Outrageous! You WILL be offended!

[donnA]

The deputy then ran a computer check of the right license and Steffey’s cousin noticed a bald spot on her head from the assault.
The cousin “reminded” the deputy that Steffey was the victim while advising Steffey of the hair loss which made her visibly upset.
The documents alleged Gurlea failed to call for medical assistance despite knowledge Steffey was injured.
Gurlea the, documents allege, warned Steffey to calm down and Steffey replied she was upset and could exercise her freedom of speech and her cousin again attempted to remind the deputy that Steffey was the victim and she had been knocked unconscious by the assailant.
The deputy allegedly refused to acknowledge her injuries


snip


Steffey pointed her finger at her sister’s license in the deputy’s pocket and said, “she was here, she was someone” and Gurlea allegedly, suddenly exploded into a rage and allegedly slammed her face into his cruiser breaking a tooth, and pinning her against the cruiser, allegedly saying, “are you going to stop?”
The documents allege Gurlea then threw her to the ground causing cuts and bruises and with the weight of his body on her she could not breathe.

witnesses......
This is the way this deputy treats victims of assult.
No wonder this woman was upset, you would be too.

seven jail workers, male and female

no, two female officers couldn't handle her, so they needed 7!

“And you have to ask yourself, what was the purpose of the strip search?” said Steffey’s lawyer. “What was the necessity of it? This was a disorderly conduct claim.“

even though it is department policy for “officers conducting any strip search to be of the same sex”, Stark County Sheriff Timothy A. Swanson is trying to claim that Steffy was not actually strip searched.

no, she was justed stripped, and left naked, not department policy is it?

from the same site posted by Sue, different page


links to other sources are also included on this link.

Her only charges came form after her assult by the other woman and the police.

 

[donnA]

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.

She should ahve been taken to the hospital, they HAVE to provide medical treatment for anyone in their custody, it is illegal not too.
Tell me, what was the problem with her having underware?
Maybe someone just wanted a peek.

Just watched the video again, the woman was bleeding and still she was arrested instead of getting medical attention.

 

[Joe]

I have a little experience in this area, not much. From age 19- 22 or so, during the summers & part of the year, I was a fill in teacher's aide at Juvenille Hall. This was Maximum Security, the other Juvenille Hall had an open door. Kids could just walk out if they wanted.
So we had the worse kids, the most violent teens ages 13-18. As a teachers aide, I would hear of what was happening in the jail (of course). There were maybe 4 guards on shift at a time. They wanted me to finish college and work there, as the Teacher would retire some years later. Because of fear, most County aides and Teachers refused to substitute at this location.

Even when our kids were on suicide watch, they were never allowed to be naked in their cells for ANY length of time. The fact his grown lady spent 6 hours without clothing is sickening.
In fact, males were not allowed on that side of the wing.

I asked a few times to go see a student who attempted suicide and was not allowed to walk to the female side. When students were missing from class, you hoped they were released, because often, that meant they were on suicide watch. By law, they had to attend school. Only suicide attempts kept them from attending school. THe kids often came in with bruises, swollen faces, cuts from their fights.

The facility was ran by two people, a male and female. It was rare, but the man who ran the facility did go back to the female wing sometimes. Often it was during PE, we were outside.
The teens were always clothed.
Bedsheets are taken away for suicide watch, but not clothing. Suicide watch happened, well about 3-4 times per month while I worked there.

I am sure that there were some serious problems, but if caught, those guards were fired. It was a rough place, but ran VERY VERY well by good people. They helped me alot as a teen when I was there, so we were somewhat close. Some are acquaintances still who work at the County Jail about 3 miles from our house.
The fact is, you strip someone of their dignity, and they are MORE LIKELY to commit suicide.

I'll give you the only scinereo I can think of (Because it happened to me while i was there) when a girl (our student) about 17 years old tried to hurt herself in the shower. There is only one female guard for 8 girls during showering time and both the teen AND the guard were pregnant. The guard, a friend of mine somwhat, told me earlier that morning she was pregnant. Planned on working until she showed, but that would be her last day.
This female guard started calling out for help when I was in the hall, so I called and ran to get someone, though the doors are locked at every level so I didn't get far. Aides do not have keys except for the classroom. Yes, the facitlity was that small, when i would stand outside the classroom door, it was located right between the mens and women's dorm cells. It takes forever for someoene to get anywhere (it seems) so you can be waiting some time before they show. Anyways, I pushed the button in our classroom at the guards insistance (normally used to call for help in class, but I wanted someone to run into the hall to help so the could see the Guard needed help). Maybe they didn't hear us.
It was one of our VERY pregnant students throwing herself against the wall, and this pregnant guard didn't want to get involved, hurt herself because SHE was pregnant at the time.
When no one came within a short time, I ran in to the showers in a panick. Luckily the guard had already told the girls to cover up with towels. The pregnant one refused. SHe calmed down right when I came in (we got along well in class, she knew I cared about her) yelliing about what he guard said to her. I immediately made her cover up (because it's VERY offensive as it SHOULD be) she complied when I handed her a towel. We spoke for a minute or so until a guard finally came back there. Both guards were in seperate restrooms at the same time.

Another female guard popped in, handed her clothes, and a blanked to cover up with.

This teen was a part of a gang, had little respect for her babies health, and was threatening to hurt it just to get back at the guard for what she said. This guard was very curt, had a power trip, and treated the girls somewhat badly. She was also one of my favorites guards to work with.

