Post by: LAK on February 05, 2008, 04:38:47 AM
http://www.videodouble.com/video/the-results-of-the-absence-of-habeas-corpus-5892686/
When listening to and viewing the footage in this story, if you do not think it is that big a deal; put your wife, daughter or mother, in place of this lady and see if that makes any difference.
If you can't view video here's the story .........
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=82447
CANTON -- Hope Steffey's night began with a call to police for help. It ended with her face down, completely naked and sobbing on a jail cell floor.
Steffey says Stark County sheriff's deputies used excessive force and assaulted her during a strip search 15 months ago, according to a federal lawsuit.
Stark County Sheriff Timothy Swanson denies the allegation.
Steffey's attorney says her clothes, including her underwear and bra, were stripped from her body by at least seven male and female sheriff's deputies and jail workers. She lay face down in handcuffs at the time.
"Hope begged and pleaded with her ... assailants to stop," the lawsuit says. "There was no forcible penetration but Hope felt as if she was being raped."
The sheriff denies this was a strip search.
The sheriff's policy requires officers conducting any strip search to be of the same sex.
Her attorney, David Malik, said Steffey, 41, was never asked to voluntarily remove her clothes.
In an e-mail, Swanson said Steffey was asked to remove her clothes but refused. He said deputies took them off for her own safety.
Swanson declined to comment further, saying the details would come out in court.
Channel 3 News obtained exclusive video of Steffey's night in the Stark County jail cell. You can click the link at the bottom of the page to view it. A warning: it is difficult to watch.
Steffey declined to be interviewed for this story. But her husband, a high school educator, talked to Channel 3's Tom Meyer.
Greg Steffey said his wife is still traumatized. But the couple wants the story told to prevent it from happening to someone else.
"This could be your wife or anyone's wife," Greg Steffey said.
He said he still can't believe this happened to Hope, a 125-pound woman who, earlier that night, turned to police for help.
"You don't treat people like this," Greg Steffey said. "I don't think murderers are treated like this much less people charged with disorderly conduct."
Steffey's ordeal with the Stark County Sheriff's deputies began after her cousin called police for help.
In a 9-1-1 call, her cousin said Steffey had been assaulted by another cousin.
When a Stark County deputy arrived, he asked for Steffey's driver's license. She accidentally turned over her dead sister's license, which she said she keeps in her wallet as a memento, the lawsuit says.
The deputy refused to give the license back and told Steffey to "shut up about your dead sister," according to her attorney.
The sheriff denied that in a written response to the lawsuit.
Eventually, Steffey was arrested and taken to the Stark County Jail. She was later charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
After her clothes were removed, she was locked in a cell. To stay warm, she wrapped herself in toilet paper. She remained in the cell for six hours.
During that time, she was not allowed to use a phone or seek medical attention for injuries she suffered that night, including a cracked tooth, bulging disc and bruises, the lawsuit says.
The sheriff denies that.
----------------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Post by: The Rabbi on February 05, 2008, 05:20:57 AM
What is "papers please" about this??
Post by: Sindawe on February 05, 2008, 05:29:15 AM
It is crap such as that in the orginal post that leads some people to start looking at cops not as agents of peace and justice, but rather as targets of opportunity.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 05, 2008, 05:40:58 AM
1) Cops commit gross violations of civil rights on camera, exposing themselves to multi-million dollar lawsuit, because calm, cool, collected suburban mom accidentally hands officer wrong driver's license.
or
2) Police respond to domestic violence call, encounter out of control woman possibly on drugs who is totally uncooperative and possibly physically dangerous. Police follow guidelines. Woman's family sees opportunity to hit the lawsuit jackpot by airing carefully edited segments of film on local news, whom they have contacted and specifically asked to air story.
The answer seems like a no-brainer. Except if someone doesn't have a brain.
Post by: LAK on February 05, 2008, 05:41:36 AM
1) She had been smoking pot.
2) She dared to get mouthy with a public servant.
3) Let's even add another bit of horror; and say "she resisted arrest" and "wouldn't shut up" all the way to jail.
