It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => The Police State => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on October 02, 2013, 11:45:41 AM
-
I can't watch the video because its particular format won't play on my iPad. But if it is as described....
Officers rip woman's clothes off, leave her naked on cell floor (video) (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/outrage-officers-rip-womans-clothes-leave-naked-cell-floor-video/)
Dana Holmes was arrested in May on a DUI charge to which she pleaded guilty. However, she never could have known what would be in store for her when she arrived at the LaSalle County Illinois jail.
Holmes is alleging that she was illegally strip searched, when officers reacted to her moving her leg during a pat down. The video shows her move her leg slightly when officers quickly react and restrain her, then they throw her to the floor. After securing her, they then carry her into a padded cell, strip off her clothes and leave her lying there naked and alone.
State law in Illinois requires that strip searches only be performed when police have a “reasonable belief” that an individual is concealing a weapon or controlled substance on their body and they must be done by officers of the same sex only where they can’t be watched. Resisting arrest is not grounds for a strip search in Illinois. The video clearly shows three male officers and one female. Holmes is suing for unspecified damages.
-
Yeah, good luck with that lawsuit...the city will gladly throw up some taxpayer funds to make this go away and then get back to business as usual...
Your better option is to GTFO!
-
Well, at the risk of being politically incorrect, the young lady probably wouldn't have undergone that entire arrest thing had she not been drinking and driving -- assuming, of course, the police were correct in their suspicions.
No person deserves to be treated in that fashion, so I am making NO excuses for the officers who lost their cool somehow and overreacted to what was probably a smart-ass drunk bimbo running her mouth.
But had the bimbo not been drinking and driving, none of that would've happened.
So when they get done dealing with this lawsuit, perhaps they can get down to the real business of this woman's evident DUI arrest.
-
TOLEDO, OH — A bizarre scene was recorded in Toledo involving an officer aiming his Taser at an entire family, including a boy, as they were forced to lay in the middle of the street. According to witnesses, the aggressive encounter originated when a man questioned the way an officer was handling a license plate citation for his neighbor. The man who spoke up, and his entire family, were ripped from their vehicle and threatened with a taser.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/bizarre-scene-toledo-cop-holds-entire-family-ground-taser/ (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/bizarre-scene-toledo-cop-holds-entire-family-ground-taser/)
I guess this wouldn't have happened to this family either, Euph, if they'd not stopped and spoken up.
-
TOLEDO, OH — A bizarre scene was recorded in Toledo involving an officer aiming his Taser at an entire family, including a boy, as they were forced to lay in the middle of the street. According to witnesses, the aggressive encounter originated when a man questioned the way an officer was handling a license plate citation for his neighbor. The man who spoke up, and his entire family, were ripped from their vehicle and threatened with a taser.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/bizarre-scene-toledo-cop-holds-entire-family-ground-taser/ (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/bizarre-scene-toledo-cop-holds-entire-family-ground-taser/)
I guess this wouldn't have happened to this family either, Euph, if they'd not stopped and spoken up.
Strawman.
The drunk woman -- based on what was in the article -- was arrested due to her operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
The situation you're citing appears to be a cop being a bully.
Those two situations aren't even remotely similar.
-
TOLEDO, OH — A bizarre scene was recorded in Toledo involving an officer aiming his Taser at an entire family, including a boy, as they were forced to lay in the middle of the street. According to witnesses, the aggressive encounter originated when a man questioned the way an officer was handling a license plate citation for his neighbor. The man who spoke up, and his entire family, were ripped from their vehicle and threatened with a taser.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/bizarre-scene-toledo-cop-holds-entire-family-ground-taser/ (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/bizarre-scene-toledo-cop-holds-entire-family-ground-taser/)
I guess this wouldn't have happened to this family either, Euph, if they'd not stopped and spoken up.
Strawman.
The drunk woman -- based on what was in the article -- was arrested due to her operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
The situation you're citing appears to be a cop being a bully.
Those two situations aren't even remotely similar.
No, not "strawman".
The woman was suspected of DUI. There are protocols in place for dealing with that and those cops bullied her above and beyond what one would presume are the protocols, mouthy or not. That she was drunk, and in custody, it does not follow that a stripping is a rational response to that.
