Police State - Official Thread

[333386]

When a former senior White House official describes a nationwide surveillance effort as “breathtaking,” you know civil liberties activists are preparing for a fight.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the little-known National Counterterrorism Center, based in an unmarked building in McLean, Va., has been granted sweeping new authority to store and monitor massive datasets about innocent Americans.

After internal wrangling over privacy and civil liberties issues, the Justice Department reportedly signed off on controversial new guidelines earlier this year. The guidelines allow the NCTC, for the first time, to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, using “predictive pattern-matching,” to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. The data the counterterrorism center has access to, according to the Journal, includes “entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others.”

Notably, the Journal reports that these changes also allow databases about U.S. civilians to be handed over to foreign governments for analysis, presumably so that they too can attempt to determine future criminal actions. The Department of Homeland Security’s former chief privacy officer said that it represents a “sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public.”

The snooping effort, which officials say is subject to “rigorous oversight,” is reminiscent of the so-called Total Information Awareness initiative, dreamt up in the aftermath of 9/11 by the Pentagon’s research unit DARPA. The aim of the TIA initiative was essentially to create a kind of ubiquitous pre-crime surveillance regime monitoring public and private databases. It was largely defunded in 2003, after civil liberties concerns. However, other similar efforts have continued, such as through the work of the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence-gathering “Fusion Centers.” Most recently, Fusion Centers were subjected to scathing criticism from congressional investigators, who found that they were accumulating masses of data about “suspicious” activity that was not of any use. The intelligence being swept up, the investigators found, was “oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections.”

Such sweeping surveillance efforts pose difficulties for the authorities because they can end up drowning in data, attempting to find a needle in a haystack, in the process deeming innocent people suspicious. As the Journal’s Julia Angwin notes, the risk is that “innocent behavior gets misunderstood—say, a man buying chemicals (for a child's science fair) and a timer (for the sprinkler) sets off false alarms.” The U.S. government clearly feels far-reaching surveillance initiatives are necessary to help detect potential future terror attacks. But ultimately, in a democracy, the decision should surely rest in the hands of the American public. It is a question of balance: How much liberty should be sacrificed in the name of security? The revelations about the NCTC’s activities may be about to rekindle that debate.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/13/national_counterterrorism_center_s_massive_new_surveillance_program_uncovered.html

[Skip8282]

Of course there is. Either there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion of there isn't. Either the DOJ has it or they don't. Don't confuse that simple question with the much more complicated question of when it is appropriate for them to use that discretion and how to do so. That's where the "circumstances" you mention come into play.


Right. But whether it exists isn't debatable. Whether the DOJ has it isn't debatable. These are binary questions about facts.

Of course it exists.  Since you're not bright enough to figure it out, I dispensed with your childishness and went right to the real discussion.

You are confusing sentencing discretion, which is something something that Judges and prosecutors have, and prosecutorial discretion, which is something prosecutors have. Nice try though.

That's called an analagous situation.  You're a lot slower than I thought, lol.

If you think laws are unjust and should not be enforced then fight to repeal them. The laws that are on the books should be respected, even when we disagree with them. If we don't, the rule of law is a meaningless, vacuous term.

Hell no.  I can't imagine what things would be like if certain groups hadn't practiced civil disobedience.

You can't be for and against something at the same time. This is a simple fact of reality. Just how you can't have your cake and eat it too is a fact of reality. You can try to have your cake and eat it too, but the world in which you live in is rational, and after you're done eating your cake, no matter how hard you try, you can no longer have it.

If you think Obama's DOJ does have prosecutorial discretion, then you can't also think that they don't simply because you disagree with how they apply that discretion and vice-versa. If you have a beef with how they're applying that discretion, that's a whole 'nother perfectly valid topic.

No, not in the childish sense you're attempting to apply it.

You can  be for them having it in certain circumstances.
You can be against them having it in certain circumstances.


Are you capable of making a point without writing a goddamn book?

Now I know what you meant earlier, 33!

[avxo]

Of course it exists.

I'm glad to see you agree with me! You've taken an important first step!

Since you're not bright enough to figure it out, I dispensed with your childishness and went right to the real discussion.