So;
She deserved to be forcebly stripped naked, manhandled by a couple of male skinheads in uniform - causing serious injury, deprived of medical attention for serious injury, legal advice, and clothing for six hours.
Tell me Mr Rabbi,
Is it only male public servants that can do this to your mouthy drug using daughter or wife? Or can any manly red-blooded american male do this?
Another no-brainer; it would be an attorney with no brain that entered an edited piece of film as the coup de grace of any high dollar lawsuit. The defending parties will have access to the original in the legal process known as discovery.
-----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Post by: vernal45 on February 05, 2008, 05:53:31 AM
Post by: LAK on February 05, 2008, 06:31:30 AM
Those uniformed skinheads ought to be jailed, as well as the female public servants who willingly took part.
In cases like this though there should be someone up the chain of command burning in an administrative fire. This kind of thing is a direct reflection of the leadership under which these people have been trained, supervized and work.
It is poor leadership that leads to poor training, supervision, and work.
It is negligent or complicit leadership that allows this kind of thing to become "the norm". Watching this video it is apparent in the demeanor of these public servants - male and female - that it is a kind of norm for them.
-----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Post by: HankB on February 05, 2008, 07:43:18 AM
We'll see if a story about an American woman being similarly abused gets similar traction in the news . . . and if there are similar calls for the perps to be brought to justice.
I'm not holding my breath . . .
Post by: The Rabbi on February 05, 2008, 08:02:26 AM
In this case, based on the video seen alone (anything added or deleted on this point would not make any difference) - I agree. A male involved in the forced stripping of clothing of a female, handling a stripped female, amounts to a sexual assault as far as I am concerned. And that does not even get into the physical injury etc.
Those uniformed skinheads ought to be jailed, as well as the female public servants who willingly took part.
In cases like this though there should be someone up the chain of command burning in an administrative fire. This kind of thing is a direct reflection of the leadership under which these people have been trained, supervized and work.
It is poor leadership that leads to poor training, supervision, and work.
It is negligent or complicit leadership that allows this kind of thing to become "the norm". Watching this video it is apparent in the demeanor of these public servants - male and female - that it is a kind of norm for them.
-----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Those uniformed skinheads ought to be jailed, as well as the female public servants who willingly took part.
In cases like this though there should be someone up the chain of command burning in an administrative fire. This kind of thing is a direct reflection of the leadership under which these people have been trained, supervized and work.
It is poor leadership that leads to poor training, supervision, and work.
It is negligent or complicit leadership that allows this kind of thing to become "the norm". Watching this video it is apparent in the demeanor of these public servants - male and female - that it is a kind of norm for them.
-----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
So the mainstream media is a reliable source of news for you, one that you will rely on to make judgements, regardless of anything else you might learn?
You might want to mosey on over to the officer.com forum and see what actual LEs have to say. The consensus is that it was probably appropriate under the circumstances. Personally the story was way too edited and raised way too many questions for me to make a judgement on it.
Post by: Finch on February 05, 2008, 08:10:45 AM
Quote
mosey on over to the officer.com forum and see what actual LEs have to say.
Wow, talk about an unbiased source.
Post by: roo_ster on February 05, 2008, 08:16:54 AM
You might want to mosey on over to the officer.com forum and see what actual LEs have to say. The consensus is that it was probably appropriate under the circumstances.
Now THAT is comedy gold!
Next up, "Lawyers claim problem is not enough, rather than too many lawyers eating out our substance at ambulancechasingwhoores.com"
Post by: Manedwolf on February 05, 2008, 08:24:05 AM
You might want to mosey on over to the officer.com forum and see what actual LEs have to say. The consensus is that it was probably appropriate under the circumstances.
Now THAT is comedy gold!
Next up, "Lawyers claim problem is not enough, rather than too many lawyers eating out our substance at ambulancechasingwhoores.com"
Yes, like I'm going to get the opinion of people who consider every firearms accident they have to be an AD, while every time it's a non-cop, it's an ND.
It'll be impartial there, I'm sure.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 05, 2008, 08:46:06 AM
Some people just believe that our government can and will never do anything wrong.
Wow, talk about an unbiased source.
Quote
mosey on over to the officer.com forum and see what actual LEs have to say.
