Re: Re: Suffolk Co. Incident (was: About Recovery - Training t...

[Guest guest]

sue styd wrote:

> Curious if this woman had prior drinking arrests...?

Why would you be curious about this women's prior history? This women's

sobriety is of no relevance to the " officer's " violation of her constitutional

and human rights. I would also point out that these women were not arrested,

they were illegally detained. A more interesting pondering might be weather or

not they had ever been illegally detained prior to these incidents.

> Speaking from the perspective of a woman with prior

> DUI arrests, jail and aa sentencing.....

>

> In my past drinking/driving days:

>

> If I would have been pulled over and HAD been drinking, I would

> have gladly walked a mile in the snow in my undies and

> really high heels to

> AVOID A REPEAT of a jail experience.

>

> If I had NOT been drinking, there is NO WAY.

As I have said in a previous post, we have no way of knowing why this women,

or any of the others abused by this " officer " , chose compliance in order to end

the abuse. ly, what you or I would have done in this situation, sober or

not, is no bases for conclusions about these " victims " sobriety.

> Certainly this officers behavior is completely unacceptable,

> but I'd almost bet that this was not her first experience

> with drinking and driving and the ramifications. I lean

> toward the theory that she must've felt that " chilly little

> walk " was better than what she may have faced otherwise.

No theory needed here, these women obviously felt that the humiliation and

discomfort of stripping was better endured than the overt and/or implied threats

of this abuser.

> Must've been a reason she felt that way. Had she faced jail

> before?

Really now, there are many reasons, other than the one you seem to be

convinced of, for these women's fearful behavior.

> Let me repeat that the cop was wrong. However, I totally

> agree that she did have a choice here.

>

> I personally think that her choice speaks volumes about her

> state of mind, and that doesn't seem to spell innocent.

Of course these women had a choice. Why they chose to strip does not " speak

volumes " about their state of mind. All it says is that they decided for a

multitude of possible reasons (most of which we can only poorly speculate about)

that complying with this abusers demands was the best choice they could make.

Your earlier assertion that anyone who was sober would have obviously chosen

to take advantage of the opportunity for witnesses, an attorney, and more

sophisticated testing is also in error. According to the press reports some of

these women had no idea if anyone else even knew they had been taken into

custody. As well I'm not sure what horrendous peril you imagine one of these

women was choosing to face by walking five blocks to her home semi-nude. It

seems much more reasonable assume there was far more peril in not complying with

the obviously unbalanced officers request that she strip for the short walk.

Moreover, your position seems to be that you would have complied with the

request to strip only if you were actually drunk, therefore, these other women

were most likely drunk. You also imply that these women all have previous DUI

arrests and possibly convictions.

While I'm not sure what your motivations for this adventure in spurious

thinking are, the conclusions you come to are nothing short of alarming. If

what these women have done " ...doesn't seem to spell innocent. " , just what are

they guilty of? Are you saying that they are complicit in this " officer's "

violation of there rights? Is it your contention that their lack of " innocents "

means that these women received some kind of cosmic justice, even if the " ...cop

was wrong " ? Are you telling us that these women would have been all right had

they encountered this officer while in a true state of innocence (i.e. sober)?

Perhaps you might want to go back and read the press articles fully, not

glossing over the parts that do not support your opinions.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

sue styd wrote:

> Curious if this woman had prior drinking arrests...?

Why would you be curious about this women's prior history? This women's

sobriety is of no relevance to the " officer's " violation of her constitutional

and human rights. I would also point out that these women were not arrested,

they were illegally detained. A more interesting pondering might be weather or

not they had ever been illegally detained prior to these incidents.

> Speaking from the perspective of a woman with prior

> DUI arrests, jail and aa sentencing.....

>

> In my past drinking/driving days:

>

> If I would have been pulled over and HAD been drinking, I would

> have gladly walked a mile in the snow in my undies and

> really high heels to

> AVOID A REPEAT of a jail experience.

>

> If I had NOT been drinking, there is NO WAY.

As I have said in a previous post, we have no way of knowing why this women,

or any of the others abused by this " officer " , chose compliance in order to end

the abuse. ly, what you or I would have done in this situation, sober or

not, is no bases for conclusions about these " victims " sobriety.

> Certainly this officers behavior is completely unacceptable,

> but I'd almost bet that this was not her first experience

> with drinking and driving and the ramifications. I lean

> toward the theory that she must've felt that " chilly little

> walk " was better than what she may have faced otherwise.

No theory needed here, these women obviously felt that the humiliation and

discomfort of stripping was better endured than the overt and/or implied threats

of this abuser.

> Must've been a reason she felt that way. Had she faced jail

> before?

Really now, there are many reasons, other than the one you seem to be

convinced of, for these women's fearful behavior.

> Let me repeat that the cop was wrong. However, I totally

> agree that she did have a choice here.

>

> I personally think that her choice speaks volumes about her

> state of mind, and that doesn't seem to spell innocent.

Of course these women had a choice. Why they chose to strip does not " speak

volumes " about their state of mind. All it says is that they decided for a

multitude of possible reasons (most of which we can only poorly speculate about)

that complying with this abusers demands was the best choice they could make.

Your earlier assertion that anyone who was sober would have obviously chosen

to take advantage of the opportunity for witnesses, an attorney, and more

sophisticated testing is also in error. According to the press reports some of

these women had no idea if anyone else even knew they had been taken into

custody. As well I'm not sure what horrendous peril you imagine one of these

women was choosing to face by walking five blocks to her home semi-nude. It

seems much more reasonable assume there was far more peril in not complying with

the obviously unbalanced officers request that she strip for the short walk.