It's exactly the same as the cop bullying that family in the middle of the street -- how much you want to bet the cop was screaming obstruction of justice? So, if they hadn't stopped (hadn't been driving drunk) none of it would have happened.
-
TOLEDO, OH — A bizarre scene was recorded in Toledo involving an officer aiming his Taser at an entire family, including a boy, as they were forced to lay in the middle of the street. According to witnesses, the aggressive encounter originated when a man questioned the way an officer was handling a license plate citation for his neighbor. The man who spoke up, and his entire family, were ripped from their vehicle and threatened with a taser.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/bizarre-scene-toledo-cop-holds-entire-family-ground-taser/ (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/bizarre-scene-toledo-cop-holds-entire-family-ground-taser/)
I guess this wouldn't have happened to this family either, Euph, if they'd not stopped and spoken up.
Strawman.
The drunk woman -- based on what was in the article -- was arrested due to her operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
The situation you're citing appears to be a cop being a bully.
Those two situations aren't even remotely similar.
No, not "strawman".
The woman was suspected of DUI. There are protocols in place for dealing with that and those cops bullied her above and beyond what one would presume are the protocols, mouthy or not. That she was drunk, and in custody, it does not follow that a stripping is a rational response to that.
It's exactly the same as the cop bullying that family in the middle of the street -- how much you want to bet the cop was screaming obstruction of justice? So, if they hadn't stopped (hadn't been driving drunk) none of it would have happened.
I just don't see how the two situations are even remotely related and based on the classic definitions of "straw man" or "straw man fallacy", that's exactly what your comparison is. You are trying to compare a drunk woman who is in the police station in the process of being searched with a man and his family who, in the process of sticking their nose into a situation involving a friend who is being cited by most likely an overbearing or bullying cop, they wind up on the ground with a taser pointed at them.
To make matters worse for your straw man argument, the article clearly says the man's wife got lippy with the cop when he got back in the truck after registering his "complaint" with the cop citing the man's friend.
You can scream police brutality all you want, the fact remains the woman would not have been arrested at all had she not been drinking and driving. That is a stone fact.
Another stone fact is had the man not gotten out of his truck and approached a cop in the performance of his duties, registering a "complaint," HE wouldn't have wound up on the ground either.
Now, that said, I guess you missed the part where I said that I didn't and don't condone what the cops did to the drunk woman. Based on purely the soundless video, there's no way the cops could remotely justify that behavior. And while I'm on the subject, even a lippy woman isn't grounds to put that woman and her entire family on the pavement with a taser pointed at them.
But let's look at this in a little more detail.
At one point in the video, the woman made some sort of sudden move while she was being patted down. Her arms were up on the wall and it looked to me like the female officer was in the process of determining whether or not the drunk had a weapon on her. Bingo, the woman winds up on the floor and that's were things went south.
Both instances revealed cops who, at least based on what we're permitted to see in the form of the video and photos, probably overreacted. That isn't right and they should be held accountable.
The premise of my argument is, basically, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Driving drunk is stupid behavior. Going off on a cop in the performance of his duties is also fundamentally stupid. Neither the man nor the woman had any business getting mouthy with the cop.
Had they had a problem with what the cop was doing, they could have registered a complaint with the police department and gone down that road. Instead, they stick their nose where it doesn't belong and complain when those same noses wind up getting intimate with asphalt.
-
You can scream police brutality all you want, the fact remains the woman would not have been arrested at all had she not been drinking and driving. That is a stone fact.
Another stone fact is had the man not gotten out of his truck and approached a cop in the performance of his duties, registering a "complaint," HE wouldn't have wound up on the ground either.
Say "strawman" one more time.
These stone facts are not the point. The point is breaking the law engenders certain consequences as prescribed by law and what happened to these people is extra-legal punishment administered by cop. That's the point. And lippy, last time I looked, isn't illegal nor requiring proning.
Now, that said, I guess you missed the part where I said that I didn't and don't condone what the cops did to the drunk woman.
No, I didn't miss it.