Wow, talk about an unbiased source.
And some people believe that our government cannot and will not ever do anything right.
But if you consider people who are familiar with SOPs in law enforcement biased, I wonder if you think TV news reporters and lawyers launching million-dollar lawsuits are 100% reliable.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 05, 2008, 08:56:01 AM
To imply that this is evidence of some sort of American gestapo is just plain silly.
Post by: Finch on February 05, 2008, 09:18:26 AM
But if you consider people who are familiar with SOPs in law enforcement biased, I wonder if you think TV news reporters and lawyers launching million-dollar lawsuits are 100% reliable.
It was posted here some time ago, but it was a web forum for police to bitch about when them or their wives got pull over in some other jurisdiction. It was amazing to see that these police officers actually believed that they deserved some kind of special treatment just because they were fellow officers. So yeah, I do consider a forum full of cops...biased.
Post by: TF_FH on February 05, 2008, 09:42:37 AM
It was posted here some time ago, but it was a web forum for police to bitch about when them or their wives got pull over in some other jurisdiction. It was amazing to see that these police officers actually believed that they deserved some kind of special treatment just because they were fellow officers. So yeah, I do consider a forum full of cops...biased.
I remember that, Lawdog had an opinion about it on his blog. But I have to agree, a forum full of cops would be biased. Just as a forum full of gun owners would be biased. I guess we will just have to wait and see how the facts come out on this case.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 05, 2008, 12:07:21 PM
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=10804.0
Post by: WeedWhacker on February 05, 2008, 04:51:34 PM
Already been discussed. The woman got what she deserved...
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=10804.0
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=10804.0
You must be The Decider.
This scenario puts a whole new spin on the connotation of being a "public servant".
I find it enlightening that the most they could try to pin on the victim was a public disturbance charge - the "resisting arrest" charge is bogus by itself, and something as vague as "disturbing the peace", also suspect. Wonderful, that punishment.
Post by: LAK on February 05, 2008, 10:40:35 PM
Air Force Law Enforcement Specialist; four and a half years. Stateside and overseas, concurrent jurisdiction with local civil agencies on highways and housing areas with uncontrolled public access in both cases, and a month and a half at a confinement facility with minimum, medium and maximum custody prisoners.
Ohio Peace Officer's Certification.
Ten years since in the private sector working with local police on a daily basis.
I am thoroughly familiar with the (often varied) SOPs. I've done it as a profession.
As for mainstream media as a reliable source of news, if the subject matter was something else, it would be the other way around now wouldn't it?
It appears to me that the officers responding could have avoided this in the first place. It is very easy for any peace officer to take advantage of and foment the atmosphere for an arrest. I have seen it done many times; when what begins as a legal molehole is turned into an arrest when it could have easily been averted. When you analyse this kind of thing it boils down to a "because I can" mentality.
Skills like confrontation management; the defusion of volatile situations - people who are emotionally charged, etc is part of the curriculum of any good peace officer training.
Bottom line though is this; the stripping and subsequent handling of naked female subjects and subsequent handling by male officers is not something I would standby and watch. Under any circumstances. You have to have a major screw loose not to see this for what it is. Regardless of what this lady had been arrested for.
The video speaks for itself. Regardless of what took place beforehand.
How about if the lady had instead been a 12 year old girl who police had arrested at a school for some reason or another, and she had "resisted arrest" etc? Would it have been ok then for a couple of male public servants to take part stripping her naked and handling her afterwards?
-------------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Post by: Tecumseh on February 05, 2008, 11:07:26 PM
The video speaks for itself. Regardless of what took place beforehand.
How about if the lady had instead been a 12 year old girl who police had arrested at a school for some reason or another, and she had "resisted arrest" etc? Would it have been ok then for a couple of male public servants to take part stripping her naked and handling her afterwards?
I doubt that they would have searched her without her parents. If you want to play the what if game then lets play? What if this was for officer safety? What if she was a suspected suicide bomber that looked like a 12 year old girl? How about if the lady had instead been a 12 year old girl who police had arrested at a school for some reason or another, and she had "resisted arrest" etc? Would it have been ok then for a couple of male public servants to take part stripping her naked and handling her afterwards?
