The Degradation of Government Agencies

[Bodhisattva]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.