More "Papers please!"

[Fly320s]

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 porn stars.

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.

[The Rabbi]

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 porn stars.

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you can't see it cause you got the shiny side in on your foil hat  always shiny side out if you want clear vision

[The Rabbi]

Actually I'm just blinded by the polish on those jackboots.

[HankB]

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.

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. 

[Tuco]

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.

[The Rabbi]

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.

Cold soaker.

[Tuco]

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.

[Sindawe]

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

[LAK]

Mr Rabbi

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

[K Frame]

Enough.

You people are ticking me off.