Just as I haven't missed you making excuses now for the cop proning a family in the street because a woman got "lippy" on the way to doing what the cop wanted -- getting back into their vehicle.
And they weren't sticking their nose in; it was their daughter-in-law the cop had under his "authority".
What you've said here is the equivalent of "attract a cop's attention -- legal or illegal -- reap the consequences". So, I guess we the citizens just have to mouse around being careful to not, oh, mistakenly run a tire on the yellow line in the street: illegal!; and make sure any ABC officers lurking around know I'm buying water instead of booze if I'm underage (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/college-student-arrested-thrown-in-jail-after-buying-bottled-water/). Sure, she should have waved the bottles in the air.
No, dude; the cops in this country are f**king out of control and there's no excuse for turd-world behavior by them, even for DUI.
-
http://www.policestateusa.com/ (http://www.policestateusa.com/)
-
Now, that said, I guess you missed the part where I said that I didn't and don't condone what the cops did to the drunk woman. Based on purely the soundless video, there's no way the cops could remotely justify that behavior. And while I'm on the subject, even a lippy woman isn't grounds to put that woman and her entire family on the pavement with a taser pointed at them...
...The premise of my argument is, basically, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Driving drunk is stupid behavior. Going off on a cop in the performance of his duties is also fundamentally stupid. Neither the man nor the woman had any business getting mouthy with the cop.
It seems to me like you're trying to straddle both sides of the fence. It's not logical to say cops were out of line in one breath, and she did it to herself in another. She didn't do it to herself. All she did was get drunk and drive and get arrested.
Everyone knows that drunk driving and mouthing off to cops are bad ideas. The point is, there are legally acceptable procedures for the police when they encounter such instances. None of them involve any of the actions we see in either of these two videos.
The citizen isn't subject to extra punishment from cops beyond what the law allows. In each step of an escalating encounter with a lawbreaker, the police have a fixed set of responses that will keep them on the right side of the law.
Cuffs. Frisk. Miranda. Booking for DUI. Phone call. Detention. That's what she had coming. If she resists arrest, a new set of acceptable procedures become available to the cops, and NONE of them legally involved a strip-search, let alone a strip search by males.
Your position is the rough equivalent of saying that if people aren't breaking the law, they should have nothing to fear from government monitoring their communications.
-
Cuffs. Frisk. Miranda. Booking for DUI. Phone call. Detention. That's what she had coming. If she resists arrest, a new set of acceptable procedures become available to the cops, and NONE of them legally involved a strip-search, let alone a strip search by males.
ding ding ding
you are correct, IDP
PLus she was not guilty of anything at that point as she had not yet been tried...
she was accused of DUI
-
Cuffs. Frisk. Miranda. Booking for DUI. Phone call. Detention. That's what she had coming. If she resists arrest, a new set of acceptable procedures become available to the cops, and NONE of them legally involved a strip-search, let alone a strip search by males.
ding ding ding
you are correct, IDP
PLus she was not guilty of anything at that point as she had not yet been tried...
she was accused of DUI
That's what I said: "The point is breaking the law engenders certain consequences as prescribed by law and what happened to these people is extra-legal punishment administered by cop."
The rest I did not say. ::whatgives::
-
Cuffs. Frisk. Miranda. Booking for DUI. Phone call. Detention. That's what she had coming. If she resists arrest, a new set of acceptable procedures become available to the cops, and NONE of them legally involved a strip-search, let alone a strip search by males.
ding ding ding
you are correct, IDP
PLus she was not guilty of anything at that point as she had not yet been tried...
she was accused of DUI
Yup. But even assuming she was blind-ass drunk, cursing at the cops, resisting arrest, and spitting at them, they were STILL out of line.
If one says she brought it on herself, or that she could have avoided it by not drinking and driving, then one assumes that the abuse she suffered was within the realm of what she should expect as a consequence.
That's just plain wrong. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of cops. EVEN if one were to give cops the benefit of the doubt, sympathize with their tough job, and understand how someone could lose their self control when confronted with a lawbreaker, the police are STILL required to follow the law in all encounters with citizens.
That is because as you say it is not the cops job to judge guilt or innocence. Only to make an arrest, and let the judicial system take over.
