Outrageous! You WILL be offended!

I'm not sure I understand your position. Are you saying you feel that a person's right to an answer to a basic question (not necessarily an answer they approve of, but an answer) is not a right unless they may commit acts of violence against those to whom he or she asks the question?

 

Exactly my point, we don't know what the conversation between her and the police was like, what she said or did in the jailhouse to lead the police to think stripping her "for her own safety" was necessary. I believe we should withhold judgment until we hear more than just one side. Maybe she threatened to kill herself, or even specifically to hang herself. We don't know, and we should wait until we hear both sides to judge.

She was not told to change clothes, as far as I know, she was stripped for her own safety as supposed suicide risk.

 

The story says she called the police, not witnesses. And there are many motivations for calling the police when you feel you are going to be in trouble, the most common is probably trying to head off judgment, portraying yourself as the victim when in fact you were the guilty party or shared in the guilt.

The story says there were witnesses, but it does not say what these witnesses said. Notice that not a single witness, nor even the woman herself, appear in the story.

I do believe there are scenarios when "men can handle a woman to the floor, hold her down, and rip her clothing off." Some examples: a woman that has given reason to believe she is a suicide bomber, a woman that has stated she has a serious injury, a woman that gives reason to believe she is armed and planning to use a weapon against herself or another, a woman that has claimed she will injure herself, especially involving hanging or threats that specifically mention her clothing, or a woman that appears to be mentally impaired and a risk to herself and other inmates or guards. Were any of these what happened here? Don't know, hence my desire to hear both sides before condemning anyone.

 

Why are you so quick to apply "innocent until proven guilty" to the police, but not the woman???

 

No, the video Sue posted says there were witnesses, and previously we heard that her cousin, the one she was visiting, called the police.
This woman was a victim, treated as a criminal, she wasn't a suicide bomber.
You call police for protection, and get treated as a criminal, what happened with the other cousin who assulted her? We aren't told a thing, apparently, she wasn't arrested.

 

lol I don't believe I've said the woman was guilty of breaking any law. In my view, both sides are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. My position is that this video doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Why would you say your done with this discussion and leaving it, and then come back.

 

Well, this thread was appropriately named. We all were offended, albeit for different reasons.

 

ahh, she isn't guilty of breaking a law, but it's ok to strip her clothes off and leave her naked.
In no jail do they leave you naked. and We saw on the video they walked out and elft her naked. The police keep proving ehr story.
Now whats on the otehr video the police have't turned over, as the law requires.

 

Offended? You bet, anytime someone thinks it's alright to treat women like this, it's alright for men to throw a woman to the floor, and strip her clothing off, andleave her naked for 6 hours, that she should just get over it and not complain. Yes, I'm offended, offended by people who care so little for women they think this kind of behavior is alright.

 

The guilt is established by the court, not the cops, and I don't understand why you are so eager to bypass the court and pronounce guilt on either side.

I believe we just saw evidence that some jails do. Whether they do for legitimate reasons is another issue, and whether this jail had adequate reasons is what the courts will try to determine. Let the courts do their job, imo.

Exactly what I would like to know, as part of the information we don't have yet to help us make an informed judgment.

 

In all fairness, I may not understand your position either.

It isn't that I feel a person has a right to have a (every) questioned answered as much as a person has a right to be left unmolested, by persons private or public. If there is due cause to initiate force then an explanation is in order, so by default she was entitled to be addressed when screaming, "What are you doing to me?" and so forth. FWIW, I see violence as justifiable whenever there's an initiation of force without pragmatic justification and I believe this case counts as such.

 

Since you persist in your view that this is a crime because it happened to a woman, do you have any comments on how the police should treat a woman that they believe, according to the guidelines given to them by mental health professionals, may be a suicide risk or risk to other inmates? Given, of course, that inmates have killed themselves with their own clothing, for which the police are blamed. Given that if the woman is having a panic attack or episode of some sort or under chemical influence enough time to let it subside might help the situation, that two female guards may not have been able to subdue her safely, especially if she was under the influence of, say, PCP, which they did not know. How should the police have handled it meeting guidelines for mental health care and keeping in mind the police are now responsible for everyone's health, the woman's, the fellow inmates, the guards', and any medical professionals or lawyers that see her. The woman had already been involved in one violent confrontation, in which she claims she was the victim; I'm guessing her cousin said just the opposite.

What should cops do? They can't sedate her with drugs, they can't shackle her to the wall like in a medieval dungeon, they can't put her in a straight jacket, they can't just throw her in a cell "as is" and leave her, and you say they can't strip her and wait for her to cool down. What are they to do?

 

A very reasonable answer, imo. At the beginning of the first tape, right after she screams, a male guard says something to her. I cannot hear what he says and I am not a lip reader, but this may be an answer to her question or it may be simply "hold still." This is another unknown in this case to which I wish we had answers.

I do, however, find conflict between her and her husband's stories, which throws a certain doubt on her claims to me. It proves nothing, imo, but makes me less likely to believe her lawyer's interpretation of the facts without first hearing the police version.

 

They should have given her medical treatment.

I don't know if this woman was a victim or not....what I DO know is NO person (male or female) needs to be stripped and left naked for 6 hours without at least a paper 'coat'.

That is just wrong!

 

LINK

 

yes, victims are always guilty of something and all need to be thrown to the ground and stripped.
Seems the cops have already treated her as if she's been proven guilty, seems they are the ones who have by passed to courts.

They do it illegally, they are simply not allowed to force someones clothes off and leave her them naked for 6 hours.

Becasue the police aren't turning it over, which again, illegal.

Anywhere you go in this country it's illegal for men to force a woman to the floor and strip her clothing and leave her naked for 6 hours.
What guidelines? What says she is suicidal? I don't recall that in either story, which minutes is it at? Risk to other inmates, you mean there were other inmates in the holding cell with her? Two female guards, maybe they should have gotten more instead of committing a crime against someone they were called to protect.
Once again, there are witnesses to her attack, it isn't just her claim.
What they are supose to do is put her in a holding cell, handcuff her if necessary, not hold her down strip her and leave her naked. There are no guidelines that say leave her naked or allow men to participate in stripping her. They are supose to give her a jail uniform, not leave her naked.
why do you hate women so much you believe this treatment is alright? why do you think the police have done nothing wrong?

 

Her husband, in yet another inconsistency with her story, says that she called, and the journalist implies she did (this turns out to be another bait and switch), but the printed story says her cousin called. Part of the cousin's call is played, so unless there was more than one call, that appears to be the correct version of who called.

 

Unless one of the police there was actually a medical professional, one should have been provided to her if she requested one.

If there is any way at all to give her a "paper coat" with which she cannot injure herself, by all means she should have been given one.