Moreover, your position seems to be that you would have complied with the

request to strip only if you were actually drunk, therefore, these other women

were most likely drunk. You also imply that these women all have previous DUI

arrests and possibly convictions.

While I'm not sure what your motivations for this adventure in spurious

thinking are, the conclusions you come to are nothing short of alarming. If

what these women have done " ...doesn't seem to spell innocent. " , just what are

they guilty of? Are you saying that they are complicit in this " officer's "

violation of there rights? Is it your contention that their lack of " innocents "

means that these women received some kind of cosmic justice, even if the " ...cop

was wrong " ? Are you telling us that these women would have been all right had

they encountered this officer while in a true state of innocence (i.e. sober)?

Perhaps you might want to go back and read the press articles fully, not

glossing over the parts that do not support your opinions.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

sue styd wrote:

> Curious if this woman had prior drinking arrests...?

Why would you be curious about this women's prior history? This women's

sobriety is of no relevance to the " officer's " violation of her constitutional

and human rights. I would also point out that these women were not arrested,

they were illegally detained. A more interesting pondering might be weather or

not they had ever been illegally detained prior to these incidents.

> Speaking from the perspective of a woman with prior

> DUI arrests, jail and aa sentencing.....

>

> In my past drinking/driving days:

>

> If I would have been pulled over and HAD been drinking, I would

> have gladly walked a mile in the snow in my undies and

> really high heels to

> AVOID A REPEAT of a jail experience.

>

> If I had NOT been drinking, there is NO WAY.

As I have said in a previous post, we have no way of knowing why this women,

or any of the others abused by this " officer " , chose compliance in order to end

the abuse. ly, what you or I would have done in this situation, sober or

not, is no bases for conclusions about these " victims " sobriety.

> Certainly this officers behavior is completely unacceptable,

> but I'd almost bet that this was not her first experience

> with drinking and driving and the ramifications. I lean

> toward the theory that she must've felt that " chilly little

> walk " was better than what she may have faced otherwise.

No theory needed here, these women obviously felt that the humiliation and

discomfort of stripping was better endured than the overt and/or implied threats

of this abuser.

> Must've been a reason she felt that way. Had she faced jail

> before?

Really now, there are many reasons, other than the one you seem to be

convinced of, for these women's fearful behavior.

> Let me repeat that the cop was wrong. However, I totally

> agree that she did have a choice here.

>

> I personally think that her choice speaks volumes about her

> state of mind, and that doesn't seem to spell innocent.

Of course these women had a choice. Why they chose to strip does not " speak

volumes " about their state of mind. All it says is that they decided for a

multitude of possible reasons (most of which we can only poorly speculate about)

that complying with this abusers demands was the best choice they could make.

Your earlier assertion that anyone who was sober would have obviously chosen

to take advantage of the opportunity for witnesses, an attorney, and more

sophisticated testing is also in error. According to the press reports some of

these women had no idea if anyone else even knew they had been taken into

custody. As well I'm not sure what horrendous peril you imagine one of these

women was choosing to face by walking five blocks to her home semi-nude. It

seems much more reasonable assume there was far more peril in not complying with

the obviously unbalanced officers request that she strip for the short walk.

Moreover, your position seems to be that you would have complied with the

request to strip only if you were actually drunk, therefore, these other women

were most likely drunk. You also imply that these women all have previous DUI

arrests and possibly convictions.

While I'm not sure what your motivations for this adventure in spurious

thinking are, the conclusions you come to are nothing short of alarming. If

what these women have done " ...doesn't seem to spell innocent. " , just what are

they guilty of? Are you saying that they are complicit in this " officer's "

violation of there rights? Is it your contention that their lack of " innocents "

means that these women received some kind of cosmic justice, even if the " ...cop

was wrong " ? Are you telling us that these women would have been all right had

they encountered this officer while in a true state of innocence (i.e. sober)?

Perhaps you might want to go back and read the press articles fully, not

glossing over the parts that do not support your opinions.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

> I know of no reason to believe that all of the five women who

> have spoken up so far are a bunch of habitual drunks. What

> is it with this desire to blame the victim?

Because the victim is a woman.

In 1997, Abner Louima was arrested in NYC for his part in starting a fight

at a local nightclub. The arresting officers didn't like his attitude, so

they shoved him into the station house bathroom, and sodomized Louima with

the wooden handle of a plunger by two police officers.

One of the officers involved finally admitted his guilt and will serve 30 a

year sentence. The other officer involved, and others charged with trying to

cover up the incident are abusing the appeals process and doing their best

to stay out of the prisons they have helped fill; they will probably end up

serving reduced or suspended sentences.

I don't recall hearing anyone (sane, and/or not working for the defense)

saying that he might have been even partially responsible for what the

police did to him. I heard nothing but shock, outrage, disgust, and anger

expressed over the incident.

Now we have this case where a woman was forced to strip naked and walk home.

From virtually everyone involved with this case (and not just this list), I

have heard them say that well, she should have chosen arrest; that she must

have had something to with what happened, that there must be " more to it "

than what we've heard in the news. I've heard people actually say the words

" anti-police conspiracy " with a straight face when they're told that other

women have come forward with similar stories of abuse.

Rape shield laws have been passed in many areas of the U.S. to prevent

sleazebag prosecutors from using a victim's past behavior to blame that

victim for any serious assault she might have suffered (the " she was asking

for it by dressing that way " defense).

How many women have died, or at the very least, become hooked on pills

because they had a doctor who was taught by his old-line colleagues that

most women's health issues are just " self-diagnosed hypochondria " that can

be solved with a Valium prescription?