Ooh boy! You showed me! I guess I'll have to put on my "real discussion" pants!

That's called an analagous situation.  You're a lot slower than I thought, lol.

I'm not sure what an analagous situation is. But on the off-chance you meant analogous I can tell you that it's not really analogous at all. Similes are metaphors in that they're both analogies. Your little example is... well... some sort of verbal slip-and-fall.

Hell no.  I can't imagine what things would be like if certain groups hadn't practiced civil disobedience.

Right. But you will notice that those who performed acts of civil disobedience wanted to be "judged" by the laws on the books at the time to demonstrate the profound injustice of those laws. They didn't just say "Don't apply the law. Fuck the law." They said "We believe this law to be flawed, unfair and unjust. We will challenge it and force you to use it, and in doing so, show just how unjust it is."

No, not in the childish sense you're attempting to apply it.

You can  be for them having it in certain circumstances.
You can be against them having it in certain circumstances.

Right. But the circumstances must be objective. You cannot be for and against granting the DOJ prosecutorial discretion and hinging the particular decision solely on whether you like the particular law in question. There's a word for one who does that sort of thing.

And Skip, out of curiosity: in what circumstances do you think the DOJ should have discretion and in what circumstances should it not have it?

Are you capable of making a point without writing a goddamn book?

I am capable of many things!

[Skip8282]

Anything dealing with drugs.  Just legalize it already

[333386]

The Police State Comes To Arkansas

Posted: 12/18/2012 7:56 am

 

Unfortunately, not an exaggeration:

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."

 Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."

Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.

"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . .

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do." . . .

"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area." . . .

"Anyone that's out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped]," he said . . .

Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall.


Here's the least surprising line in the article:

Stovall said he did not consult an attorney before announcing his plans to combat crime.
Stovall added that he realized there was little difference between what he was proposing and martial law--and that he didn't much care.

 The mayor and city attorney have apparently walked the idea back, at least a little. But the police chief isn't wavering. And of course it's his cops who will be enforcing the law.

Using SWAT teams for routine patrols isn't uncommon. Fresno did this for several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The city sent its Violent Crimes Suppression Unit into poorer neighborhoods and stopped, confronted, questioned, and searched nearly everyone they encountered. "It's a war," one SWAT officer told Christian Parenti in a a report for The Naiton (not available online). Another said, "If you're 21, male, living in one of these neighborhoods, and you're not in our computer, then there's something definitely wrong."

A 1999 report in the Boston Globe found similar units patrolling the streets of Indianapolis and San Francisco, which the reporter noted gave the communities under siege "all the ambiance of the West Bank."

In a 1997 survey, the criminologist Peter Kraska found that about one in five cities in his survey used their SWAT teams for routine patrols. It seems likely that number has fallen since then as the crime rate has dropped (the Fresno VCSU was disbanded in 2002), but it's hard to say for sure. The total number of SWAT teams has only increased since then, as has the number of situations in which they're utilized.

But Stovall's comments show that it isn't so much a rise in crime that allows these sorts of police actions to happen, it's the fear of crime. (Though there has been an actual increase in crime in Paragould.) Back in the early 1970s when Nixon was preparing to impose his new crime bill on Washington, D.C., he ran into a problem. According to FBI data, crime was actually starting to fall in D.C. Nixon's strategy was to make D.C. the "model city" to show off his tough anti-crime policies. The fact that crime was already falling presented two problems: 1) It could make the city less fearful, resulting in less pressure on Congress to push through his bill, and 2) it would make it more difficult for Nixon to claim credit for any crime drop in the city later. So Nixon's Justice Department sat on the figures. They refused to release them until after they had won on Capitol Hill.

The fear of crime is ever-present, even when crime isn't. For example, despite the fact that the crime rate has been dropping dramatically for nearly 20 years*--to historic lows--70 percent of Americans still think crime is getting worse.

I'm sure the cable news obsession with sensational crime stories and the emergence of tragedy vultures like Nancy Grace have a lot to do with it. Long-developing trends like the crime drop by definition aren't daily news. Crime is, even when it's down. I've seen it stated over and over in the Newtown coverage that mass shootings are on the rise. As I pointed out in the morning links, there is no evidence for that, and in fact the numbers suggest they're on the wane. They happen so infrequently that there simply aren't enough data points to say for certain.

