The Degradation of Government Agencies

[Makalakumu]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

Not in THIS thread it isnt.

 

[redfang]

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]

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:

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?

Or HERE

 

[Archangel M]

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]

We get it. You blame Bush for EVERYTHING.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.