This includes other women; in Phoenix during the mid-80s, there was an

attorney that built quite a successful practice out of getting HER clients

accused of rape acquitted.

The crappy reality -- and the debate of why is left for another time -- is

that women's complaints of anything are rarely taken seriously. I'm sure if

Abner Louima and this woman traded places, many individuals would have

swapped their attitudes about each situations as well.

I'm not a woman, but I've known a few who have similar stories of abuse at

the hands of authority figures. I've seen them make complaints, and I've

seen them lapse into depression, financial ruin, and in one case, an attempt

at suicide when those accused -- and the supporters of those accused --

lashed out and retaliated. " She was asking for it. "

>There are many,

> many people in the world who will do whatever a cop tells

> them. There are also many people who will comply with

> whatever demands an armed criminal makes, regardless of

> whether or not that criminal is wearing a tin badge.

This I do know of first-hand. I'm a very outspoken person, but the one time

I was confronted by a police officer and forced to do things (nothing as bad

as being forced to strip in public) I didn't want to, I sure as hell

complied despite my own big mouth once saying that I would never do so. It's

a lot different when someone twice your size is telling you what the deal is

going to be, and he's resting his hand on his gun holster while saying it.

I'd like to see how some of the people saying " she had part in this " would

react if they ever found themselves in the same situation.

Dan

[Guest guest]

> I know of no reason to believe that all of the five women who

> have spoken up so far are a bunch of habitual drunks. What

> is it with this desire to blame the victim?

Because the victim is a woman.

In 1997, Abner Louima was arrested in NYC for his part in starting a fight

at a local nightclub. The arresting officers didn't like his attitude, so

they shoved him into the station house bathroom, and sodomized Louima with

the wooden handle of a plunger by two police officers.

One of the officers involved finally admitted his guilt and will serve 30 a

year sentence. The other officer involved, and others charged with trying to

cover up the incident are abusing the appeals process and doing their best

to stay out of the prisons they have helped fill; they will probably end up

serving reduced or suspended sentences.

I don't recall hearing anyone (sane, and/or not working for the defense)

saying that he might have been even partially responsible for what the

police did to him. I heard nothing but shock, outrage, disgust, and anger

expressed over the incident.

Now we have this case where a woman was forced to strip naked and walk home.

From virtually everyone involved with this case (and not just this list), I

have heard them say that well, she should have chosen arrest; that she must

have had something to with what happened, that there must be " more to it "

than what we've heard in the news. I've heard people actually say the words

" anti-police conspiracy " with a straight face when they're told that other

women have come forward with similar stories of abuse.

Rape shield laws have been passed in many areas of the U.S. to prevent

sleazebag prosecutors from using a victim's past behavior to blame that

victim for any serious assault she might have suffered (the " she was asking

for it by dressing that way " defense).

How many women have died, or at the very least, become hooked on pills

because they had a doctor who was taught by his old-line colleagues that

most women's health issues are just " self-diagnosed hypochondria " that can

be solved with a Valium prescription?

This includes other women; in Phoenix during the mid-80s, there was an

attorney that built quite a successful practice out of getting HER clients

accused of rape acquitted.

The crappy reality -- and the debate of why is left for another time -- is

that women's complaints of anything are rarely taken seriously. I'm sure if

Abner Louima and this woman traded places, many individuals would have

swapped their attitudes about each situations as well.

I'm not a woman, but I've known a few who have similar stories of abuse at

the hands of authority figures. I've seen them make complaints, and I've

seen them lapse into depression, financial ruin, and in one case, an attempt

at suicide when those accused -- and the supporters of those accused --

lashed out and retaliated. " She was asking for it. "

>There are many,

> many people in the world who will do whatever a cop tells

> them. There are also many people who will comply with

> whatever demands an armed criminal makes, regardless of

> whether or not that criminal is wearing a tin badge.

This I do know of first-hand. I'm a very outspoken person, but the one time

I was confronted by a police officer and forced to do things (nothing as bad

as being forced to strip in public) I didn't want to, I sure as hell

complied despite my own big mouth once saying that I would never do so. It's

a lot different when someone twice your size is telling you what the deal is

going to be, and he's resting his hand on his gun holster while saying it.

I'd like to see how some of the people saying " she had part in this " would

react if they ever found themselves in the same situation.

Dan

[Guest guest]

> I know of no reason to believe that all of the five women who

> have spoken up so far are a bunch of habitual drunks. What

> is it with this desire to blame the victim?

Because the victim is a woman.

In 1997, Abner Louima was arrested in NYC for his part in starting a fight

at a local nightclub. The arresting officers didn't like his attitude, so

they shoved him into the station house bathroom, and sodomized Louima with

the wooden handle of a plunger by two police officers.

One of the officers involved finally admitted his guilt and will serve 30 a

year sentence. The other officer involved, and others charged with trying to

cover up the incident are abusing the appeals process and doing their best

to stay out of the prisons they have helped fill; they will probably end up

serving reduced or suspended sentences.

I don't recall hearing anyone (sane, and/or not working for the defense)

saying that he might have been even partially responsible for what the

police did to him. I heard nothing but shock, outrage, disgust, and anger

expressed over the incident.

Now we have this case where a woman was forced to strip naked and walk home.

From virtually everyone involved with this case (and not just this list), I

have heard them say that well, she should have chosen arrest; that she must

have had something to with what happened, that there must be " more to it "

than what we've heard in the news. I've heard people actually say the words

" anti-police conspiracy " with a straight face when they're told that other

women have come forward with similar stories of abuse.

Rape shield laws have been passed in many areas of the U.S. to prevent

sleazebag prosecutors from using a victim's past behavior to blame that

victim for any serious assault she might have suffered (the " she was asking

for it by dressing that way " defense).