If we stand by while cops increasingly abuse their badges and say ::whatgives:: "oh well, she shouldn't have______," then it will only get worse.
As Pan said earlier, if this woman can be strip searched against the law for moving her leg in a way the cops don't like, then drifting over the yellow line can potentially engender the same response.
No f**king way.
-
Cuffs. Frisk. Miranda. Booking for DUI. Phone call. Detention. That's what she had coming. If she resists arrest, a new set of acceptable procedures become available to the cops, and NONE of them legally involved a strip-search, let alone a strip search by males.
ding ding ding
you are correct, IDP
PLus she was not guilty of anything at that point as she had not yet been tried...
she was accused of DUI
That's what I said: "The point is breaking the law engenders certain consequences as prescribed by law and what happened to these people is extra-legal punishment administered by cop."
The rest I did not say. ::whatgives::
Hey, I was just backin' you up.
::hat-tip::
-
Cuffs. Frisk. Miranda. Booking for DUI. Phone call. Detention. That's what she had coming. If she resists arrest, a new set of acceptable procedures become available to the cops, and NONE of them legally involved a strip-search, let alone a strip search by males.
ding ding ding
you are correct, IDP
PLus she was not guilty of anything at that point as she had not yet been tried...
she was accused of DUI
That's what I said: "The point is breaking the law engenders certain consequences as prescribed by law and what happened to these people is extra-legal punishment administered by cop."
The rest I did not say. ::whatgives::
yes you did! I was too lazy to quote you too ;D
-
Cuffs. Frisk. Miranda. Booking for DUI. Phone call. Detention. That's what she had coming. If she resists arrest, a new set of acceptable procedures become available to the cops, and NONE of them legally involved a strip-search, let alone a strip search by males.
ding ding ding
you are correct, IDP
PLus she was not guilty of anything at that point as she had not yet been tried...
she was accused of DUI
That's what I said: "The point is breaking the law engenders certain consequences as prescribed by law and what happened to these people is extra-legal punishment administered by cop."
The rest I did not say. ::whatgives::
Hey, I was just backin' you up.
::hat-tip::
Oh, don't I know it. And thank you!
-
Now, that said, I guess you missed the part where I said that I didn't and don't condone what the cops did to the drunk woman. Based on purely the soundless video, there's no way the cops could remotely justify that behavior. And while I'm on the subject, even a lippy woman isn't grounds to put that woman and her entire family on the pavement with a taser pointed at them...
...The premise of my argument is, basically, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Driving drunk is stupid behavior. Going off on a cop in the performance of his duties is also fundamentally stupid. Neither the man nor the woman had any business getting mouthy with the cop.
It seems to me like you're trying to straddle both sides of the fence. It's not logical to say cops were out of line in one breath, and she did it to herself in another. She didn't do it to herself. All she did was get drunk and drive and get arrested.
I wouldn't know how to straddle a fence. Haven't done that since I was a kid. Last time I checked, getting drunk and driving is a crime.
Everyone knows that drunk driving and mouthing off to cops are bad ideas. The point is, there are legally acceptable procedures for the police when they encounter such instances. None of them involve any of the actions we see in either of these two videos.
If we all know that, then what's the problem? You didn't hear me making excuses for the cop -- in comparison to what I just heard you say about the drunk woman.
The citizen isn't subject to extra punishment from cops beyond what the law allows. In each step of an escalating encounter with a lawbreaker, the police have a fixed set of responses that will keep them on the right side of the law.
Agreed. And they (in each case) appeared to have hosed up. Next argument?
Cuffs. Frisk. Miranda. Booking for DUI. Phone call. Detention. That's what she had coming. If she resists arrest, a new set of acceptable procedures become available to the cops, and NONE of them legally involved a strip-search, let alone a strip search by males.
And it looked to me like they (the female cop, in fact) were frisking her. Maybe they should've cuffed her and they didn't, in which case they were wrong right after the drunk woman was wrong. Lots of wrongs going on here. Woman got drunk and drove. Wrong No. 1. Cops failed to cuff her before frisking. Wrong No. 2. Drunk woman makes a sudden move and finds herself stripped by a bunch of cops. Wrong No. 3. Did I run out of wrongs?
