Police abuse

1…6263656768…308

Comments

  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    rgambs said:

    I'm not suggesting the cops should just let the public do as they please, but I am suggesting we hold the people paid to uphold the law to a higher standard than a common citizen.
    By constantly laying the responsibility at the feet of the victim you are absolving the perpetrator for their responsibility to a certain degree.
    It's always one sentence about the cop could have used better judgement and then paragraphs about how the civilian should have used better judgement.

    I'm only being pragmatic.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    rgambs said:

    Don't you see how always bringing it back to the personal responsibility of the civillian is absolving the public servants of their role in lacking personal responsibility??

    Are you suggesting the non-compliance has nothing to do with the tension and conflict we have witnessed?
    Thirty, people are idiots but cops are professionals so they should be able to deal with them. This kid shouldn't be dead. Can relate to 17 year olds being idealistic. Shouldn't have cost him his life. Some cops have chips on their shoulders and I get why. We just need to do better as a society.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    rgambs said:

    I'm not suggesting the cops should just let the public do as they please, but I am suggesting we hold the people paid to uphold the law to a higher standard than a common citizen.
    By constantly laying the responsibility at the feet of the victim you are absolving the perpetrator for their responsibility to a certain degree.
    It's always one sentence about the cop could have used better judgement and then paragraphs about how the civilian should have used better judgement.

    I'm only being pragmatic.
    I understand that, but even pragmatism has it's limits.
    What would you do if an officer wanted to "cavity search" you for marijuana on a public street?
    Would you comply?
    If you resist and they shoot you is it not justified legally and by the argument for compliance presented here?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    rgambs said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    rgambs said:

    Don't you see how always bringing it back to the personal responsibility of the civillian is absolving the public servants of their role in lacking personal responsibility??

    Are you suggesting the non-compliance has nothing to do with the tension and conflict we have witnessed?
    No.
    Are you suggesting it is the role of officers to escalate to violence when confronted with non-compliance?
    I'm glad you said 'no' in response to my question because that means we agree on at least one thing.

    As for your question, if an officer is left with no other option... 'force' is an option. Tucking the tail and retreating back to the car is not an option in my mind. Nor is phoning in for the 'detained subject whisperer' to gently convince the person to hand over a license and registration.

    Back to you now: in a scenario where non-compliance is practiced... what should police protocol be?

    * Deadly force only when truly threatened. I don't believe the cop in this most recent situation was truly threatened and I do think this is a case of abuse/murder. By pointing out the belligerence of the kid... I am not absolving the officer of anything up to the point where he used the taser. It was at that point the officer went too far in my mind.
    In the case of refusing to turn over license and registration I think the officer should persist, it has to be determined that the person isn't a dangerous fugitive or criminal.
    It isn't always a reasonable request that is refused though.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    callen said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    rgambs said:

    Don't you see how always bringing it back to the personal responsibility of the civillian is absolving the public servants of their role in lacking personal responsibility??

    Are you suggesting the non-compliance has nothing to do with the tension and conflict we have witnessed?
    Thirty, people are idiots but cops are professionals so they should be able to deal with them. This kid shouldn't be dead. Can relate to 17 year olds being idealistic. Shouldn't have cost him his life. Some cops have chips on their shoulders and I get why. We just need to do better as a society.
    I hear what you are saying, but remember this: cops are people too. As such, we have some idiots serving as cops. Many, if not most, act very professionally; however, as we have witnessed, the idiots amongst them rear their heads.

    It is with that in mind that a person is best served not forcing the hand of a potential idiot.

    Of course we can expect more from a policing service as we can with any public service; but as all public services have demonstrated, there are poor performers that will always be there.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    rgambs said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    rgambs said:

    I'm not suggesting the cops should just let the public do as they please, but I am suggesting we hold the people paid to uphold the law to a higher standard than a common citizen.
    By constantly laying the responsibility at the feet of the victim you are absolving the perpetrator for their responsibility to a certain degree.
    It's always one sentence about the cop could have used better judgement and then paragraphs about how the civilian should have used better judgement.