Unfortunately, empirical data aren't nearly as compelling as images of victims and mug shots of scary-looking criminals. And like Nixon, today's politicians and law enforcement officials know that you don't pass new laws and give the police new powers by assuaging public fear. You get these things by stoking it.

(*There was a slight uptick in the crime figures in 2011, driven mostly by an increase in minor assaults.)





 


 Follow Radley Balko on Twitter: www.twitter.com/radleybalko

[Jack T. Cross]

The Police State Comes To Arkansas

Posted: 12/18/2012 7:56 am

 

Unfortunately, not an exaggeration:

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."

 Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."

Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.

"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . .

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do." . . .

"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area." . . .

"Anyone that's out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped]," he said . . .

Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall.


Here's the least surprising line in the article:

Stovall said he did not consult an attorney before announcing his plans to combat crime.
Stovall added that he realized there was little difference between what he was proposing and martial law--and that he didn't much care.

 The mayor and city attorney have apparently walked the idea back, at least a little. But the police chief isn't wavering. And of course it's his cops who will be enforcing the law.

Using SWAT teams for routine patrols isn't uncommon. Fresno did this for several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The city sent its Violent Crimes Suppression Unit into poorer neighborhoods and stopped, confronted, questioned, and searched nearly everyone they encountered. "It's a war," one SWAT officer told Christian Parenti in a a report for The Naiton (not available online). Another said, "If you're 21, male, living in one of these neighborhoods, and you're not in our computer, then there's something definitely wrong."

A 1999 report in the Boston Globe found similar units patrolling the streets of Indianapolis and San Francisco, which the reporter noted gave the communities under siege "all the ambiance of the West Bank."

In a 1997 survey, the criminologist Peter Kraska found that about one in five cities in his survey used their SWAT teams for routine patrols. It seems likely that number has fallen since then as the crime rate has dropped (the Fresno VCSU was disbanded in 2002), but it's hard to say for sure. The total number of SWAT teams has only increased since then, as has the number of situations in which they're utilized.

But Stovall's comments show that it isn't so much a rise in crime that allows these sorts of police actions to happen, it's the fear of crime. (Though there has been an actual increase in crime in Paragould.) Back in the early 1970s when Nixon was preparing to impose his new crime bill on Washington, D.C., he ran into a problem. According to FBI data, crime was actually starting to fall in D.C. Nixon's strategy was to make D.C. the "model city" to show off his tough anti-crime policies. The fact that crime was already falling presented two problems: 1) It could make the city less fearful, resulting in less pressure on Congress to push through his bill, and 2) it would make it more difficult for Nixon to claim credit for any crime drop in the city later. So Nixon's Justice Department sat on the figures. They refused to release them until after they had won on Capitol Hill.

The fear of crime is ever-present, even when crime isn't. For example, despite the fact that the crime rate has been dropping dramatically for nearly 20 years*--to historic lows--70 percent of Americans still think crime is getting worse.

I'm sure the cable news obsession with sensational crime stories and the emergence of tragedy vultures like Nancy Grace have a lot to do with it. Long-developing trends like the crime drop by definition aren't daily news. Crime is, even when it's down. I've seen it stated over and over in the Newtown coverage that mass shootings are on the rise. As I pointed out in the morning links, there is no evidence for that, and in fact the numbers suggest they're on the wane. They happen so infrequently that there simply aren't enough data points to say for certain.

Unfortunately, empirical data aren't nearly as compelling as images of victims and mug shots of scary-looking criminals. And like Nixon, today's politicians and law enforcement officials know that you don't pass new laws and give the police new powers by assuaging public fear. You get these things by stoking it.

(*There was a slight uptick in the crime figures in 2011, driven mostly by an increase in minor assaults.)





 


 Follow Radley Balko on Twitter: www.twitter.com/radleybalko

Help us, God.  A serious and desperate Prayer.  Please save us from the shortsighted, ungodly fools that appear to have greatly outnumbered us.