Your position is the rough equivalent of saying that if people aren't breaking the law, they should have nothing to fear from government monitoring their communications.
Not at all. What I said quite clearly was had the woman not gotten drunk and driven -- a crime last time I checked -- she wouldn't have found herself arrested to begin with.
That single act cascaded into a comedy (the "not funny" kind of comedy) of errors.
Several of you have the mistaken notion that there's a wrong, crooked, dirty cop on every street corner just waiting to beat the hell out of somebody just for the exercise.
I don't march to that drumbeat. For every wrong, crooked, dirty cop there are a couple dozen that are out there beating feet, seeing the absolute dregs of humanity, staying above it all, and being a service to their community.
You guys can live in your persecuted world if you like. I choose not to.
And with that, I'm done in this thread. Have at your bash-a-cop fest. I've seen enough.
-
You can scream police brutality all you want, the fact remains the woman would not have been arrested at all had she not been drinking and driving. That is a stone fact.
Another stone fact is had the man not gotten out of his truck and approached a cop in the performance of his duties, registering a "complaint," HE wouldn't have wound up on the ground either.
Say "strawman" one more time.
I said I was done in this thread, but I can't let this one go. Is this some kind of threat?
-
Several of you have the mistaken notion that there's a wrong, crooked, dirty cop on every street corner just waiting to beat the hell out of somebody just for the exercise.
I don't march to that drumbeat. For every wrong, crooked, dirty cop there are a couple dozen that are out there beating feet, seeing the absolute dregs of humanity, staying above it all, and being a service to their community.
I don't believe anyone here has suggested that there's a dirty cop on every corner waiting to beat the hell out of somebody. I also don't think anyone has suggested there aren't many good cops.
I think what you'll find here is an acute awareness that all around the country, at all levels of law enforcement, there is an escalation of tactics and abuse, and an increase in the instances of such. We're pointing them out when and where they exist. We're gathering the evidence, and commenting on it.
That is just a chronicling of events. You seem to be viewing this chronicle as the board's monolithic view of police in general, and that is an untrue view. Our critique is of abusive cops, not all cops.
-
You can scream police brutality all you want, the fact remains the woman would not have been arrested at all had she not been drinking and driving. That is a stone fact.
Another stone fact is had the man not gotten out of his truck and approached a cop in the performance of his duties, registering a "complaint," HE wouldn't have wound up on the ground either.
Say "strawman" one more time.
I said I was done in this thread, but I can't let this one go. Is this some kind of threat?
I'll let Pan speak for herself, but I took it as a comment on your repetition of the phrase.
-
Several of you have the mistaken notion that there's a wrong, crooked, dirty cop on every street corner just waiting to beat the hell out of somebody just for the exercise.
I don't march to that drumbeat. For every wrong, crooked, dirty cop there are a couple dozen that are out there beating feet, seeing the absolute dregs of humanity, staying above it all, and being a service to their community.
You guys can live in your persecuted world if you like. I choose not to.
Eupher,
As a Christian, an officer of the court (an attorney) and a recently admitted member of the DAR I take offense to your broad brush accusation whether you meant to include me or not.
One brutal cop is not excused by a dozen good ones. The 94 year old veteran that was bean bagged to death wasn't helped by anyone else in the room at the time nor by the thousands of good cops across the nation. We are now ruled by an out of control commander in chief should I not complain because my local politician is a good guy?
The question for me is who do we expect to exercise self-control? The cop with the deadly weapon or the suspect already in custody? If my daughter gets mouthy should I be allowed to smack the crap out of her because if she hadn't crossed the line I wouldn't have to do that? Or should I as the bigger or stronger of us and the one exercising authority exhibit some self-control when it's apparent I'm not in any danger?
The issue to me isn't about a world view that all cops are dirty (a popular minority view) but that the world we live in is allowing certain of these people who have been given authority to cross the line. It is our duty as citizens to see that our rights are protected and that may mean calling out those who cross the line.