    I'm only being pragmatic.
    I understand that, but even pragmatism has it's limits.
    What would you do if an officer wanted to "cavity search" you for marijuana on a public street?
    Would you comply?
    If you resist and they shoot you is it not justified legally and by the argument for compliance presented here?
    Yikes. Tough one. I'd do my best to squirm out of that one, but what I wouldn't do is take a few bullets out of principle.

    In the event I was searched... I'd seek recourse afterwards.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    rgambs said:

    I'm not suggesting the cops should just let the public do as they please, but I am suggesting we hold the people paid to uphold the law to a higher standard than a common citizen.
    By constantly laying the responsibility at the feet of the victim you are absolving the perpetrator for their responsibility to a certain degree.
    It's always one sentence about the cop could have used better judgement and then paragraphs about how the civilian should have used better judgement.

    I'm only being pragmatic.
    I understand that, but even pragmatism has it's limits.
    What would you do if an officer wanted to "cavity search" you for marijuana on a public street?
    Would you comply?
    If you resist and they shoot you is it not justified legally and by the argument for compliance presented here?
    Yikes. Tough one. I'd do my best to squirm out of that one, but what I wouldn't do is take a few bullets out of principle.

    In the event I was searched... I'd seek recourse afterwards.

    I don't know what I would do either. I would insist on my rights calmly, but if that failed I don't know.
    I don't think anyone is usually expecting an officer to go straight to bullets when they put up light resistance, and not having someone force their fingers into you is a pretty strong principle. Might be worth standing for lol
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Last-12-Exit
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    rgambs said:

    Last-12-Exit said:

    rgambs said:

    Last-12-Exit said:

    Drowned Out said:

    http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/woman-publicly-sodomized-gas-station-parking-lot-cops-because-they-smelled-weed?sc=fb

    I need more details. She was probably resisting, or giving attitude, or something.

    I think I might start posting every police abuse case I see in my fb feed. there are SO many not being covered in this thread.

    When did cavity searches become illegal?
    Don't you think a better question is when did cavity searches become legal?

    Are you defending the cops penetrating a woman in public view at a stop for a minor traffic violation, over the suspicion of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana?
    I'm asking a simple question. You're reading way to much into that.
    I'm asking a question as well, I may be reading too deeply, but there are many many things you could have said, and you chose to say one very vague pro-cop thing which raised a ton of questions.
    What is pro cop about asking if the search the cop did was legal or not? If it is legal, what are we talking about? If it is not legal, then they should be disciplined accordingly.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Last-12-Exit said:

    rgambs said:

    Last-12-Exit said:

    rgambs said:

    Last-12-Exit said:

    Drowned Out said:

    http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/woman-publicly-sodomized-gas-station-parking-lot-cops-because-they-smelled-weed?sc=fb

    I need more details. She was probably resisting, or giving attitude, or something.

    I think I might start posting every police abuse case I see in my fb feed. there are SO many not being covered in this thread.

    When did cavity searches become illegal?
    Don't you think a better question is when did cavity searches become legal?

    Are you defending the cops penetrating a woman in public view at a stop for a minor traffic violation, over the suspicion of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana?
    I'm asking a simple question. You're reading way to much into that.
    I'm asking a question as well, I may be reading too deeply, but there are many many things you could have said, and you chose to say one very vague pro-cop thing which raised a ton of questions.
    What is pro cop about asking if the search the cop did was legal or not? If it is legal, what are we talking about? If it is not legal, then they should be disciplined accordingly.
    What are we talking about? Seriously?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    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?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Last-12-Exit
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    rgambs said:

    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.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Last-12-Exit said:

    rgambs said:

    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.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    edited August 2015
    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 rape?

    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.
    Post edited by rgambs on
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/11/when-can-police-conduct-a-body-cavity-search.html

    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/

    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Last-12-Exit
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    rgambs said:

    Last-12-Exit said:

    rgambs said:

    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?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Last-12-Exit said:

    rgambs said:

    Last-12-Exit said:

    rgambs said:

    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.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    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?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • g under p
    g under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,237
    rgambs said:

    http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/11/when-can-police-conduct-a-body-cavity-search.html

    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/

    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)


  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    Drowned Out said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    Drowned Out said:

    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 :lol:
    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.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Last-12-Exit
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661


    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.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories