FantasySharks.com

There are two types of Fantasy Football Owners: Sharks and Chum, which are you?
It is currently Mon 11.24.2014, 20:28

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed 04.11.2012, 16:08 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Tue 12.14.2004, 12:17
Posts: 2055
Sand$: 10157
Donate
Location: Michigan
det.gif
I am really surprised that the prevailing viewpoint is that it is fine to blanket strip search innocent people based on a police officer's discretion. I advise you to be meek and completely deferential to all requests an officers of the law makes of you, legal or not, lest you irritate one of them and he decides you are going to have a very bad day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 04.11.2012, 16:13 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Wed 10.26.2005, 14:02
Posts: 33397
Sand$: 14668
Donate
Location: Drivin' over Kanan
chi.gif
Magyc wrote:
I am really surprised that the prevailing viewpoint is that it is fine to blanket strip search innocent people based on a police officer's discretion. I advise you to be meek and completely deferential to all requests an officers of the law makes of you, legal or not, lest you irritate one of them and he decides you are going to have a very bad day.


Again, you're bringing an issue that is irrelevant into the conversation.

No one is debating what should or should not land you in jail. The SC decision is limited ONLY to what is allowed IF you are booked into a jail.

_________________
So, where the hell was Biggles when you needed him last Saturday?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 04.11.2012, 16:38 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 05.16.2009, 09:57
Posts: 31339
Sand$: 37258
Donate
Location: Arkansas
mia.gif
feral pig wrote:
Magyc wrote:
I am really surprised that the prevailing viewpoint is that it is fine to blanket strip search innocent people based on a police officer's discretion. I advise you to be meek and completely deferential to all requests an officers of the law makes of you, legal or not, lest you irritate one of them and he decides you are going to have a very bad day.


Again, you're bringing an issue that is irrelevant into the conversation.

No one is debating what should or should not land you in jail. The SC decision is limited ONLY to what is allowed IF you are booked into a jail.


This. Whatever causes me to land there, if I'm being incarcerated, I fully expect it. It wouldn't make me happy, but it wouldn't come as a surprise.

It's also the least of my worries at that point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 04.11.2012, 17:05 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 39478
Sand$: 37778
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
feral pig wrote:
625james wrote:
tjusmc wrote:
Magyc wrote:
tjusmc wrote:
Only unreasonable people see a strip search upon being booked into jail as an unreasonable search.


Reasonable searches have always happened. It's the policy of blanket strip searching anyone that is outrageous.

Anyone being booked into jail. Perfectly reasonable. Hell I thought that was already the practice

It was, this case is about some clown who didn't pay his traffic tickets on time and they went to warrant. He then paid them, but didn't keep a copy of his paid tickets and warrant dismissal. In some jurisdictions there is a delay in the municipal court computer system notifying the police computer system that the warrant has been dismissed. In the lag time this clown manages to get himself stopped by city police twice. He got arrested and strip searched both times for the warrant that had already been dismissed. Had the idiot kept the paperwork showing his warrant had been dismissed he would have never been arrested once much less twice :F


I'm sure money was the primary motivation in this suit. There is plenty of case law holding cities/police departments aren't liable for accidentally arresting someone due to a delay in computer systems communicating between one another.



Actually, he was suing not because he claimed he shouldn't have been arrested, but based on the claim that the strip search was unreasonable.

And his claim was quite properly denied.

The point of why he was arrested, and whether or not he deserved to be jailed, is a completely different discussion.


And if they decided Person A doesn't have to be strip searched and Person B does then it probably would end up in a law suit.

I agree that being booked for a crime meets minimum standards to me to have to spread 'em.

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

I was the smartest person I knew, certainly I had wherewithal to unravel the mysteries that lay at the heart of a moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 04.11.2012, 17:26 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.30.2007, 04:35
Posts: 8721
Sand$: 16587
Donate
Location: St Louis
stl.gif
Elmagister wrote:
feral pig wrote:
Magyc wrote:
I am really surprised that the prevailing viewpoint is that it is fine to blanket strip search innocent people based on a police officer's discretion. I advise you to be meek and completely deferential to all requests an officers of the law makes of you, legal or not, lest you irritate one of them and he decides you are going to have a very bad day.


Again, you're bringing an issue that is irrelevant into the conversation.

No one is debating what should or should not land you in jail. The SC decision is limited ONLY to what is allowed IF you are booked into a jail.


This. Whatever causes me to land there, if I'm being incarcerated, I fully expect it. It wouldn't make me happy, but it wouldn't come as a surprise.

It's also the least of my worries at that point.


I don't see why some are having such a hard time understanding this.


If you get jailed you get strip searched, that is perfectly reasonable.

If you get jailed unjustly, your problem is not that you got strip searched, your problem is that you got jailed unjustly.

_________________
It was purgatory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 04.11.2012, 17:29 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Wed 10.26.2005, 14:02
Posts: 33397
Sand$: 14668
Donate
Location: Drivin' over Kanan
chi.gif
tjusmc wrote:

If you get jailed unjustly, your problem is not that you got strip searched, your problem is that you got jailed unjustly.


Thank you.

_________________
So, where the hell was Biggles when you needed him last Saturday?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 04.17.2012, 18:38 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 07.09.2005, 14:37
Posts: 27107
Sand$: 9562
Donate
Location: America's North Coast
cle.gif
tjusmc wrote:
Magyc wrote:
tjusmc wrote:
Only unreasonable people see a strip search upon being booked into jail as an unreasonable search.


Reasonable searches have always happened. It's the policy of blanket strip searching anyone that is outrageous.

Anyone being booked into jail. Perfectly reasonable. Hell I thought that was already the practice



_________________
Image
"It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 05.29.2012, 22:18 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 10.17.2009, 23:41
Posts: 12741
Sand$: 30962
Donate
Location: Texas
dal.gif
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... rches?lite

Quote:
Milwaukee police accused of performing illegal body cavity searches
By Elizabeth Chuck, msnbc.com

Seven officers and a supervisor at the Milwaukee police department have had their badges taken away after allegations surfaced that police have been conducting body cavity searches on suspects with no authority to do so.

Follow @msnbc_us

Reports of officers arresting suspects then subjecting them to cavity searches first surfaced in local media in March. On Monday, after getting access to a police report, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that officers allegedly performed these searches on a routine basis.

One Milwaukee officer, Michael Vagnini, "had a reputation" for forcing suspects he believed had drugs in their body cavities to bend over for him, said defense attorney Alex Cossi, who handled a July 2011 case that alleges Vagnini searched his client and another suspect in the booking room.

"This was not a rogue happenstance. This was a tacit acceptance of strip searches without proper procedures or supervision," Cossi told The Journal Sentinel.

Vagnini found suspected cocaine "between (their) butt cheeks," the police report said.

Strip searches, which Wisconsin state law defines as searching "a detained person's genitals, pubic area, buttock or anus, or a detained female person's breast," can only be performed by a doctor, physician's assistant or registered nurse. The state law requires written permission before a strip search is conducted, unless there's probable cause to believe the suspect is hiding a weapon.

Cossi said his client was not provided with written documents before Vagnini performed the cavity search, which is a strip search involving penetration, on him. Because improper tactics were used to find the cocaine, the drug dealing charge against Cossi's client was thrown out, The Journal Sentinel reported.

It's not clear how many allegations of cavity searches the Police Department is facing....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 05.29.2012, 22:38 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Wed 10.26.2005, 14:02
Posts: 33397
Sand$: 14668
Donate
Location: Drivin' over Kanan
chi.gif
625james wrote:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/29/11939457-milwaukee-police-accused-of-performing-illegal-body-cavity-searches?lite

Quote:
Milwaukee police accused of performing illegal body cavity searches
By Elizabeth Chuck, msnbc.com

Seven officers and a supervisor at the Milwaukee police department have had their badges taken away after allegations surfaced that police have been conducting body cavity searches on suspects with no authority to do so.

Follow @msnbc_us

Reports of officers arresting suspects then subjecting them to cavity searches first surfaced in local media in March. On Monday, after getting access to a police report, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that officers allegedly performed these searches on a routine basis.

One Milwaukee officer, Michael Vagnini, "had a reputation" for forcing suspects he believed had drugs in their body cavities to bend over for him, said defense attorney Alex Cossi, who handled a July 2011 case that alleges Vagnini searched his client and another suspect in the booking room.

"This was not a rogue happenstance. This was a tacit acceptance of strip searches without proper procedures or supervision," Cossi told The Journal Sentinel.

Vagnini found suspected cocaine "between (their) butt cheeks," the police report said.

Strip searches, which Wisconsin state law defines as searching "a detained person's genitals, pubic area, buttock or anus, or a detained female person's breast," can only be performed by a doctor, physician's assistant or registered nurse. The state law requires written permission before a strip search is conducted, unless there's probable cause to believe the suspect is hiding a weapon.

