why they felt compelled to search her bum for dope. The official police rationale wasn't reported and for the complete story... it would be nice to know their side of things as opposed to what your submission was presenting.
I don't think their side of things would change much. At face value, this is a shocking event and very distasteful; however, the story you linked was exceptionally biased and never gave the complete picture where one might come to these conclusions by themselves- it was shoving it down the reader's throat. Hence... the biased comment.
From the outset I've expressed my chagrin. You're trying to make an argument out of nothing because if you were arguing that piece from that website (which I'm not completely familiar with) wasn't biased... well... that would be foolish. Even RG- the most ardent cop critic- stated such.
Unsurprisingly, I see it as you trying to make an argument out of nothing Yes, you've admitted the search shouldn't have been done in public, and that if for pot, it was a joke to do the search in the first place...also the fact that more than one officer could have stopped it if they had utilized a little common sense and empathy. I even pointed out that trying to sway the bias would mean some sort of justification. And you did just that. So with your admissions, then justifications.....who is the one making an argument out of nothing? Lets follow thru with your two examples.... - Turns out the woman has scales, a thousand dollars cash, and a box of zip lock baggies in her car. She's a dealer!.... - Woman has been under surveillance for months for suspected (what?) drug dealing (?). They finally decide to swoop in while she's at a gas station, and..... the next part of the story is....... -we bent her over the car in the gas station parking lot and did a full cavity search.
Is there anything beyond face value here? There is no mention of weapons as a reason for the search - only the smell of pot. Maybe the article left facts like that out - that would be a problem...but highly unlikely. It's alternet. Surprised to see people questioning it as some kind of fringe site...it's one of the most popular indy sites on the web and has been around for nearly 20 years. I doubt it has the same editorial fact checking standards of those bastions of unbiased info Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc....but it's not exactly a random blog or anti-cop site. My speculation? She was likely giving them attitude, and this was done as a form of punishment.
And that's where I always have a problem with this discussion....people justify ridiculous amounts of force for non-compliance - disobedience is enough to get you shot in many people's eyes. And every time excessive force is used, the line is 'I thought my life was in danger'.....way too many people give cops the benefit of doubt when that line gets trotted out. Perfect example: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/17-year-boy-shot-killed-cops-flashing-headlights-flexing-rights/
Slam the source all you want....it was a kid who felt there was no justification in being pulled over. He definitely played a part in the escalation. But he was unarmed, and presented no real danger to the cop, nor the public he is supposed to be keeping safe. God, I could have been shot ten times as a youth if that situation was enough to justify lethal force. What was the worst that could have happened in this situation? The cop backs down and lets him go? No....some cops will never allow that to happen because it's an afront to their ego when someone will not comply. But all they have to say is they thought their life was in danger.
A little while back, in one of those crime and punishment threads, you ambushed me with a snide and somewhat arrogant comment about a tactic you thought I was employing. You claimed that I (every 2 or 3 weeks or so with each new case) made a habit of suggesting people who argued for lesser sentences were, in essence, lending a show of support to the criminal and, by implication, being 'soft' on crime.
In this instance, whether knowingly or not, you use a similar extension tactic for which you admonished me for and thought so little of. You state that by making reference to people's unwise behaviours and non-compliance when confronted by a police officer that lead to heightened confrontations, people justify ridiculous amounts of force for non-compliance - disobedience is enough to get you shot in many people's eyes. In other words, you are implying that some people think a person had best shut up and listen to cops detaining them or, they deserve to get shot.
Suggesting people should navigate their way through a situation with police without becoming belligerent or confrontational is not tantamount to offering the police a license to kill anytime they get frustrated. This is what you tried to pass off here... and it's much more of a stretch than what you mocked me for.
I'm not sure why you think there is a gray area when it comes to law. Just because you do not like a law, doesn't mean it's a gray area. It also doesn't mean the law can't be changed if needed. In this specific case, the cops broke the law. They should be fired. It's quite alright to know what the law actually says before calling for people to be fired. Just as a lot of you wanted for Sandra blands arresting officer.
I'm not sure why you think there is a gray area when it comes to law. Just because you do not like a law, doesn't mean it's a gray area. It also doesn't mean the law can't be changed if needed. In this specific case, the cops broke the law. They should be fired. It's quite alright to know what the law actually says before calling for people to be fired. Just as a lot of you wanted for Sandra blands arresting officer.