Come on. You trying to play on emotion and insinuate an angry response. I am sorry but the video is edited. From the story given and the video she got waht was coming to her.
This kind of stuff happens all the time in poor neighborhoods where the people cannot afford lawyers and get on tv, but nobody gives a damn then.
Post by: LAK on February 06, 2008, 12:11:00 AM
Quote
I doubt that they would have searched her without her parents.
"Without her parents"? Meaning what? Her parents "there"? Their non-optional "consent"?So if "the parents were there", it would be OK for male public servants to strip her naked and manhandle her??
Please explain this to me; I am intrigued.
I've been there, done that. Never, would males be involved in - even in view of - the strip search of a female subject in custody. Never - under any circumstances. Even in a holding area, cell, regardless, most males would make sure they were not in a position to view or discern normally what are condsidered private areas of the body. This has been standard etiquette in the western civilized cultured I was raised in. And regardless of what is viewed as "entertainment" in movies, print etc or took place elsewhere.
IF an arrest was made of a female subject, and no female was available for a simple search ("pat down"), prior to transporting, a male might perform a careful search avoiding two key areas of the body, and preferably with at least one witness present.
Quote
If you want to play the what if game then lets play? What if this was for officer safety?
This is not about the legitimacy of strip searches, and if you really have solid grounds to suspect someone - male or female - is a real danger you better have a medically qualified person present to conduct an invasive body search.In either case you have same sex persons conduct the search.
Quote
What if she was a suspected suicide bomber that looked like a 12 year old girl?
Of course; we must not forget the "war". The "war" means anything goes. You know; terrorism. Terror ... terrorists.Female personnel. There is no excuse for any average department or agency not to have them in sufficient number. I see no shortage of them on the streets these days; there is no reason not to make sure sufficient number of them are assigned to holding and confinement areas and facilities.
Quote
From the story given and the video she got waht was coming to her.
So a lady, or girl (the age factor is actually superfluous as far as I am concerned) can be subjected to this kind of thing on an "if" basis - a sort of punishment or revenge "If she did this or that"?Please expand on this - I am genuinely intrigued.
Quote
This kind of stuff happens all the time in poor neighborhoods where the people cannot afford lawyers and get on tv, but nobody gives a damn then.
So what? You think then it should somehow be a norm in civilized culture? The official norm where the state meets citizen? Yor wife - your daughter - if on the day "she has it coming to her"?Mr Rabbi did not want to answer that one - how about you?
----------------------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Post by: The Rabbi on February 06, 2008, 02:42:23 AM
In any case, the answer to your question is, if my daughter were out of control, possibly in a chemically induced state, and fought with LEs or otherwise refused to cooperate in a difficult and unclear situation, if she made references to suicide while in custody, if she were physically threatening to officers, then I would fully expect her to get exactly the same treatment this woman got.
Interestingly, you weren't there. You don't know what happened. You don't know the specific procedures of that department. You don't know what their staffing capabilities were. You don't anything other than what a heavily edited, obviously slanted news report showed. And yet you have resolutely made your mind up that the police were acting criminally.
Post by: Fly320s on February 06, 2008, 03:18:30 AM
Two big events shown in the video stand-out to me:
1. Near the beginning, the male officer on the left says to the woman, "It's okay, just relax." That appears to be an attempt to calm the woman, not control her. The cop could have said, "Shut up. The more you scream, the more this will hurt," or something to that effect. It seems to me that the male cop was trying to help the woman get through the stripping, as opposed to help punish the woman. It's a small difference, but I think it shows intent.
2. The video is taken via a hand-held camera, not a mounted surveillance camera. That tells me that this was a special case and that someone in a position of authority within the police ranks decided that a video record of the incident would be a good idea. Those videos are made today because of the real and perceived abuses of the past.
The first male officer looks directly at the camera near the beinning of the video. I interpreted his look as him verifying that the video camera is there, or that he was getting direction from someone off camera. In either case, he is aware of the camera, which says to me that the officer will perform his duties correctly because he knows he is being watched.
I would guess that the male officers are there to assist the female officers. The men are stronger and better able to control the woman.