Cossi said his client was not provided with written documents before Vagnini performed the cavity search, which is a strip search involving penetration, on him. Because improper tactics were used to find the cocaine, the drug dealing charge against Cossi's client was thrown out, The Journal Sentinel reported.

It's not clear how many allegations of cavity searches the Police Department is facing....



You do realize that this case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Supreme court decision, which was restricted to a case where the strip search is legally authorized and normal procedure, don't you?

_________________
So, where the hell was Biggles when you needed him last Saturday?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 05.29.2012, 22:52 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 10.17.2009, 23:41
Posts: 12741
Sand$: 30962
Donate
Location: Texas
dal.gif
feral pig wrote:
625james wrote:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/29/11939457-milwaukee-police-accused-of-performing-illegal-body-cavity-searches?lite

Quote:
Milwaukee police accused of performing illegal body cavity searches
By Elizabeth Chuck, msnbc.com

Seven officers and a supervisor at the Milwaukee police department have had their badges taken away after allegations surfaced that police have been conducting body cavity searches on suspects with no authority to do so.

Follow @msnbc_us

Reports of officers arresting suspects then subjecting them to cavity searches first surfaced in local media in March. On Monday, after getting access to a police report, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that officers allegedly performed these searches on a routine basis.

One Milwaukee officer, Michael Vagnini, "had a reputation" for forcing suspects he believed had drugs in their body cavities to bend over for him, said defense attorney Alex Cossi, who handled a July 2011 case that alleges Vagnini searched his client and another suspect in the booking room.

"This was not a rogue happenstance. This was a tacit acceptance of strip searches without proper procedures or supervision," Cossi told The Journal Sentinel.

Vagnini found suspected cocaine "between (their) butt cheeks," the police report said.

Strip searches, which Wisconsin state law defines as searching "a detained person's genitals, pubic area, buttock or anus, or a detained female person's breast," can only be performed by a doctor, physician's assistant or registered nurse. The state law requires written permission before a strip search is conducted, unless there's probable cause to believe the suspect is hiding a weapon.

Cossi said his client was not provided with written documents before Vagnini performed the cavity search, which is a strip search involving penetration, on him. Because improper tactics were used to find the cocaine, the drug dealing charge against Cossi's client was thrown out, The Journal Sentinel reported.

It's not clear how many allegations of cavity searches the Police Department is facing....



You do realize that this case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Supreme court decision, which was restricted to a case where the strip search is legally authorized and normal procedure, don't you?


Yes

This story lends some credence to the concern some sharks expressed towards law enforcement officers abusing the power to perform strip searches. I also found it interesting how many more restrictions there were on strip searches in Wisconsin vs Texas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 05.30.2012, 07:09 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Mon 05.31.2004, 04:01
Posts: 14560
Sand$: 15641
Donate
Vagnini was cavity searched.


huh huh uh huh huh huh


Anyway, I disagree that it lends credence to that sentiment. One is a case about the legality of strip searching criminals entering prisons. This one is cops illegaly searching free citizens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 05.30.2012, 12:19 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Tue 09.06.2005, 07:51
Posts: 31564
Sand$: 119195
Donate
Location: where the red furn grows
min.gif
I believe the original is concerning entering jail not so much prison.. big difference.. I'd have to read back to clarify.. I'm not going to read back.

oh,, and if a search is being conducted the citizen is anything but 'free', no?



and a big hip-hip-hurray to the Milwaukee PD!.. bunch of crooked clowns.

_________________
"This whole world would be successful if everybody stopped quitting." - Evander Holyfield


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 12.20.2012, 13:57 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Mon 09.05.2005, 00:40
Posts: 4800
Sand$: 9105
Donate
Location: San Franpsycho
jail? prison? bah.... how about right here, at the side of the road, in front of the squad car headlights.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e34_1355877149

_________________
"If it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 12.20.2012, 14:06 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Mon 09.30.2002, 19:43
Posts: 24657
Sand$: 13980
Donate
Location: Shadows and Dust
atl.gif
"Spread your cheeks and lift your sack!"



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 12.20.2012, 14:25 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 39478
Sand$: 37778
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
MadLove wrote:
jail? prison? bah.... how about right here, at the side of the road, in front of the squad car headlights.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e34_1355877149


Is it just me or did she seem pretty comfortable during the butt search? :oops:

Cop's a moron, looks to me. Really, what's she allegedly hiding, a few grams of pot?

He'll be fired and she'll win a big lawsuit.

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

I was the smartest person I knew, certainly I had wherewithal to unravel the mysteries that lay at the heart of a moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Puking Dog and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group