Chessic said:
As I watch the joy in her lawyer's leering face I can't help but think how stupid it is to scream and kick at the police. A more calm approach might have solved the entire issue. I don't believe the cops suddenly jumped her when she answered "Now or ever?" when they asked if she had thought of hurting herself.
That is certainly a biased story. I hope the truth comes out, whatever it may be.
In the mean time, congratulations to the new millionaires!
Chessic, I had avoided answering you directly until now: But you disappoint me in your attitude and judgement of this situation: You DO have a right to your opinion..... but disturbing is that on a board with Christian posters, if the only evidence was the article and the film, and we were a jury, I'm concerned that your 'respect for authority' would overshadow your own judgement of right and wrong...... of guilty or innocent.
The questioned asked was
"Have you ever wanted to hurt yourself?".
What would be your honest answer? ...... What if you had such thoughts many years ago...... what still would be your honest answer? You think its a smarty answer that she asks a question? She asks a question to clarify the specifics so that she could answer!
ARE YOU OFFENDED THAT SHE QUESTIONED THE OFFICERS WITH A QUESTION?
Then be offended that our LORD did the same thing when teaching and responding to questions....answering a question sometimes with a question.
Take some basic courses in communication and you will find this is an important part of verbal exchange between persons, to ask for clarification, rather than try to read minds and answer when the question is ambiguous.
Specifically and professionally the officers could have asked "Do you have a wish or a plan to hurt yourself?" Now that would have given them an answer to base a reasonable assessment. But the wording of their question was designed to be ambiguous to get any answer on which they could carry out their authoritarian control.
They'd already ruffed her up at the scene without getting the complete story. They were already treating her like a suspect...... and her guilt was that she carried around a deceased sister's photo identification.
IF they transported her without a prior search for weapons, sharps, chemicals, then they took an unprofessional and irresponsible risk in transporting her to jail for further questioning.
Once at jail, she could have been held for questioning, wearing her own clothes with perhaps removal of shoe strings, belts, shoes...... and if they thought there was a threat, her bra could have been removed without uncovering her. If understaffed, they should have called in female auxillaries.
======================
Another thing
Who do YOU think is responsible and in control here?
Are the police professional? Self-aware? The authority? Rational?
The woman is already a victim. She has injuries. She has witnesses. What would any normal person consider is her likely state of mind under those circumstances? ....... Most people I know have enough life experience to already presume that she is likely to be emotional, preoccupied with the immediacy and shock of her recent experience, and likely to still be emotionally vunerable to any thing or approach which is perceived as a threat. A victim's rationality at such time is fragile and largely dependant upon the safety and open communication of those who present themselves as 'helpers'. Whether or not she initially trusted the officers, it seems apparrent there was no capitalization of her trust by them in the way they handled her explanation of wrong identification. But was this sufficient for them to create increased agitation in her, and a power struggle over?
Sure, false identification can be serious..... in some circumstances..... but don't the police have quick tools and communication between them and other sources to see if this is such a case? Should their approach to a victim be that of haste or patience? If their approach is in haste and they are quick to lay on hands..... do you think that their authority and power to do so is justifying? Personnally, I think the irrational self-preservation resistance of a victim already assaulted and upset, may be a justified and expected response to anyother threat that presents itself to harm. I'm surprised that she was convicted for resisting arrest. I may appear extreme in this regard, but if I were already upset, and in pain from recent injuries, and some stranger in a uniform grabs me and wheels me about slamming me to the ground and then up beside their car..... without probable cause.... it looks like a criminal act of assault, unconstitutional restraint, and provoking of any means I may have at my disposal to protect myself from further harm..... even at the risk of appearing 'resisting'.
The police may deny that this was a 'strip' search. But once all garments including underwear are removed, and there is visual exposure of genital parts, a strip search has been essentially completed as cavities were not concealed.
I'm very angry to think this occurs in America, by a sheriff's department or local police. I have a respect for law enforcement and some are in my familly, but I would be appalled and I could not condone their behavior in such a case! I would like to believe most LEOs have more professionalism.....
But what is upsetting me right now, is the thought that there may be some who defend such behavior and don't see a line being crossed which is totally unacceptible in a free society....and is unacceptible in a community of Christians whether or not the society is 'free'.