I still don't know why she was stripped of her clothing, but it appears to me that the police intentionally video taped the incident so that there would be documentation when a complaint was filed.
I would like to see and hear all of the video and audio tapes that captured this incident.
Post by: HankB on February 06, 2008, 03:26:51 AM
Quote
2. The video is taken via a hand-held camera, not a mounted surveillance camera. That tells me that this was a special case and that someone in a position of authority within the police ranks decided that a video record of the incident would be a good idea. Those videos are made today because of the real and perceived abuses of the past.
Of course that's the case, and exactly the reason that guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq took naked pictures of the prisoners they were abusing. Having a trophy video - or something that could be used as a warning (Mess with US, and here's what you get!!) never entered their minds. With the attention the video has gotten, I wonder how the LEOs in the video feel about being Internet
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 06, 2008, 03:30:02 AM
Post by: Fly320s on February 06, 2008, 03:42:02 AM
Quote
2. The video is taken via a hand-held camera, not a mounted surveillance camera. That tells me that this was a special case and that someone in a position of authority within the police ranks decided that a video record of the incident would be a good idea. Those videos are made today because of the real and perceived abuses of the past.
Of course that's the case, and exactly the reason that guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq took naked pictures of the prisoners they were abusing. Having a trophy video - or something that could be used as a warning (Mess with US, and here's what you get!!) never entered their minds. With the attention the video has gotten, I wonder how the LEOs in the video feel about being Internet
HankB, it is all a matter of one's interpretation.
I think that 95% of people are good, honest people who would not willingly or wantonly demean a woman in that manner regardless of what their job is or what the boss says to do. I feel the same about cops.
The video shows to me that cops are doing a dirty job, but they are doing it correctly and lawfully.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 06, 2008, 04:01:07 AM
Quote
2. The video is taken via a hand-held camera, not a mounted surveillance camera. That tells me that this was a special case and that someone in a position of authority within the police ranks decided that a video record of the incident would be a good idea. Those videos are made today because of the real and perceived abuses of the past.
Of course that's the case, and exactly the reason that guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq took naked pictures of the prisoners they were abusing. Having a trophy video - or something that could be used as a warning (Mess with US, and here's what you get!!) never entered their minds. With the attention the video has gotten, I wonder how the LEOs in the video feel about being Internet
Hmm, Abu Ghraib: soldiers who were poorly trained, immune to law suits, working with terrorists who had previously either tried to kill their buddies or actually did.
Ohio: police officers enforcing the law, working with guidelines, dept SOPs, subject to dismissal, criminal action, and civil lawsuit.
Yes, the similarities immediately jump out at me.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 06, 2008, 04:02:25 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 06, 2008, 04:04:51 AM
Post by: HankB on February 06, 2008, 08:26:08 AM
Hmm, Abu Ghraib: soldiers who were poorly trained, immune to law suits, working with terrorists who had previously either tried to kill their buddies or actually did.
Ohio: police officers enforcing the law, working with guidelines, dept SOPs, subject to dismissal, criminal action, and civil lawsuit.
Yes, the similarities immediately jump out at me.
"Immune to lawsuits" . . . but not other disciplinary action. Seven soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to federal prison time (up to 10 years) and dishonorably discharged from service.Ohio: police officers enforcing the law, working with guidelines, dept SOPs, subject to dismissal, criminal action, and civil lawsuit.
Yes, the similarities immediately jump out at me.
They didn't get a "pass" . . . and they were mistreating TERRORISTS, not a woman in Ohio.
The video shows to me that cops are doing a dirty job, but they are doing it correctly and lawfully.
So another vote for it being more lawful for men to mistreat American women than it is to mistreat foreign terrorists, as long as it's done here and you have a badge to hide behind. Thank you for clearing that up.