It is a gray area though, the courts have ruled back and forth on the issue (and many others) based off specific circumstances and changing interpretations of the Constitution, which protects against undue search and seizure. The department is defending the search as not just legal, but procedurally correct, does that not also make it grey? When the servants of the law are allowed to determine the meaning of the law, grey area is all there is. Furthermore, the legality won't even be questioned unless the citizen pays money to hire a lawyer to file suit. Sounds like grey area to me, particularly given that in the moment when an officer makes an unlawful request, if you refuse resisting arrest is illegal regardless of the unlawful nature of the request. Illegal (and insanely immoral) request or not, this woman's only lawful choice in the moment is to comply with her own rape and seek redress later...what is black and white about that?
Thirty - Honestly, I don't remember what it was that made me say that, but I don't deny it. I've targeted you in the past for sure. Seems you stewed on that and my last comment for a bit?
Yes, there was some hyperbole in what I 'tried to pass off', for sure. I guess it read like a shot at you (though I really did mean for it to apply to more people than just you). I don't think you think that belligerence is an excuse for murder, so my apologies for inferring that. Still, you clearly make a victim-blaming argument by essentially saying 'if he had just complied, he'd still be here'. And I see that approach all the time here and everywhere, not just from you. Do you see how it leads down the rabbit hole to justification of lethal force? I know I know...slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy and a bad debate tactic. I take blame for that.
Thirty - Honestly, I don't remember what it was that made me say that, but I don't deny it. I've targeted you in the past for sure. Seems you stewed on that and my last comment for a bit?
Yes, there was some hyperbole in what I 'tried to pass off', for sure. I guess it read like a shot at you (though I really did mean for it to apply to more people than just you). I don't think you think that belligerence is an excuse for murder, so my apologies for inferring that. Still, you clearly make a victim-blaming argument by essentially saying 'if he had just complied, he'd still be here'. And I see that approach all the time here and everywhere, not just from you. Do you see how it leads down the rabbit hole to justification of lethal force? I know I know...slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy and a bad debate tactic. I take blame for that.
Hey... I wasn't necessarily trying to bust your balls as much as I was pointing out what I did in the event you hadn't stopped to think about it. And, truthfully, I wasn't a big fan of those shots you took at me (I expressed as much at the time).
I don't think the expression is very fair, but there is truth to the victim-blaming argument (as you have framed it). When people like me say (as you said in this response) 'if he had just complied, he'd still be here'... they are generally correct. I've already expressed it, but regardless of circumstances, I would have my son and all others for that matter be in full compliance and respectful when encountering police in any situation. No good can come out of becoming confrontational regardless of where one feels they might have a legitimate case for themselves. I don't leave things to fate when I can exercise an element of control. In these cases, the element of control I can exercise is self control. I don't want anyone I love to tempt someone to violence if they can be tempted. Of course I think police should be awesome, but the reality is they are human and humans are not always as ideal as we'd like them to be.
This mentality by no means absolves any offending officer for excessive or deadly force. I feel strongly that in some of these cases this community has discussed, the officer in question should face serious charges.
Side note: As you expressed, I have noted a little enthusiasm on your part for chasing me a bit on these boards. I haven't taken things very personal, but in the event I have managed to irritate beyond what is reasonable... please let me know if there is something about my approach that could be improved for better relations in the future.
Damnit.Would you two Canadians please carry on as usual.This civil crap is boring.Some of us don't just come on here for the stimulating conversation, I want to be entertained! Lol
Damnit.Would you two Canadians please carry on as usual.This civil crap is boring.Some of us don't just come on here for the stimulating conversation, I want to be entertained! Lol
30, you're a tough person to debate...you're smart, express yourself eloquently, have a good memory, and are just as bull-headed as I am on certain topics. Our beliefs seem just different enough to look for reasons to disagree despite us not being toooo far apart on a lot of things; we probably both do that a little. I'm sure I come across as a dick (and ya, arrogant) at times....and I fully admit that there are times I'm not exactly trying to avoid being one. I'm sure people in my private life would tell you the same....and hopefully laugh about it, cause they know my ball-busting is usually not intended to be venomous and adversarial, even if it's both pointed and blunt. (Does that make sense? haha) That approach doesn't translate well to text, though....intentionally being a dick is just intentionally being a dick without body language and familiarity. That's on me. I think we've been thru this before by PM.... In the end, I respect your opinions.