[whork]

The Police State Comes To Arkansas

Posted: 12/18/2012 7:56 am

 

Unfortunately, not an exaggeration:

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."

 Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."

Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.

"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . .

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do." . . .

"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area." . . .

"Anyone that's out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped]," he said . . .

Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall.


Here's the least surprising line in the article:

Stovall said he did not consult an attorney before announcing his plans to combat crime.
Stovall added that he realized there was little difference between what he was proposing and martial law--and that he didn't much care.

 The mayor and city attorney have apparently walked the idea back, at least a little. But the police chief isn't wavering. And of course it's his cops who will be enforcing the law.

Using SWAT teams for routine patrols isn't uncommon. Fresno did this for several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The city sent its Violent Crimes Suppression Unit into poorer neighborhoods and stopped, confronted, questioned, and searched nearly everyone they encountered. "It's a war," one SWAT officer told Christian Parenti in a a report for The Naiton (not available online). Another said, "If you're 21, male, living in one of these neighborhoods, and you're not in our computer, then there's something definitely wrong."

A 1999 report in the Boston Globe found similar units patrolling the streets of Indianapolis and San Francisco, which the reporter noted gave the communities under siege "all the ambiance of the West Bank."

In a 1997 survey, the criminologist Peter Kraska found that about one in five cities in his survey used their SWAT teams for routine patrols. It seems likely that number has fallen since then as the crime rate has dropped (the Fresno VCSU was disbanded in 2002), but it's hard to say for sure. The total number of SWAT teams has only increased since then, as has the number of situations in which they're utilized.

But Stovall's comments show that it isn't so much a rise in crime that allows these sorts of police actions to happen, it's the fear of crime. (Though there has been an actual increase in crime in Paragould.) Back in the early 1970s when Nixon was preparing to impose his new crime bill on Washington, D.C., he ran into a problem. According to FBI data, crime was actually starting to fall in D.C. Nixon's strategy was to make D.C. the "model city" to show off his tough anti-crime policies. The fact that crime was already falling presented two problems: 1) It could make the city less fearful, resulting in less pressure on Congress to push through his bill, and 2) it would make it more difficult for Nixon to claim credit for any crime drop in the city later. So Nixon's Justice Department sat on the figures. They refused to release them until after they had won on Capitol Hill.

The fear of crime is ever-present, even when crime isn't. For example, despite the fact that the crime rate has been dropping dramatically for nearly 20 years*--to historic lows--70 percent of Americans still think crime is getting worse.

I'm sure the cable news obsession with sensational crime stories and the emergence of tragedy vultures like Nancy Grace have a lot to do with it. Long-developing trends like the crime drop by definition aren't daily news. Crime is, even when it's down. I've seen it stated over and over in the Newtown coverage that mass shootings are on the rise. As I pointed out in the morning links, there is no evidence for that, and in fact the numbers suggest they're on the wane. They happen so infrequently that there simply aren't enough data points to say for certain.

Unfortunately, empirical data aren't nearly as compelling as images of victims and mug shots of scary-looking criminals. And like Nixon, today's politicians and law enforcement officials know that you don't pass new laws and give the police new powers by assuaging public fear. You get these things by stoking it.

(*There was a slight uptick in the crime figures in 2011, driven mostly by an increase in minor assaults.)





 


 Follow Radley Balko on Twitter: www.twitter.com/radleybalko

This is fucking sick

[poldaktalos]

The Police State Comes To Arkansas

Posted: 12/18/2012 7:56 am

 

Unfortunately, not an exaggeration:

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."

 Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."

Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.

"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . .

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do." . . .

"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area." . . .

"Anyone that's out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped]," he said . . .

Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall.


Here's the least surprising line in the article:

Stovall said he did not consult an attorney before announcing his plans to combat crime.
Stovall added that he realized there was little difference between what he was proposing and martial law--and that he didn't much care.

 The mayor and city attorney have apparently walked the idea back, at least a little. But the police chief isn't wavering. And of course it's his cops who will be enforcing the law.