Post by: Tuco on February 06, 2008, 09:27:05 AM
examples
Jackboot licking apologists
Welfare loving democrats
Crumb Grabbing neocon syncophants
There has to be a neutral term to describe this fawning position, but it escapes me.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 06, 2008, 09:37:33 AM
Can anyone please help me with a phrase or word that describes the spineless positions of those who cowtow to the powers that long to destroy them, in hopes that they are spared or tossed a few of the scraps...
examples
Jackboot licking apologists
Welfare loving democrats
Crumb Grabbing neocon syncophants
There has to be a neutral term to describe this fawning position, but it escapes me.
examples
Jackboot licking apologists
Welfare loving democrats
Crumb Grabbing neocon syncophants
There has to be a neutral term to describe this fawning position, but it escapes me.
Cold soaker.
Post by: Tuco on February 06, 2008, 11:56:45 AM
Can anyone please help me with a phrase or word that describes the spineless positions of those who cowtow to the powers that long to destroy them, in hopes that they are spared or tossed a few of the scraps...
Cold soaker.
Wet foot?
No, that's not it.
Post by: Sindawe on February 06, 2008, 06:34:50 PM
Quote
Can anyone please help me with a phrase or word that describes the spineless positions of those who cowtow to the powers that long to destroy them, in hopes that they are spared or tossed a few of the scraps...
A word from history fits quite well...
Quisling
Post by: LAK on February 07, 2008, 03:12:29 AM
Quote
First off I think your credentials are bogus.
I am sure you do.AFSC 81132 (later 81152)
Special Experience Identifier 327
Lackland AFB; basic training and Air Force Security Police Academy 1977
Wright-Patterson AFB; 2750th ABW 1977-1979
Ohio Peace Officer Certification - Vandalia, Montgomery County, Ohio
Rhein Main Air base; 435th SPS 1979-1982
I could list names of others, unit commanders, unit details (not just mine), particular and general operations, and plenty of other details. I could even scan and post my DD 214. However, this is a public forum, and I am not about to place my name on here anymore than I would expect you or anyone else to. I take most peoples' personal stated history and professional experience on face value in good faith - unless they throw up a red flag of some kind.
I am rather surprized a "Rabbi" would have no objection to men aid in stripping his wife or daughter naked and handling her so under any circumstances - other than perhaps if her clothes were on fire, caught in the PTO shaft of a tractor, etc. But if you say so that's good enough for me.
Quote
If they are genuine then it scares me
Be scared.Personally, I'd be concerned if I resided in this particular jurisdiction with a wife and children.
Quote
In any case, the answer to your question is, if my daughter were out of control, possibly in a chemically induced state, and fought with LEs or otherwise refused to cooperate in a difficult and unclear situation, if she made references to suicide while in custody, if she were physically threatening to officers, then I would fully expect her to get exactly the same treatment this woman got.
Noted for future discussions.Funny; I have taken part in such scenarios professionally, and never were any subjects stripped naked in view of members of the opposite sex - let alone manhandled by them. And this was often at times (especially under the Carter administration) when we were shorthanded.
Quote
Interestingly, you weren't there. You don't know what happened.
Edited or not, regardless of what else happened, the video clearly shows males taking part in the forced stripping naked of a female, and manhandling her in a completely unclothed state. That is the issue.Quote
You don't know the specific procedures of that department.
Since when, historically, did "procedure" somehow justify crimes of indecency? Did this come into vogue with womens' sufferage? The Bolshevik revolution? Or the The Third Reich perhaps? Quote
You don't know what their staffing capabilities were.
See above. If it is neccessary, a person can be put in physical restraints and so restrained can be thoroughly detailed searched. A thorough strip search involves body invasive technique and medical qualification. If these people really thought she was some kind of serious threat to herself or anyone else, a medically qualified female and female officers could have performed such a search.If their staffing capabilities are so bad - that is an administrative problem for which someone needs to be held accountable for; not used as a license for this kind of thing. However, it does not appear that they were short of people; the lady could have been restrained (cuffed/strapped) hand and foot. So restrained female officers could have methodically removed her clothing out of view of any male party, and performed a detailed search. She could have been handled in any number of specific ways, using restraints, and appropriate female officers only.
Quote
You don't anything other than what a heavily edited, obviously slanted news report showed. And yet you have resolutely made your mind up that the police were acting criminally.
See above. Irrelevent.----------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: K Frame on February 07, 2008, 04:11:18 AM
You people are ticking me off.