How many women have died, or at the very least, become hooked on pills

because they had a doctor who was taught by his old-line colleagues that

most women's health issues are just " self-diagnosed hypochondria " that can

be solved with a Valium prescription?

This includes other women; in Phoenix during the mid-80s, there was an

attorney that built quite a successful practice out of getting HER clients

accused of rape acquitted.

The crappy reality -- and the debate of why is left for another time -- is

that women's complaints of anything are rarely taken seriously. I'm sure if

Abner Louima and this woman traded places, many individuals would have

swapped their attitudes about each situations as well.

I'm not a woman, but I've known a few who have similar stories of abuse at

the hands of authority figures. I've seen them make complaints, and I've

seen them lapse into depression, financial ruin, and in one case, an attempt

at suicide when those accused -- and the supporters of those accused --

lashed out and retaliated. " She was asking for it. "

>There are many,

> many people in the world who will do whatever a cop tells

> them. There are also many people who will comply with

> whatever demands an armed criminal makes, regardless of

> whether or not that criminal is wearing a tin badge.

This I do know of first-hand. I'm a very outspoken person, but the one time

I was confronted by a police officer and forced to do things (nothing as bad

as being forced to strip in public) I didn't want to, I sure as hell

complied despite my own big mouth once saying that I would never do so. It's

a lot different when someone twice your size is telling you what the deal is

going to be, and he's resting his hand on his gun holster while saying it.

I'd like to see how some of the people saying " she had part in this " would

react if they ever found themselves in the same situation.

Dan

[Guest guest]

Sorry, Steve, I can't agree with you. The law punishes drunk-driving

offenders; police officers are conduits of that law. Nothing gave him

any right to treat those women the way he did. I hope he a) loses his

job gets convicted criminally and c) gets sued for several million

dollars and loses.

sparkydawg69@... wrote:

> hi all,

>

> It seems to me the woman had two choices. Of course she wouldn't have

> been in

> the situation had she been sober, but let's just say she was

> perfectly sober

> and she was pulled over for running a red light(something nearly as

> dangerous

> to others and self as driving under the influence) and were given the

> same

> two choices ........ Would she then strip if told to by the officer or

> would

> she refuse an accept whatever consequences ...... ?

>

> How 'bout postulating this: Who would be the " victim " if she had

> plowed into

> another vehicle and left someones soul smashed to pieces all over the

> road?

>

> another thought .... most police officers are required through the

> nature of

> thier job to be rescue personel at the scene of many accidents, far to

> many

> caused by drunk drivers. I have talked to several who do this for a

> living

> aboutb this particularly difficult aspect of thier resposibilityies

> and it is

> both an extremely difficult thig to do and absolutely heartbreaking

> almost

> everytime. I may not agree with his particular choice under the

> circumstances

> but maybe I would have given her a ride down to the morgue to have a

> damn

> good look at what she was fortunate to not have happen to her or

> someone she

> cared about.

>

> Finally, I was not there. I don't know the woman or the officer but it

> seems

> to me to be a significant stretch to start labeling someone an abusive

>

> redneck power tripping policeman from my easy chair in front of this

> safe and

> protective computer screen. There are infinate variables of

> posibilities

> engendered in the given situation, who am I to judge anyones behaviour

> or

> mental state except by the simple facts. One huge one pops into my

> mind. This

> woman was brandishing a huge deadly weopon, in an intoxicated

> condition, in a

> public place ..........

>

> I am not defending nor condemning anyone just thinking too much as

> I've often

> been " accused " . I do expect everyone to accept responsibility for

> thier

> actions.

>

> steve

[Guest guest]

Sorry, Steve, I can't agree with you. The law punishes drunk-driving

offenders; police officers are conduits of that law. Nothing gave him

any right to treat those women the way he did. I hope he a) loses his

job gets convicted criminally and c) gets sued for several million

dollars and loses.

sparkydawg69@... wrote:

> hi all,

>

> It seems to me the woman had two choices. Of course she wouldn't have

> been in

> the situation had she been sober, but let's just say she was

> perfectly sober

> and she was pulled over for running a red light(something nearly as

> dangerous

> to others and self as driving under the influence) and were given the

> same

> two choices ........ Would she then strip if told to by the officer or

> would

> she refuse an accept whatever consequences ...... ?

>

> How 'bout postulating this: Who would be the " victim " if she had

> plowed into

> another vehicle and left someones soul smashed to pieces all over the

> road?

>

> another thought .... most police officers are required through the

> nature of

> thier job to be rescue personel at the scene of many accidents, far to

> many

> caused by drunk drivers. I have talked to several who do this for a

> living

> aboutb this particularly difficult aspect of thier resposibilityies

> and it is

> both an extremely difficult thig to do and absolutely heartbreaking

> almost

> everytime. I may not agree with his particular choice under the

> circumstances

> but maybe I would have given her a ride down to the morgue to have a

> damn

> good look at what she was fortunate to not have happen to her or

> someone she

> cared about.

>

> Finally, I was not there. I don't know the woman or the officer but it

> seems

> to me to be a significant stretch to start labeling someone an abusive

>

> redneck power tripping policeman from my easy chair in front of this

> safe and

> protective computer screen. There are infinate variables of

> posibilities

> engendered in the given situation, who am I to judge anyones behaviour

> or

> mental state except by the simple facts. One huge one pops into my

> mind. This

> woman was brandishing a huge deadly weopon, in an intoxicated

> condition, in a

> public place ..........