Can't say I disagree with what you've said above...but I think sometimes we all get backed into our respective corners, and our commonalities get lost in the noise. We have both agreed on what went wrong in both of my examples, yet here we are arguing the finer points...semantics, bascially.....still not sure if we agree on what the end results should be (or should have been since the killer cop already walked), but I could do better at working from common ground instead of hammering the wedge.
Damnit.Would you two Canadians please carry on as usual.This civil crap is boring.Some of us don't just come on here for the stimulating conversation, I want to be entertained! Lol
Too funny...I was just thinking as I posted....'this is way too fackin canadian, I'm making myself sick here' Sorry.
30, you're a tough person to debate...you're smart, express yourself eloquently, have a good memory, and are just as bull-headed as I am on certain topics. Our beliefs seem just different enough to look for reasons to disagree despite us not being toooo far apart on a lot of things; we probably both do that a little. I'm sure I come across as a dick (and ya, arrogant) at times....and I fully admit that there are times I'm not exactly trying to avoid being one. I'm sure people in my private life would tell you the same....and hopefully laugh about it, cause they know my ball-busting is usually not intended to be venomous and adversarial, even if it's both pointed and blunt. (Does that make sense? haha) That approach doesn't translate well to text, though....intentionally being a dick is just intentionally being a dick without body language and familiarity. That's on me. I think we've been thru this before by PM.... In the end, I respect your opinions.
Can't say I disagree with what you've said above...but I think sometimes we all get backed into our respective corners, and our commonalities get lost in the noise. We have both agreed on what went wrong in both of my examples, yet here we are arguing the finer points...semantics, bascially.....still not sure if we agree on what the end results should be (or should have been since the killer cop already walked), but I could do better at working from common ground instead of hammering the wedge.
I feel like I'm living on these boards- my response times lately are medal worthy.
30, you're a tough person to debate...you're smart, express yourself eloquently, have a good memory, and are just as bull-headed as I am on certain topics. Our beliefs seem just different enough to look for reasons to disagree despite us not being toooo far apart on a lot of things; we probably both do that a little. I'm sure I come across as a dick (and ya, arrogant) at times....and I fully admit that there are times I'm not exactly trying to avoid being one. I'm sure people in my private life would tell you the same....and hopefully laugh about it, cause they know my ball-busting is usually not intended to be venomous and adversarial, even if it's both pointed and blunt. (Does that make sense? haha) That approach doesn't translate well to text, though....intentionally being a dick is just intentionally being a dick without body language and familiarity. That's on me. I think we've been thru this before by PM.... In the end, I respect your opinions.
Can't say I disagree with what you've said above...but I think sometimes we all get backed into our respective corners, and our commonalities get lost in the noise. We have both agreed on what went wrong in both of my examples, yet here we are arguing the finer points...semantics, bascially.....still not sure if we agree on what the end results should be (or should have been since the killer cop already walked), but I could do better at working from common ground instead of hammering the wedge.
I feel like I'm living on these boards- my response times lately are medal worthy.
PM sent (placing the thread back on topic!).
If the boards were a boat, you and I would be keeping it afloat lately lol
So it looks like the officer involved in the dealership shooting has been fired.
Part of the police chief's statement,
"This unilateral decision to enter the building and to continue the pursuit deeper into the building upon making contact with Mr. Taylor -- along with failing to communicate with fellow officers or develop an arrest plan -- created an environment of cascading consequences that produced an unrecoverable outcome"
Always amazed watching Alaska state troopers. Several times walked away from potentially lethal situation versus going in to get them as they would in every case in Texas. Yes I know they act different due to being on TV but the non escalating strategy works.
Always amazed watching Alaska state troopers. Several times walked away from potentially lethal situation versus going in to get them as they would in every case in Texas. Yes I know they act different due to being on TV but the non escalating strategy works.
Sometimes.But there are times where force is not only needed but necessary.
Comments
Cavity searches may be legal under certain circumstances but you would have to be an idiot to think those laws were created to be used in this way.
You don't seem to care at all whether a cop uses the law in a justified way or uses it as a technicality to deliver oppression.
Can you answer those questions without either contradicting yourself or looking like an insane cop apologist?
