-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Texas troopers who cavity searched women to face charges
- Thread starter EMNofSeattle
- Start date
davidmcbeth
Banned
For throwing our a cig from a moving vehicle. Should not even be an infraction -- car manufacturers don't put in ashtrays anymore...out the window it goes
MKEgal
Regular Member
I'm glad the officers are charged, & look forward to hearing that they're doing time.
As for it being the manufacturer's fault that you have no place to put the remnants of your toke... :banghead:
Buy yourself an ashtray. I remember seeing some made on a sandbag, which should sit pretty much anywhere in a car.
It's not an excuse to litter. Smoke already pollutes. Don't add to it by throwing your trash on the ground.
As for it being the manufacturer's fault that you have no place to put the remnants of your toke... :banghead:
Buy yourself an ashtray. I remember seeing some made on a sandbag, which should sit pretty much anywhere in a car.
It's not an excuse to litter. Smoke already pollutes. Don't add to it by throwing your trash on the ground.
Not that it has anything to do with the enormous violation of 4th Amendment rights, but tossing a cigarette out the window in Texas is a crime. http://www.blog4safety.com/2011/04/wildfires-take-a-huge-toll-on-texas/
Given the time, place, and prevailing conditions at the time of the incident, being stopped for tossing the cigarette does not bother me. A littering ticket ought to serve as a warning of the danger, given prevailing conditions. (It really does not bother me even if it was in the middle of a hurricane. Tobacco pollutes the groundwater and the soil. In urban areas one can see where driver after driver after driver has dumped cigarette butts along the median at intersections. It's nasty. And that is said as a former smoker who probably was guikty of everything just complained of.)
My hat is off to whoever placed the charges. I'm still struggling to figure out which offense is the more egregious. For the record, "official oppression" is leading by several lengths.
stay safe.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I guess I'm a criminal then ..... can I still own a gun Masta?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
You know it will be an enormous violation of rights when the government "cleans it up" by using the words cavity search.
They should just be called what they really are--vaginal and anal searches. And, called that all the time.
Its kinda like the word checkpoint--government-speak for roadblock. You automatically know the government is up to something when they change the words ala Orwell.
With the way things are deteriorating, its only a matter of time before cops start asking consent to search "cavities", and then claim its suspicious when a person refuses consent. No joke. I personally witnessed a cop ask the president of VCDL which pocket he kept his wallet in. This was during role play where cops were demonstrating procedure. The scenario was a report of a guy carrying a concealed gun. The scenario was a consensual encounter. And the freaking cop asked the citizen which pocket he kept his wallet in, fully intending to go in that pocket to see if the citizen had a CHP in his wallet!!!
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Not to mention the risk of brush fires or worse. Anyone who advocates for tossing cigarette butts out the window of a car is a moron for doing so.
davidmcbeth
Banned
you sound like a liberal .... you should learn more about the subject before opening mouth & putting foot into it
this thread is getting off subject ....
but I do agree that the term "cavity search" sounds like a dentist was performing a valuable service .... as opposed to what it really is
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Good point. Inasmuch as these searches are often for malum prohibitum discovery related to the War on Some Drugs, I agree they should be treated as criminal.
I can't imagine the British officer searching Dolly Madison's vagina and rectum for gold or jewels. The mores of the time didn't allow him to even search her luggage over her protest. So, just because police suddenly decide its not over-the-top to search vaginas and rectums, suddenly society has to go along with it.
Bullsnit.
77zach
Regular Member
Morally, these women could have used lethal force against these molesters. If memory serves, Texas is also one of the few states where they could have done so legally as well.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
Arent the officers covered by qualified immunity ?
eye95
Well-known member
Per St. John v. McColley (not controlling in Texas, but certainly compelling), immunity can be pierced if the officers knew or should have known that their actions would violate the rights of the victims.
BTW, St. John was cited by the 4th Circuit in Black, so it looks like it will gain wide acceptance as the law of the land.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Not while committing a crime, immunity usually only covers negligence.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Criminal negligence also?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
IMO this is not a case of negligence, it is a clear case of sexual assault for the trooper penetrating the girls, possibly criminal negligence for the other trooper who did not stop it. If he knew before the illegal search that there was going to a sexual assault he should be charged with the same crime as the female trooper.
davidmcbeth
Banned
If the facts I read are correct, piecing this should be no problem.
If the cops personally lose $$$ is another question. It will not be until cops lose the cushion of the governments paying for their mistakes as opposed to them losing financially personally then these issues will never go away.
If you clunk someone over the head at your employer's ya think your employer would pony up the cash if you lose your civil case? Not a chance.
eye95
Well-known member
The officers in the St. John case had to personally cough up the money. The city could not. Likely the officers had insurance, and it paid. However, the city itself was immune from this action by the ruling of the court.
Read the case. It is interesting and will inform your opinion.
Read the case. It is interesting and will inform your opinion.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Working in a law enforcement role is not the same thing as working private sector, your argument is a logical fallacy.
and for that matter, yes your private employer can be held liable for your screw-ups in many cases. Why do you think most companies fire employees who bring guns to work?