>

> I am not defending nor condemning anyone just thinking too much as

> I've often

> been " accused " . I do expect everyone to accept responsibility for

> thier

> actions.

>

> steve

[Guest guest]

Sorry, Steve, I can't agree with you. The law punishes drunk-driving

offenders; police officers are conduits of that law. Nothing gave him

any right to treat those women the way he did. I hope he a) loses his

job gets convicted criminally and c) gets sued for several million

dollars and loses.

sparkydawg69@... wrote:

> hi all,

>

> It seems to me the woman had two choices. Of course she wouldn't have

> been in

> the situation had she been sober, but let's just say she was

> perfectly sober

> and she was pulled over for running a red light(something nearly as

> dangerous

> to others and self as driving under the influence) and were given the

> same

> two choices ........ Would she then strip if told to by the officer or

> would

> she refuse an accept whatever consequences ...... ?

>

> How 'bout postulating this: Who would be the " victim " if she had

> plowed into

> another vehicle and left someones soul smashed to pieces all over the

> road?

>

> another thought .... most police officers are required through the

> nature of

> thier job to be rescue personel at the scene of many accidents, far to

> many

> caused by drunk drivers. I have talked to several who do this for a

> living

> aboutb this particularly difficult aspect of thier resposibilityies

> and it is

> both an extremely difficult thig to do and absolutely heartbreaking

> almost

> everytime. I may not agree with his particular choice under the

> circumstances

> but maybe I would have given her a ride down to the morgue to have a

> damn

> good look at what she was fortunate to not have happen to her or

> someone she

> cared about.

>

> Finally, I was not there. I don't know the woman or the officer but it

> seems

> to me to be a significant stretch to start labeling someone an abusive

>

> redneck power tripping policeman from my easy chair in front of this

> safe and

> protective computer screen. There are infinate variables of

> posibilities

> engendered in the given situation, who am I to judge anyones behaviour

> or

> mental state except by the simple facts. One huge one pops into my

> mind. This

> woman was brandishing a huge deadly weopon, in an intoxicated

> condition, in a

> public place ..........

>

> I am not defending nor condemning anyone just thinking too much as

> I've often

> been " accused " . I do expect everyone to accept responsibility for

> thier

> actions.

>

> steve

[Guest guest]

Bravo, Dave! This was a totally awesome and thorough answer!

Dave Marcoot wrote:

>

> > hi all,

> >

> > It seems to me the woman had two choices. Of course she

> wouldn't have been in

> > the situation had she been sober, but let's just say she was

> perfectly sober

> > and she was pulled over for running a red light(something

> nearly as dangerous

> > to others and self as driving under the influence) and were

> given the same

> > two choices ........ Would she then strip if told to by the officer or

> would

> > she refuse an accept whatever consequences ...... ?

>

> irrelevant.

> there is no circumstance to do this , under ANY Circumstance's.

> there is no excuse for this. this in fact makes his action even

> more inexcusable, because she was under influence and in

> less of condition to defend herself. what if she had been on cold

> medication, which also can effects your ability to drive, would that

> make it alright then? if she had told she had to blow him or go to

> jail, would that be ok because she was drunk too?

>

> >

> > How 'bout postulating this: Who would be the " victim " if she

> had plowed into

> > another vehicle and left someone's soul smashed to pieces all

> over the road?

>

> irrelevant.

> if she was drunk, his job was to arrest her, not act as the judge,

> or bypass the constitution because of his personal power

> fetishes. he is not paid to make the law, but to uphold it. the law

> doesn't hold people responsible for what they COULD have

> done. and even if she ahd plowed into a group of people, how is

> public nudity justice by any measure? if my loved ones were

> killed, i would want to see jail time, not this side show which is

> an insult to the judiciary system and rule of law in the nation.

>

> >

> > another thought .... most police officers are required through

> the nature of

> > their job to be rescue personnel at the scene of many

> accidents, far to many

> > caused by drunk drivers. I have talked to several who do this for

> a living

> > about this particularly difficult aspect of their resposibilities and

> it is

> > both an extremely difficult thig to do and absolutely

> heartbreaking almost

> > everytime. I may not agree with his particular choice under the

> circumstances

> > but maybe I would have given her a ride down to the morgue to

> have a damn

> > good look at what she was fortunate to not have happen to her

> or someone she

> > cared about.

>

> once again, totally irrelevant., that is for judge to order, his job is

> to uphold the law as it is written, that is what he is SWORN to do.

> not to violate it to teach a dubious and abusive " lesson " . how

> does violating his sworn duty, and the justifiable negative

> publicity he earned for him and his police department, make the

> jobs of any police office easier ? dont they have a hard enough

> job as it is without losing more of the publics trust?

>

> >

> > Finally, I was not there. I don't know the woman or the officer

> but it seems

> > to me to be a significant stretch to start labeling someone an

> abusive

> > redneck power tripping policeman from my easy chair in front

> of this safe and

> > protective computer screen.

>

> no its not ,

> because thats exactly what it is. he went beyond his authority and

> the constitution, he violated his oath and public trust he was was

> sworn to protect. he has in fact given all police a black eye with

> his over stepping of his and any legal authority to what he did.

> tell me where it says in any state law, or in constitution that what

> he did was legal? a child can tell you he abused his power.

>

> if he had done this to jay walker, would it be any more of a

> " power trip " and a violation of his sworn duty?

>

> > There are infinate variables of posibilities

>

> no, there are not.

> there is only two possibilities, she was drunk or she was not

> if she was drunk, his job, paid for with tax payer money, was to

> arrests her, not make her perform a public nudity show.

>

> > engendered in the given situation, who am I to judge anyone's

> behavior or mental state except by the simple facts.