Do not question for one minute that I don't honor those who execute their lawful duty on our behalf. I will not forget those who did just that on September 11, 2001:
The 23 NYPD officers, including four sergeants and two detectives, who died at the scene were:
Sgt. Timothy A. Roy, Sr., 36
Sgt. John Gerard Coughlin, 43
Sgt. Rodney C. Gillis, 33
Sgt. Michael S. Curtin, 45
Det. Joseph V. Vigiano, 34
Det. Claude Daniel Richards, 46
Moira Ann Smith, 38
Ramon Suarez, 45
Paul Talty, 40
Santos Valentin, Jr., 39
Walter E. Weaver, 30
Ronald Philip Kloepfer, 39
Thomas M. Langone, 39
James Patrick Leahy, 38
Brian Grady McDonnell, 38
John William Perry, 38
Glen Kerrin Pettit, 30
John D'Allara, 47
Vincent Danz, 38
Jerome M. P. Dominguez, 37
Stephen P. Driscoll, 38
Mark Joseph Ellis, 26
Robert Fazio, Jr., 41
::USA::
-
I think it goes without saying that the majority of cops are just basically good guys doing the best they can to do a good job. At least that's my assumption based on my own experience.
That doesn't mean that where and when we see bad cops doing bad things - or even heretofore good cops doing bad things- that we should not call it what it is, and demand accountability.
Look, I think I get what Eupher's saying. Stay out of trouble, and you avoid all cops - good and bad. Her bad was the first bad that led to the other bads.
But a criminal is by definition a law breaker. They are a variable. Police training and the law provide specific remedies for cops to address those variables. The fact that the criminal is out of line is a given. The cops have a duty to respond to that with professionalism.
ETA: LadyV... how did I not know you were an attorney?
::whatgives::
-
Stay out of trouble, and you avoid all cops - good and bad.
Not necessarily. With all the roadblocks and other things, and with a cop having a hair up his asssss, you can be confronted with good and/or bad cops.
-
ETA: LadyV... how did I not know you were an attorney?
::whatgives::
heh
I prefer to let my comments speak for themselves--my degrees don't give them any more credibility so I haven't mentioned it until now
ETA: also I've found it's better not to mention my expertise and thus I avoid people who want free advice.... ;D
-
ETA: LadyV... how did I not know you were an attorney?
::whatgives::
heh
I prefer to let my comments speak for themselves--my degrees don't give them any more credibility so I haven't mentioned it until now
Defense or prosecution? Criminal or civil? I have a LOT of experience with civil attorneys; I was product Liability Claim manager for a major manufacturer of water heaters. I've testified at 4 trials and had my deposition taken 32 times. It got to the point that I would only hire CCP* lawyers and had them in about 30 states.
*(Card Carrying Pri**)
I loved that job..........but the company relocated and I would not.
-
I think I'll leave it at plain ole attorney.
-
OK!
-
Well, at least we know who to nominate as AG if we ever get to carve out a liberty zone! ::thumbsup::
-
Well, at least we know who to nominate as AG if we ever get to carve out a liberty zone! ::thumbsup::
::exitstageleft::
-
I haven't added anything to this particular debate, but let me just go on record as saying that I do, in fact, suggest there is a crooked cop on every corner looking to beat the hell out of people.
I have witnessed an unmistakable change in the overall posture of the ostensibly civilian police forces in this country. They have become far more militant, confrontational, aggressive, abusive, condescending, and imperious. They have acquired the mindset of enforcers who are above the laws they enforce, and they have cultivated an Us vs. Them mentality.
I know they aren't all bad. In fact I suspect the majority are still individually decent. But I think institutionally they have become rotten and are reflective of the perversion of the relationship between Citizen and State. Let's just say I am all out of benefits of the doubt these days.
-
I think a minority's hatred of cops came before the cops started going militant.
-
LEWISVILLE, TX — Police repeatedly shot and then tasered a mentally ill 67 year-old woman for not immediately complying with their orders to drop a letter opener. David and Dolores Seyfried’s already difficult life together was made that much harder when overzealous police officers violently subdued her, treating them both like unruly criminals without charging either of them with a specific crime. Her suffering was made worse, and their home was unnecessarily searched by officers whose disregard for the Fourth Amendment demonstrates a clear contempt for the very people they are charged to “serve and protect.”