Using SWAT teams for routine patrols isn't uncommon. Fresno did this for several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The city sent its Violent Crimes Suppression Unit into poorer neighborhoods and stopped, confronted, questioned, and searched nearly everyone they encountered. "It's a war," one SWAT officer told Christian Parenti in a a report for The Naiton (not available online). Another said, "If you're 21, male, living in one of these neighborhoods, and you're not in our computer, then there's something definitely wrong."

A 1999 report in the Boston Globe found similar units patrolling the streets of Indianapolis and San Francisco, which the reporter noted gave the communities under siege "all the ambiance of the West Bank."

In a 1997 survey, the criminologist Peter Kraska found that about one in five cities in his survey used their SWAT teams for routine patrols. It seems likely that number has fallen since then as the crime rate has dropped (the Fresno VCSU was disbanded in 2002), but it's hard to say for sure. The total number of SWAT teams has only increased since then, as has the number of situations in which they're utilized.

But Stovall's comments show that it isn't so much a rise in crime that allows these sorts of police actions to happen, it's the fear of crime. (Though there has been an actual increase in crime in Paragould.) Back in the early 1970s when Nixon was preparing to impose his new crime bill on Washington, D.C., he ran into a problem. According to FBI data, crime was actually starting to fall in D.C. Nixon's strategy was to make D.C. the "model city" to show off his tough anti-crime policies. The fact that crime was already falling presented two problems: 1) It could make the city less fearful, resulting in less pressure on Congress to push through his bill, and 2) it would make it more difficult for Nixon to claim credit for any crime drop in the city later. So Nixon's Justice Department sat on the figures. They refused to release them until after they had won on Capitol Hill.

The fear of crime is ever-present, even when crime isn't. For example, despite the fact that the crime rate has been dropping dramatically for nearly 20 years*--to historic lows--70 percent of Americans still think crime is getting worse.

I'm sure the cable news obsession with sensational crime stories and the emergence of tragedy vultures like Nancy Grace have a lot to do with it. Long-developing trends like the crime drop by definition aren't daily news. Crime is, even when it's down. I've seen it stated over and over in the Newtown coverage that mass shootings are on the rise. As I pointed out in the morning links, there is no evidence for that, and in fact the numbers suggest they're on the wane. They happen so infrequently that there simply aren't enough data points to say for certain.

Unfortunately, empirical data aren't nearly as compelling as images of victims and mug shots of scary-looking criminals. And like Nixon, today's politicians and law enforcement officials know that you don't pass new laws and give the police new powers by assuaging public fear. You get these things by stoking it.

(*There was a slight uptick in the crime figures in 2011, driven mostly by an increase in minor assaults.)





 


 Follow Radley Balko on Twitter: www.twitter.com/radleybalko

WTF, this is worse than some dystopian future sci fi movies.

[avxo]

"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area."

Wow... Talk about not knowing what the law says. He needs a specific articulable suspicion. Not some "well, statistically speaking, a crime is committed every second, and a second has passed... so... hands up!"

The Courts ought to slap this police chief hard enough to make him think he's a Cadet again... Fucking idiots.

[tu_holmes]

Wow... Talk about not knowing what the law says. He needs a specific articulable suspicion. Not some "well, statistically speaking, a crime is committed every second, and a second has passed... so... hands up!"

The Courts ought to slap this police chief hard enough to make him think he's a Cadet again... Fucking idiots.

Absolutely unbelievable... Gestapo shit!

[Jack T. Cross]

The elitists will tell you that we need nationwide 'stop and frisk' laws, while the betas will ask if you've got something to hide.

Perfect tag-team, right there.

[whork]

The elitists will tell you that we need nationwide 'stop and frisk' laws, while the betas will ask if you've got something to hide.

Perfect tag-team, right there.

I hate when they bring that.

Something to hide?
You shouldnt be looking and wtf do you care?

[Jack T. Cross]

I hate when they bring that.

Something to hide?
You shouldnt be looking and wtf do you care?

It seems we are devolving in so many ways, through deliberate manipulation of weak minds.

[333386]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250218/Angel-Ashley-Dobbs-suing-Texas-troopers-shocking-BODY-CAVITY-search-caught-tape.html


Disgusting. 

[tu_holmes]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250218/Angel-Ashley-Dobbs-suing-Texas-troopers-shocking-BODY-CAVITY-search-caught-tape.html


Disgusting. 