>

> simple facts is no police office is allowed ot do this . period

>

> >One huge one pops into my mind. This

> > woman was brandishing a huge deadly weopon, in an

> intoxicated condition, in a

> > public place ..........

>

> One huge one pops into my mind,

> thats why we have laws, and that why we arrest people who

> drive drunk. we pay are officers to uphold the law and protect the

> public, not to violate the laws , strip citizens them and have them

> parade around in public to humiliate them.

>

> > I am not defending nor condemning anyone just thinking too

> much as I've often> been " accused " . I do expect everyone to

> accept responsibility for their> actions.

>

> bullshit, you totally defended this officer and seem to forget he

> had responsibility himself, to protect and serve the public, to

> uphold the law and the constitution.. not make it up himself,

>

> by doing so, he has not only weakened the publics trust in him,

> but police everywhere. he caused nothing but harm to her, to

> himself and abilty of his fellow officers to be trusted as well next

> time they pull some one over, for ANYTHING.

[Guest guest]

Bravo, Dave! This was a totally awesome and thorough answer!

Dave Marcoot wrote:

>

> > hi all,

> >

> > It seems to me the woman had two choices. Of course she

> wouldn't have been in

> > the situation had she been sober, but let's just say she was

> perfectly sober

> > and she was pulled over for running a red light(something

> nearly as dangerous

> > to others and self as driving under the influence) and were

> given the same

> > two choices ........ Would she then strip if told to by the officer or

> would

> > she refuse an accept whatever consequences ...... ?

>

> irrelevant.

> there is no circumstance to do this , under ANY Circumstance's.

> there is no excuse for this. this in fact makes his action even

> more inexcusable, because she was under influence and in

> less of condition to defend herself. what if she had been on cold

> medication, which also can effects your ability to drive, would that

> make it alright then? if she had told she had to blow him or go to

> jail, would that be ok because she was drunk too?

>

> >

> > How 'bout postulating this: Who would be the " victim " if she

> had plowed into

> > another vehicle and left someone's soul smashed to pieces all

> over the road?

>

> irrelevant.

> if she was drunk, his job was to arrest her, not act as the judge,

> or bypass the constitution because of his personal power

> fetishes. he is not paid to make the law, but to uphold it. the law

> doesn't hold people responsible for what they COULD have

> done. and even if she ahd plowed into a group of people, how is

> public nudity justice by any measure? if my loved ones were

> killed, i would want to see jail time, not this side show which is

> an insult to the judiciary system and rule of law in the nation.

>

> >

> > another thought .... most police officers are required through

> the nature of

> > their job to be rescue personnel at the scene of many

> accidents, far to many

> > caused by drunk drivers. I have talked to several who do this for

> a living

> > about this particularly difficult aspect of their resposibilities and

> it is

> > both an extremely difficult thig to do and absolutely

> heartbreaking almost

> > everytime. I may not agree with his particular choice under the

> circumstances

> > but maybe I would have given her a ride down to the morgue to

> have a damn

> > good look at what she was fortunate to not have happen to her

> or someone she

> > cared about.

>

> once again, totally irrelevant., that is for judge to order, his job is

> to uphold the law as it is written, that is what he is SWORN to do.

> not to violate it to teach a dubious and abusive " lesson " . how

> does violating his sworn duty, and the justifiable negative

> publicity he earned for him and his police department, make the

> jobs of any police office easier ? dont they have a hard enough

> job as it is without losing more of the publics trust?

>

> >

> > Finally, I was not there. I don't know the woman or the officer

> but it seems

> > to me to be a significant stretch to start labeling someone an

> abusive

> > redneck power tripping policeman from my easy chair in front

> of this safe and

> > protective computer screen.

>

> no its not ,

> because thats exactly what it is. he went beyond his authority and

> the constitution, he violated his oath and public trust he was was

> sworn to protect. he has in fact given all police a black eye with

> his over stepping of his and any legal authority to what he did.

> tell me where it says in any state law, or in constitution that what

> he did was legal? a child can tell you he abused his power.

>

> if he had done this to jay walker, would it be any more of a

> " power trip " and a violation of his sworn duty?

>

> > There are infinate variables of posibilities

>

> no, there are not.

> there is only two possibilities, she was drunk or she was not

> if she was drunk, his job, paid for with tax payer money, was to

> arrests her, not make her perform a public nudity show.

>

> > engendered in the given situation, who am I to judge anyone's

> behavior or mental state except by the simple facts.

>

> simple facts is no police office is allowed ot do this . period

>

> >One huge one pops into my mind. This

> > woman was brandishing a huge deadly weopon, in an

> intoxicated condition, in a

> > public place ..........

>

> One huge one pops into my mind,

> thats why we have laws, and that why we arrest people who

> drive drunk. we pay are officers to uphold the law and protect the

> public, not to violate the laws , strip citizens them and have them

> parade around in public to humiliate them.

>

> > I am not defending nor condemning anyone just thinking too

> much as I've often> been " accused " . I do expect everyone to

> accept responsibility for their> actions.

>

> bullshit, you totally defended this officer and seem to forget he

> had responsibility himself, to protect and serve the public, to

> uphold the law and the constitution.. not make it up himself,

>

> by doing so, he has not only weakened the publics trust in him,

> but police everywhere. he caused nothing but harm to her, to

> himself and abilty of his fellow officers to be trusted as well next

> time they pull some one over, for ANYTHING.

[Guest guest]

Bravo, Dave! This was a totally awesome and thorough answer!