David Seyfried is suing the City of Lewisville Police Department and six of its officers on behalf of his wife Dolores Seyfried, an Alzheimer’s sufferer.
According to Courthouse News Service, the civil suit alleges that police repeatedly shot and Tasered 67 year-old Alzheimer’s patient Dolores Seyfried as her husband David begged them to “put the gun away.” After Dolores was taken to the hospital by ambulance, the police “declared ‘exigent circumstance’ and searched their home against his objections.” In his complaint, David alleges that the police told him that they had “saved his ass today” by brutally subduing his wife, though she was attempting to walk away from them.
What led to the police to violently disregard both the individual rights and property rights of David and Dolores Seyfried?
The incident began on May 29, when Dolores, an Alzheimer’s patient, became “agitated with David and had a four [to] five-inch letter opener in her hand” at their home in Lewisville, a Dallas suburb. Though he was confident that he would be able to calm Dolores, David Seyfried called the Dallas Alzheimer’s Association seeking advice and support. The DAA’s response to the situation was to contact the Lewisville police without his consent, says Seyfried.
According to a federal lawsuit, when LPD Officers George Reed and Sgt. Courtney Letalien arrived, David and Dolores were in the backyard; Dolores was still holding the letter opener, and David was trying to calm her down. When she walked in to the yard, “(Sgt.) Letalien immediately attempted to remove David from the back yard while holding an orange shotgun in his hand,” the complaint states.
Less Lethal Shotgun (Source: pro-patria.us)
Seyfried explained to the officers that he had not been stabbed and did not believe that Dolores posed a threat to anyone. He repeatedly pleaded with the officer to put the gun away, believing at that time that such measures were not necessary. He assured them that, given a few minutes, he was sure he could get her to calm down, even if she could not comply with their orders to drop the letter opener. Sgt. Letalien continued to force David to the front of the house so that he would not be able to witness what was happening with his wife.
It was at this point, while David was arguing with Sgt. Letalien, that Officer George reed fired upon Delores Seyfried with his Taser. He then proceeded to shoot her three times with the “less lethal” orange shotgun, possibly loaded with rubber bullets or beanbags.
“When Delores did not fall, Letalien immediately shot Delores with the less lethal shotgun at her thigh,” the complaint states. “When once again Delores did not fall or release the letter opener, Letalien shot Delores once again in the other thigh. The second round did knock Delores to the ground but she was able to get back on her feet. Defendants allege that Delores maintained her hand on the letter opener during this time. When Delores turned to walk away from the officers, Letalien shot Delores a third time in the left buttocks with the shotgun. When the third round did not cause Delores to fall, Letalien switched to his Taser and deployed a cartridge with one probe hitting Delores in the back and the other hitting her on her right buttocks. Letalien found this force to be ‘effective’ when she fell to the ground.” [source]
Officer Reed then tried to step on her wrist to handcuff her, according to David, breaking it in two places. Thinking she was resisting, Reed Tasered her a second time while on the ground.
Doctors later closed a cut on her chin and a gash on her head, requiring 17 staples to repair the damage. After using a great deal of unnecessary violence against her, the police proceeded to further violate the Seyfried’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. Against David’s objections, the police searched their home without consent by declaring “exigent circumstances.” It was after an ambulance transported Dolores to the hospital that they then told David that they had “saved his ass,” ostensibly by violently attacking his confused, disoriented wife.
Adding insult to injury, the police then called the Dallas Alzheimer’s Association and reported that David was incapable of taking care of Dolores. “This action was unnecessary and … it was done with actual malice,” David says.
Additionally, Seyfried says, the vicious attack by police officers has “increased the severity of her Alzheimer’s and she now requires around-the-clock nursing staff.” What began as simply a husband’s effort to seek help in caring for his elderly, mentally ill wife ended with both lives being ruined at the hands of an overzealous autocrat’s pointless brutality. The worsening of her condition at the hands of remorseless police officers may have destroyed what remained of their life together. Courthouse News Service reported that “the Lewisville Police Department sent nine squad cars to the home, but no charges were brought against Delores, her husband says.”