*Edit*
Yes, penetration by force without consent IS rape.
https://newyorklegaldefense.com/when-can-police-conduct-body-cavity-searches/
http://abc13.com/news/woman-accuses-officer-of-going-too-far-during-traffic-stop/905180/
We are discussing police abusing the rights of Americans, and this is obviously such a case. You seem to think of legality in black and white terms, but it is far from absolute.
If you are unwilling to discuss the justice of laws then you are complicit in abuse using unjust laws.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
In this instance, whether knowingly or not, you use a similar extension tactic for which you admonished me for and thought so little of. You state that by making reference to people's unwise behaviours and non-compliance when confronted by a police officer that lead to heightened confrontations, people justify ridiculous amounts of force for non-compliance - disobedience is enough to get you shot in many people's eyes. In other words, you are implying that some people think a person had best shut up and listen to cops detaining them or, they deserve to get shot.
Suggesting people should navigate their way through a situation with police without becoming belligerent or confrontational is not tantamount to offering the police a license to kill anytime they get frustrated. This is what you tried to pass off here... and it's much more of a stretch than what you mocked me for.
I'm not sure why you think there is a gray area when it comes to law. Just because you do not like a law, doesn't mean it's a gray area. It also doesn't mean the law can't be changed if needed. In this specific case, the cops broke the law. They should be fired. It's quite alright to know what the law actually says before calling for people to be fired. Just as a lot of you wanted for Sandra blands arresting officer.
The department is defending the search as not just legal, but procedurally correct, does that not also make it grey?
When the servants of the law are allowed to determine the meaning of the law, grey area is all there is.
Furthermore, the legality won't even be questioned unless the citizen pays money to hire a lawyer to file suit. Sounds like grey area to me, particularly given that in the moment when an officer makes an unlawful request, if you refuse resisting arrest is illegal regardless of the unlawful nature of the request.
Illegal (and insanely immoral) request or not, this woman's only lawful choice in the moment is to comply with her own rape and seek redress later...what is black and white about that?
Seems you stewed on that and my last comment for a bit?
Yes, there was some hyperbole in what I 'tried to pass off', for sure. I guess it read like a shot at you (though I really did mean for it to apply to more people than just you). I don't think you think that belligerence is an excuse for murder, so my apologies for inferring that. Still, you clearly make a victim-blaming argument by essentially saying 'if he had just complied, he'd still be here'. And I see that approach all the time here and everywhere, not just from you. Do you see how it leads down the rabbit hole to justification of lethal force? I know I know...slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy and a bad debate tactic. I take blame for that.
I don't think the expression is very fair, but there is truth to the victim-blaming argument (as you have framed it). When people like me say (as you said in this response) 'if he had just complied, he'd still be here'... they are generally correct. I've already expressed it, but regardless of circumstances, I would have my son and all others for that matter be in full compliance and respectful when encountering police in any situation. No good can come out of becoming confrontational regardless of where one feels they might have a legitimate case for themselves. I don't leave things to fate when I can exercise an element of control. In these cases, the element of control I can exercise is self control. I don't want anyone I love to tempt someone to violence if they can be tempted. Of course I think police should be awesome, but the reality is they are human and humans are not always as ideal as we'd like them to be.
This mentality by no means absolves any offending officer for excessive or deadly force. I feel strongly that in some of these cases this community has discussed, the officer in question should face serious charges.
Side note:
As you expressed, I have noted a little enthusiasm on your part for chasing me a bit on these boards. I haven't taken things very personal, but in the event I have managed to irritate beyond what is reasonable... please let me know if there is something about my approach that could be improved for better relations in the future.
In the end, I respect your opinions.
Can't say I disagree with what you've said above...but I think sometimes we all get backed into our respective corners, and our commonalities get lost in the noise. We have both agreed on what went wrong in both of my examples, yet here we are arguing the finer points...semantics, bascially.....still not sure if we agree on what the end results should be (or should have been since the killer cop already walked), but I could do better at working from common ground instead of hammering the wedge.
Sorry.
PM sent (placing the thread back on topic!).
Are you making reference to RG's 'board is a boat' comment?
And forget that. I'm spending the rest of the summer glued to the website so I can win the 'Fastest Response Time' sticker.
Stickers are made to be stuck on things.
Part of the police chief's statement,
"This unilateral decision to enter the building and to continue the pursuit deeper into the building upon making contact with Mr. Taylor -- along with failing to communicate with fellow officers or develop an arrest plan -- created an environment of cascading consequences that produced an unrecoverable outcome"