Outrageous! You WILL be offended!

[Joe]

This situation is anything but clear with so many unanswered questions.

No, there are plenty of answered questions and facts presented to know laws were broken, and her rights were violated.

And the weary argument that I would somehow change my stance if I had more emotional attachment to the victim is insulting. The women in my life have no more right to defy the law than this woman.
You keep saying this but have not provided a reference. Are you saying men shouldn't be present? If so, this in an opinion. If it is a law that clearly shows her rights were violated at the federal or state level because of the presence of men, please provide a reference.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2933.32

"A body cavity search or strip search shall be conducted by a person or persons who are of the same sex as the person who is being searched and the search shall be conducted in a manner and in a location that permits only the person or persons who are physically conducting the search and the person who is being searched to observe the search"

A male by law, isn't even allowed to observe little lone help in stripping this woman. THis is common sense, it's too bad you need proof.

 

[Chessic]

If as you say, I should have every "right" to know why I'm being disrobed then, yes, an act of violence is philosophically approrpriate to defend one's right. Let me explain how this works: You have a "right" to live, so if I attempt to violate that right, guess what that entitles you to do me?

FWIW, I don't actually believe you were being serious when you used the word "right" or questioning an act of retaliation would be off the table.

No, an act of violence is not justified by not receiving information requested. When I say you have every right to know why you are being asked to disrobe, I do not condone any type of violence against the officers present, even if you do not agree with the reason provided; my point is that an answer should given. It may be "We feel you may be a danger to yourself" or "Procedure requires we search every detainee," or "You are on suicide watch and we have to confiscate your clothes." Whatever the official reason, the detainee, imo, has a right to hear it, not that they have to agree or accept it. Saying it was right for her to struggle against the officers because she did not like the answer to her question (assuming it was asked and assuming it was answered) is not comparable to fighting for your life as someone is trying to kill you.

 

[Chessic]

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2933.32

"A body cavity search or strip search shall be conducted by a person or persons who are of the same sex as the person who is being searched and the search shall be conducted in a manner and in a location that permits only the person or persons who are physically conducting the search and the person who is being searched to observe the search"

A male by law, isn't even allowed to observe little lone help in stripping this woman. THis is common sense, it's too bad you need proof.

The police have stated this was not a strip search, which I don't necessarily agree with. But the fact that they taped this is evidence they didn't believe it was a search, as they claimed, since recording it would be in violation of the linked laws.

Now we're getting somewhere in understanding her lawyer's case. And thank you for taking the time and effort to find this link. Unfortunately, the police are not allowed to present all of their case to the public. I would like to hear them state why they say this was not a "strip search," which seems to be part of their justification for saying strip search laws don't apply in this case. Are they claiming she was a suicide risk and they were confiscating her clothes to keep her from using them to injure herself? Inmate's hanging themselves with their own clothes is not unheard of, and she certainly showed signs of mental impairment, but I'd like to hear more of the state's position.

Did anyone find the link to the update and extra video the journalist promised in the story?

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Here is a link to an update:
http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=53820&sid=82519&bw=hi&cat=2

 

[Brother Bob]

The police have stated this was not a strip search, which I don't necessarily agree with. But the fact that they taped this is evidence they didn't believe it was a search, as they claimed, since recording it would be in violation of the linked laws.

Now we're getting somewhere in understanding her lawyer's case. And thank you for taking the time and effort to find this link. Unfortunately, the police are not allowed to present all of their case to the public. I would like to hear them state why they say this was not a "strip search," which seems to be part of their justification for saying strip search laws don't apply in this case. Are they claiming she was a suicide risk and they were confiscating her clothes to keep her from using them to injure herself? Inmate's hanging themselves with their own clothes is not unheard of, and she certainly showed signs of mental impairment, but I'd like to hear more of the state's position.

Did anyone find the link to the update and extra video the journalist promised in the story?

If it was not a strip search, then they just wanted to see her naked. IMO

BBob,

 

[donnA]

There is absoutely no reason to strip this woman unless it was a strip search. No reason for men to be present, no reason to video this woman naked.

 

[donnA]

Here is a link to an update:
http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=53820&sid=82519&bw=hi&cat=2

Thanks Sue.
Lets see, she is attcked, she's a victim, calls police for help, and the cop treats her like a criminal from the very first moment he sees her, then slams her down.(with witnesses to his abuse of a victim). Not to mention according to the police video,(minutes 2:56 to 3:10) there is missing video the police have not turned over, which is against the law.

 

[Dagwood]

I have been cursed, right here on BB!!!

I'm OUTRAGED!!!!!

How dare you claim the position as BB liberal!!!

:laugh:

 

[The Scribe]

This situation is anything but clear with so many unanswered questions. And the weary argument that I would somehow change my stance if I had more emotional attachment to the victim is insulting. The women in my life have no more right to defy the law than this woman.

The only thing I needed to know is that they stripped her for no reason and men were present. That's guilt enough for everyone involved to be fired.

You have insulted people but suggesting it was the victims fault and taking sides with the police.

You keep saying this but have not provided a reference. Are you saying men shouldn't be present? If so, this in an opinion. If it is a law that clearly shows her rights were violated at the federal or state level because of the presence of men, please provide a reference.

It's a law and no one needs to provide you with any links to an obvious law.

They were wrong and she will get the restitution she deserves.