Dave Marcoot wrote:

>

> > hi all,

> >

> > It seems to me the woman had two choices. Of course she

> wouldn't have been in

> > the situation had she been sober, but let's just say she was

> perfectly sober

> > and she was pulled over for running a red light(something

> nearly as dangerous

> > to others and self as driving under the influence) and were

> given the same

> > two choices ........ Would she then strip if told to by the officer or

> would

> > she refuse an accept whatever consequences ...... ?

>

> irrelevant.

> there is no circumstance to do this , under ANY Circumstance's.

> there is no excuse for this. this in fact makes his action even

> more inexcusable, because she was under influence and in

> less of condition to defend herself. what if she had been on cold

> medication, which also can effects your ability to drive, would that

> make it alright then? if she had told she had to blow him or go to

> jail, would that be ok because she was drunk too?

>

> >

> > How 'bout postulating this: Who would be the " victim " if she

> had plowed into

> > another vehicle and left someone's soul smashed to pieces all

> over the road?

>

> irrelevant.

> if she was drunk, his job was to arrest her, not act as the judge,

> or bypass the constitution because of his personal power

> fetishes. he is not paid to make the law, but to uphold it. the law

> doesn't hold people responsible for what they COULD have

> done. and even if she ahd plowed into a group of people, how is

> public nudity justice by any measure? if my loved ones were

> killed, i would want to see jail time, not this side show which is

> an insult to the judiciary system and rule of law in the nation.

>

> >

> > another thought .... most police officers are required through

> the nature of

> > their job to be rescue personnel at the scene of many

> accidents, far to many

> > caused by drunk drivers. I have talked to several who do this for

> a living

> > about this particularly difficult aspect of their resposibilities and

> it is

> > both an extremely difficult thig to do and absolutely

> heartbreaking almost

> > everytime. I may not agree with his particular choice under the

> circumstances

> > but maybe I would have given her a ride down to the morgue to

> have a damn

> > good look at what she was fortunate to not have happen to her

> or someone she

> > cared about.

>

> once again, totally irrelevant., that is for judge to order, his job is

> to uphold the law as it is written, that is what he is SWORN to do.

> not to violate it to teach a dubious and abusive " lesson " . how

> does violating his sworn duty, and the justifiable negative

> publicity he earned for him and his police department, make the

> jobs of any police office easier ? dont they have a hard enough

> job as it is without losing more of the publics trust?

>

> >

> > Finally, I was not there. I don't know the woman or the officer

> but it seems

> > to me to be a significant stretch to start labeling someone an

> abusive

> > redneck power tripping policeman from my easy chair in front

> of this safe and

> > protective computer screen.

>

> no its not ,

> because thats exactly what it is. he went beyond his authority and

> the constitution, he violated his oath and public trust he was was

> sworn to protect. he has in fact given all police a black eye with

> his over stepping of his and any legal authority to what he did.

> tell me where it says in any state law, or in constitution that what

> he did was legal? a child can tell you he abused his power.

>

> if he had done this to jay walker, would it be any more of a

> " power trip " and a violation of his sworn duty?

>

> > There are infinate variables of posibilities

>

> no, there are not.

> there is only two possibilities, she was drunk or she was not

> if she was drunk, his job, paid for with tax payer money, was to

> arrests her, not make her perform a public nudity show.

>

> > engendered in the given situation, who am I to judge anyone's

> behavior or mental state except by the simple facts.

>

> simple facts is no police office is allowed ot do this . period

>

> >One huge one pops into my mind. This

> > woman was brandishing a huge deadly weopon, in an

> intoxicated condition, in a

> > public place ..........

>

> One huge one pops into my mind,

> thats why we have laws, and that why we arrest people who

> drive drunk. we pay are officers to uphold the law and protect the

> public, not to violate the laws , strip citizens them and have them

> parade around in public to humiliate them.

>

> > I am not defending nor condemning anyone just thinking too

> much as I've often> been " accused " . I do expect everyone to

> accept responsibility for their> actions.

>

> bullshit, you totally defended this officer and seem to forget he

> had responsibility himself, to protect and serve the public, to

> uphold the law and the constitution.. not make it up himself,

>

> by doing so, he has not only weakened the publics trust in him,

> but police everywhere. he caused nothing but harm to her, to

> himself and abilty of his fellow officers to be trusted as well next

> time they pull some one over, for ANYTHING.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

This is the last I will say on this matter;

I believe we must all accept responsibility for our own thought processes and our own actions. Excuses suck.

Everyone has power. No-one can take take from us a grain of that power that we do not give. It's all in your head.

No person, no thing has omnipotant authority over my self, my thoughts, my dignity, my belief of what is right and wrong, not even the Constitution or anybody who waves it around or uses it as a shield. The Constitution grants society the right through legal process to kill people as retribution and to show other people that killing people is wrong. I know that that is wrong. For too long the Constitution allowed one person to enslave another. I know that that is wrong.

I will never abdicate nor sacrifice my own power, my dignity, my self repect, my humanity for the sake of convenience. I accept that my existance on this planet may present me with situations where life itself may be that convenience. Defense of many of the principals of that same Constitution and especially, our Bill of Rights, would rightfully be one of those situations. Not because of the authority of the document, but because it is the right thing to do.

nuff said, though I'm sure there will be those here that will also pull this to pieces .....

he he he ..... have at it ......

Steve

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

This is the last I will say on this matter;

I believe we must all accept responsibility for our own thought processes and our own actions. Excuses suck.

Everyone has power. No-one can take take from us a grain of that power that we do not give. It's all in your head.

No person, no thing has omnipotant authority over my self, my thoughts, my dignity, my belief of what is right and wrong, not even the Constitution or anybody who waves it around or uses it as a shield. The Constitution grants society the right through legal process to kill people as retribution and to show other people that killing people is wrong. I know that that is wrong. For too long the Constitution allowed one person to enslave another. I know that that is wrong.