How fucked up!!!

If they can go around shoving hands in someones anus, then I can shoot them, right?

[whork]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250218/Angel-Ashley-Dobbs-suing-Texas-troopers-shocking-BODY-CAVITY-search-caught-tape.html


Disgusting. 

 

How can that trooper still hold a job

The entire police force is dirty as hell.

[Agnostic007]

It's not a body cavity search. She didn't stick her finger up an anus or a vagina. That part of the claim will likely fall off. But it is intrusive and it is beyond reasonable . When I worked the streets it was common knowledge crack dealers often times kept their stash in a baggie either stuffed in the crack of their butts or under their balls. I always figured if that's where they are keeping it, they win. It wasn't important enough for me to lower myself to the level of sticking my hands down someones pants to find the dope. If they got arrested then a cavity search would be done at the jail intake upon request    

[tu_holmes]

It's not a body cavity search. She didn't stick her finger up an anus or a vagina. That part of the claim will likely fall off. But it is intrusive and it is beyond reasonable . When I worked the streets it was common knowledge crack dealers often times kept their stash in a baggie either stuffed in the crack of their butts or under their balls. I always figured if that's where they are keeping it, they win. It wasn't important enough for me to lower myself to the level of sticking my hands down someones pants to find the dope. If they got arrested then a cavity search would be done at the jail intake upon request   

Dude... Do you even hear yourself?

Of course the chick stuck her finger down her pants like that not to stick it in her anus... I mean, who doesn't just want to get close.

[Agnostic007]

Dude... Do you even hear yourself?

Of course the chick stuck her finger down her pants like that not to stick it in her anus... I mean, who doesn't just want to get close.

Dude, did you even read my post? Baggie are often times shoved down butt cracks and under testicles. females carry them in their panties. More likely than a cavity search on the side of the rode, it was verifying there were no drugs hidden in those areas. Regardless, the act was in poor judgment, likely violated their policy and should be stopped. It is intrusive and in my opinion, highly offensive. 

[tu_holmes]

Dude, did you even read my post? Baggie are often times shoved down butt cracks and under testicles. females carry them in their panties. More likely than a cavity search on the side of the rode, it was verifying there were no drugs hidden in those areas. Regardless, the act was in poor judgment, likely violated their policy and should be stopped. It is intrusive and in my opinion, highly offensive. 

I did... it's a 1/2 agreement on your part.

You make it sound like it's "bad", but it's not what the people are saying it is... So it's not THAT bad.

[Agnostic007]

I did... it's a 1/2 agreement on your part.

You make it sound like it's "bad", but it's not what the people are saying it is... So it's not THAT bad.

Yes, exactly. It is bad, it is something that should be stopped, it's over the line.. but.. it's not that bad. Make sense?

[tu_holmes]

Yes, exactly. It is bad, it is something that should be stopped, it's over the line.. but.. it's not that bad. Make sense?

That's why you are on THAT side of the blue line... See, regular people DO see it as THAT BAD.

[avxo]

It's not a body cavity search. She didn't stick her finger up an anus or a vagina.

How do you know where she stuck her finger up into?

[Skip8282]

That's why you are on THAT side of the blue line... See, regular people DO see it as THAT BAD.

How much of this shit is do the courts as well I wonder?  I mean, when a cop can just claim someone is 'acting weird' without having any clue what their normally like, and justify searching over something that flimsy.....

Nuckin Futz

[Agnostic007]

How much of this shit is do the courts as well I wonder?  I mean, when a cop can just claim someone is 'acting weird' without having any clue what their normally like, and justify searching over something that flimsy.....

Nuckin Futz

acting weird is a sucky articulation of the circumstances. Not an acceptable standard for sure. To tell a partner who arrives on scene someone is acting weird is one thing, but if that ended up on a report or PC a judge would/should laugh it out of court. "Acting weird" might be short for "When I approached the drivers side I saw the driver was bent over, hands under the seat as if concealing something there. I smelled the odor of burned marijuana when the window rolled down and the drivers eyes were glassy and blooshot and she fumbled with her license and slurred her speach." when talking to your partner, but thats about it.