I am reminded again of Justice Robert H. Jackson’s position regarding warrantless searches and the Fourth Amendment:
“The point of the Fourth Amendment which often is not grasped by zealous officers is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate, instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.”
Incidents like this demonstrate why Police can be a terrible option for dealing with nonviolent, noncompliant individuals who pose little direct threat to anyone but themselves. Increasingly, they seem ill-equipped to handle even the most mundane situations without resorting to the extreme, militaristic limits of their training. Tasers and guns are the first, not last, response to anything considered a threat, no matter how remote. Disregarding the basic human rights and property rights of those that they are sworn to protect makes the Lewisville Police Department appear less concerned with public safety than they are with wielding absolute authoritarian control over the lives of its city’s people.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/texas-police-shot-tasered-67-year-old-alzheimers-patient-when-she-wouldnt-drop-letter-opener/ (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/texas-police-shot-tasered-67-year-old-alzheimers-patient-when-she-wouldnt-drop-letter-opener/)
Well, now, lemme see; what lesson can we take from this sad tale: 1) David should never have made a call to the Society looking for help and 2) the dementia lady should have dropped the letter opener ....
... because ...
... if they hadn't done what they had done, the cops wouldn't have responded in the way they did.
-
It all leads to what's happening now, dehumanize your foe or enemy and you've then taken away the basic attitude of civility. It all leads to the road we've all read about. Why do you care about a few Jews or list ethnicity here. Personally, I despise drunk driving, however, we can't assume everyone cited is out to purposely do it(obviously some don't care). We have made penalties stiffer for the offenders but we still must insist the police be civil or face the consequences of what we have today. Still, I can't help wondering that we've done this to ourselves via separating ourselves from the only being that understands us, our Creator. Every civilization that has thrown Him out winds up as a perfect example of despotism as the people are nothing but parts to move around fro the cause of the state.
-
There was a time when police brutality alleged by a minority got plenty of attention and the cops had to go out of their way to prove they weren't bad. Now? I don't think they care as much.
-
This may not be the first instance of sexual assault by LaSalle County, either. Five other women have come forward due to Dana Holmes’ bravery, claiming that they were also victimized by abusive jailers and strip-searched.
“Dana Holmes in my opinion was not an isolated case,” said Terry Ekl, who filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a 33-year-old Coal City woman for similar abuse in jail.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/humilated-and-groped-female-dui-suspect-stripped-naked-by-four-deputies-in-jail-cell/ (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/humilated-and-groped-female-dui-suspect-stripped-naked-by-four-deputies-in-jail-cell/)
H/T Grouchy's
-
Nail them to the wall.
-
Nail them to the wall.
Nekked.
And then let the abused come forth to administer justice.
Oh, and BTW, just so we make it clear we don't like dirty cops....all clean cops should be 100% behind kicking this kind of scum off the team and have them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...any other opinion is the same as condoning this behavior...and that means I don't want to hear any hiding behind union skirts! Stand forth and be counted!
-
Nail them to the wall.
Nekked.
Upside down by the pecker.
-
Nail them to the wall.
Nekked.
Upside down by the pecker.
A human piñata! (Without any nice treats inside)
-
Nail them to the wall.
Nekked.
And then let the abused come forth to administer justice.
Oh, and BTW, just so we make it clear we don't like dirty cops....all clean cops should be 100% behind kicking this kind of scum off the team and have them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...any other opinion is the same as condoning this behavior...and that means I don't want to hear any hiding behind union skirts! Stand forth and be counted!
Trouble is, cops stand behind other cops, right or wrong.
-
Nail them to the wall.
Nekked.
And then let the abused come forth to administer justice.
Oh, and BTW, just so we make it clear we don't like dirty cops....all clean cops should be 100% behind kicking this kind of scum off the team and have them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...any other opinion is the same as condoning this behavior...and that means I don't want to hear any hiding behind union skirts! Stand forth and be counted!
Trouble is, cops stand behind other cops, right or wrong.
Yeah, I dunno what's worse...blindly supporting illegal and morally wrong behavior or feeling yourself above the law...both lead to tyranny and oppresion for the citzenry...so I would at best refer to these enablers as bad cops and treat them accordingly. If they don't like that, tough, facts are stubbirn things!