I will never abdicate nor sacrifice my own power, my dignity, my self repect, my humanity for the sake of convenience. I accept that my existance on this planet may present me with situations where life itself may be that convenience. Defense of many of the principals of that same Constitution and especially, our Bill of Rights, would rightfully be one of those situations. Not because of the authority of the document, but because it is the right thing to do.

nuff said, though I'm sure there will be those here that will also pull this to pieces .....

he he he ..... have at it ......

Steve

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

This is the last I will say on this matter;

I believe we must all accept responsibility for our own thought processes and our own actions. Excuses suck.

Everyone has power. No-one can take take from us a grain of that power that we do not give. It's all in your head.

No person, no thing has omnipotant authority over my self, my thoughts, my dignity, my belief of what is right and wrong, not even the Constitution or anybody who waves it around or uses it as a shield. The Constitution grants society the right through legal process to kill people as retribution and to show other people that killing people is wrong. I know that that is wrong. For too long the Constitution allowed one person to enslave another. I know that that is wrong.

I will never abdicate nor sacrifice my own power, my dignity, my self repect, my humanity for the sake of convenience. I accept that my existance on this planet may present me with situations where life itself may be that convenience. Defense of many of the principals of that same Constitution and especially, our Bill of Rights, would rightfully be one of those situations. Not because of the authority of the document, but because it is the right thing to do.

nuff said, though I'm sure there will be those here that will also pull this to pieces .....

he he he ..... have at it ......

Steve

[Guest guest]

At 10:24 PM 1/6/01 -0500, wrote:

>At 09:16 PM 1/6/01 -0600, you wrote:

>>I believe that when stopped by an officer it is acceptable to ask for them

>>to call their backup if you're uncomfortable with the way the encounter

>>has been going.

>

>I have also heard it suggested that a woman (or man, I guess) ask

>the officer to follow her to a well-lit public area before interacting

>with him. In theory the cop should accede, although in practice

>you'd probably be guaranteeing yourself a ticket or arrest.

>

>

If you're at all suspicious about the flashing lights pulling you

over (or even if you're not and it's not 'too far to drive'), you can

drive to the nearest convenience store, gas station or other place

that's open and there are other people there. Especially if it's not

obviously a police car (and you suspect this may not be a real police

or a legitimate stop), you can drive to the nearest police precinct.

It's always good to know where the nearest police precint is in the

areas you frequent.

I've not had to ever use any of this info, but it's good to know.

-----

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 10:24 PM 1/6/01 -0500, wrote:

>At 09:16 PM 1/6/01 -0600, you wrote:

>>I believe that when stopped by an officer it is acceptable to ask for them

>>to call their backup if you're uncomfortable with the way the encounter

>>has been going.

>

>I have also heard it suggested that a woman (or man, I guess) ask

>the officer to follow her to a well-lit public area before interacting

>with him. In theory the cop should accede, although in practice

>you'd probably be guaranteeing yourself a ticket or arrest.

>

>

If you're at all suspicious about the flashing lights pulling you

over (or even if you're not and it's not 'too far to drive'), you can

drive to the nearest convenience store, gas station or other place

that's open and there are other people there. Especially if it's not

obviously a police car (and you suspect this may not be a real police

or a legitimate stop), you can drive to the nearest police precinct.

It's always good to know where the nearest police precint is in the

areas you frequent.

I've not had to ever use any of this info, but it's good to know.

-----

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

Pete,

I totally agree with you if one is in this siuation, then if they do react

they are only feeding th fantasy and the power that thjese abusers are

searching for. If you are in the situation of being raped it is the

desperation that fuels them on they can smell your fear and they feed on

this, quite often loosing control of the situation and killing the person.

Noone can ever ubderstand the feelings and the fear that goes through your

mind if you have never experienced it, especially as a child.

Jules

>

> > Somethinh that interests me is whether any of these women have

> > suffered sexual abuse or domestic violence previously. One thing that

> > ppl often dont realize is that abused ppl often co-operate with

> > abusers to amazing extents out of sheer terror. Unfortunately I can

> > be one of them, and I'm very, very glad I'm a large male and less

> > likely to be sexually assaulted than other ppl, such as women.

> >

> > This level of co-operation seems crazy to those who dont understand it

> > and even looks like collaberation in the abuse, which produces more

> > shit for the victim in the response it gets from others. It isnt

> > collaboration, it is simply the effect of sheer helplessness.

> >

> > When a child is abused compliance is a meatter of sheer survival and

> > it can sometimes have the same protective effect for an adult. I

> > aremember seeing a film about a serial killer who abducted a teen

> > girl and drive around with her for days before finally releasing her.

> > She made no attempt to escape, even agreeing to go with him in to a

> > restaurant - as well as fearing he would shoot her, he told her he

> > would shoot other ppl if she escaped while out of his sight. He even

> > got her to drive a car with him tailing; she told her that as a

> > former racing driver there was no way she could get away from him,

> > which was probably true as he had been a racing driver, but many

> > would have tried anyway. He eventually did release her and she

> > survived, unlike the other girl who he killed while holding her

> > captive.

> >

> > The reason she survived becasue this guy's bag was to have the girl

> > beg for mercy before killing her. She had already been raped

> > previously, and had learned that pleas for mercy were useless or

> > counter-productive, and instead remained passive. Since he didnt get

> > his fix he let her live and she survived. So the apparently " crazy "

> > compliance of a victim may actually be lifesaving.

> >

> > P.

>

>

>

>

>