I have no sympathy for brutish police that over step their boundaries because someone gave them a tin badge to play Barney.

 

[The Scribe]

Even though everyone should know this already here it is.

Hope Steffey was then taken to the county jail and forcibly strip-searched by 6 to 7 male and female deputies, despite Stark County´s own policy which states that a strip search must be conducted by a same sex officer.

Stark County

Strip search policies

In all cases of a justified strip search, the search itself must still be reasonable.

There are numerous examples from around the country of class action suits relating to blanket policies of strip searching anyone and everyone who is going to be booked into the jail. These suits have resulted in multi-million dollar settlements and judgments against agencies of all sizes.

The search must be performed by a deputy of the same sex as the detainee, and it involves no touching.

 

[Chessic]

There is absoutely no reason to strip this woman unless it was a strip search. No reason for men to be present, no reason to video this woman naked.

Removal of clothes is SOP in some places to prevent self-injury using them in the cases of possible suicides or mental impairment.

 

[Brother Bob]

Removal of clothes is SOP in some places to prevent self-injury using them in the cases of possible suicides or mental impairment.

So, everyone brought into the station, they down them and strip them.............:BangHead:

BBob,

 

[Chessic]

Thanks Sue.
Lets see, she is attcked, she's a victim, calls police for help, and the cop treats her like a criminal from the very first moment he sees her, then slams her down.(with witnesses to his abuse of a victim). Not to mention according to the police video,(minutes 2:56 to 3:10) there is missing video the police have not turned over, which is against the law.

What makes you think she is attacked and a victim before calling the police? Because her lawyer says so?

Well, it's clear that most here don't to entertain even the possibility that any scenario could exist in which these officer's apparent behavior is acceptable or even necessary. The emotions run so high here that there has been namecalling and personal attacks. I'll bow out now and leave the angry to their indignation.

I'm sorry my desire to see the whole story before judging was so offensive to so many. I hope justice is served, whatever it may be, with a generous helping of mercy.

 

[Chessic]

So, everyone brought into the station, they down them and strip them.............:BangHead:

BBob,

People deemed at risk of suicide or mentally impaired that refuse to cooperate in a voluntary strip, yes.

Anyway, hope you get a resolution that fits your approval.

 

[Chessic]

The only thing I needed to know is that they stripped her for no reason and men were present. That's guilt enough for everyone involved to be fired.

What makes you think it was for no reason? It is against the law, apparently, for police to strip search anyone of the opposite sex in this state. The police maintain this was not a search. Let them have their (second) day in court, where both sides have a chance to explain, and the police will get what punishment the law requires if that is the judgment.

You have insulted people but suggesting it was the victims fault and taking sides with the police.

I have suggested we should wait for the whole story to judge, and that the victim's actions in kicking and screaming aggravated the situation. I have not said it was the victim's fault, nor sided with anyone. And if urging patience and understanding of the whole story is insulting to some, I apologize.

It's a law and no one needs to provide you with any links to an obvious law.

I didn't say anyone had to provide me with any links. Turns out the law shown was for strip searches, not just stripping for safety reasons.

They were wrong and she will get the restitution she deserves.

She might. Second time's a charm. Obviously she feels money would restore the dignity she claims to have lost.

I hope the truth comes out in the end, as it already would have if she had not filed another suit.

 

[donnA]

Removal of clothes is SOP in some places to prevent self-injury using them in the cases of possible suicides or mental impairment.

And the evidence that that is true in this case is...........?
I know people who've been arrested, and not once were they ever told to change clothes for a holding cell.

 

[donnA]

What makes you think she is attacked and a victim before calling the police? Because her lawyer says so?

Well, it's clear that most here don't to entertain even the possibility that any scenario could exist in which these officer's apparent behavior is acceptable or even necessary. The emotions run so high here that there has been namecalling and personal attacks. I'll bow out now and leave the angry to their indignation.

I'm sorry my desire to see the whole story before judging was so offensive to so many. I hope justice is served, whatever it may be, with a generous helping of mercy.

because witnesses say so, thats why they called the police.
Oh no, they just wanted to prank a cop, so they called in an assult that never happened.
They say on the news report that there were wittnesses.

What is offensive, that you believe there is ever a time when men can man handle a woman to the floor , hold her down, and rip her clothing off.

 

[donnA]

The police maintain this was not a search

They violated the law, we can see that, and you believe them when they say it wasn't a strip search. Yeah, right.
So if they just wanted her to change clothes, why didn't they give clothes to put on, why did they leave her there naked.
They're covering themselves, they have too, or admit what they did and lose their jobs.

victim's actions in kicking and screaming aggravated the situation

really, what was it you just said to me, how do we even know she was a victim, how do we know she was even assulted?
the woman was assulted, victimized by a cop, and then forced tot he florr and stripped, and you think she over reacted?

the dignity she claims to have lost

you would have no earthly idea would you.

 

[The Scribe]

Obviously she feels money would restore the dignity she claims to have lost.

She wanted her story told so this might not happen to someone else.

So, you think she didn't lose her dignity, when men stripped her and the women involved said nothing!?

That's outrageous and is insulting not only to her, but to any female on here and anyone who has compassion. She was violated, humiliated, and mentally raped. It's sad you would say that and defend anyone who treats someone else like a farm animal.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

No, an act of violence is not justified by not receiving information requested.

Then one does not have a right to "information requested" as you originally asserted.