I got yelled at, swore at, threatened to get beat up, threated to be fired etc... by the two who ran the facility. They couldn't fire me, we didn't work for the same departments yet they could refuse to have me back in their facility. He was so mad, but I figured he would calm down later, he has a temper.
All I could think about was that baby, never noticed that I even saw any other teens unclothed (as The others voched they all had towels so I didn't see but I wouldn't have known otherwise).

The moral of the story is procedure is more important than just ONE life. You cannot break procedure, even if someone is killing themselves because it is more often abused than not.
For men (guards) to just run into the females showers, well that would cause more sexual assults than it would save that one life. Bad guards could use that as an excuse to run into a shower to assault a female, maybe even take her solo out of a cell to do it. After it was explained to me, then I understood how bad my decision was. I had really screwed up. I was very accountable, even as a substitute I knew how they ran the facility from being encararated there for a while as a teenager (2 or three years earlier) I knew the Teacher and the two aides well, some of the guards also, because they had been my teacher and aide some years earlier.

They normally would confine her to solitary confinement for that stunt in the shower yet they couldn't punish her, make her angrier so she could spread about what happened and they could get sued for my behavior. A male is not to be around an unclothed female, period. So the teen was told they would "do her a favor" and let her off that time, but next time there would be trouble. This made it hard because if she told other kids, they would wonder why they can't be "let off' for throwing fits. It oculd incite fighting, is what they said. I didn't buy it.

I had been told to never be on that side of the faciltity. Breaking procedures opened up the door for many problems I had not thought of.

It was also hard because being a man, everyone automatically felt (the other female teachers aide and the teacher) I would protect them, as I did once or twice in the class. It was never said, but encouraged with little remarks made. They had a huge drop in fights in the classroom when I was hired, due to my gender. Guards laxed in their duties when I was hired, they didn't remain in class with us as much, though by law, they were suppose to. Fights were less likely to break out so they saved money by having Guards do other duties, and not be in class. So maybe I was getting mixed signals. That's what they said.

Proceedures are there for a reason. When they are broken, and someone is degraded and victimized because of it, then the jail staff involved must be fired.

Never should a female imate be unclothed in the presence of a male, period. & vice versa. There are laws against it for a reason

 

[Chessic]

yes, victims are always guilty of something and all need to be thrown to the ground and stripped.

Are you just all emotion on this one? Are you just so angry you are looking for someone to vent on? No one has said a word about "all victims" and how they should be treated, and there is no evidence shown so far that this woman was "thrown to the ground," as she claims. If evidence surfaces to support her claim, by all means chalk one up for her side. Then the question of whether that behavior was called for comes up. But we all see worse than that on every episode of Cops or any Spring Break college party.

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

I hope the courts address these things. But if we allow heart attack patients to sit untreated in an ER for hours until they die, it seems unlikely they will do much about a woman sitting supposedly-safe but uncomfortably naked alone in a room. Different issues, though. People shouldn't have to wait this long, imo, for either medical or legal issues to be addressed. Was this the middle of the night? Were they waiting for the prosecutor, her lawyer, or some medical professional to show up? We don't know.

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

So her side claims, and you obviously believe them. I can see forgetting to turn on the dashboard cam at the original stop, and I can even see a problem or accidental deletion of a part of a tape, but when the excuses start to pile up, it becomes suspicious. I'd like to hear a more detailed answer by the police about each of the missing videos. That said, we should not assume what may or may not be on these tapes.

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'm sure you are aware that medical professionals create guidelines for the treatment of detainees with most every conceivable medical situation, including combative detainees with mental illness and intoxication. These guidelines are used to establish protocols and procedures that law enforcement are supposed to use in dealing with these situations. What the guidelines were in this case, and whether they were followed, we do not know yet. But it is clear that the police are denying this was a strip search, whether after the fact because they realize they did not follow strip search procedures, or before hand because they felt she was a risk to herself or others is open to debate. It matters which they perceived it as and when because that would determine which procedures they were to follow.

Risk to other inmates, you mean there were other inmates in the holding cell with her?

I don't think we know what the plans of the officers were, but normal procedure is, I believe, not to isolate detainees unless there is a fear of harm to someone involved. Perhaps the thinking was that after a few hours to relax, or "sleep it off" as is often used for intoxicated people, she would be calmer and allowed (perhaps with medical approval) to have her clothes and be put in a cell with other detainees. Just guesswork, though; we don't know. I wonder what happened at the end of the 6 hours, whether she was seen by medical or mental health professionals. I think it is safe to assume she was no longer still screeching, kicking and clawing, behavior which may have lead them to believe she was dangerous, mentally impaired, and/or intoxicated.

Once again, there are witnesses to her attack, it isn't just her claim.

And we have heard about these witnesses second hand and from one side of the story only. I'd bet a Coke the cousin she fought with has his/her own witnesses and different story. Why should we not listen to both sides?

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.

I think this is historically the most common solution, after a (non-strip) search, though it has occasionally led to the deaths of inmates, for which the police are also held accountable.

why do you hate women so much you believe this treatment is alright? why do you think the police have done nothing wrong?

Are you still assuming that anyone who isn't willing to rush to judgment with just one side of this story is against women? Or even hates women? Among the things I hate are lying, greed, and abuse. Either the woman is lying and greedy, or the police are lying and abusive. With only part of the evidence, I do not believe we are qualified to determine which is right. You may disagree and feel that you have all the evidence you need, but that doesn't mean I hate women.

Can you see the possibility that a person could write this story differently, edit the video differently, present only the cousin's side of the fight, etc, and portray this woman as a psychotic and manipulative bully? But is she? I don't know; that's what the courts will have to decide.

I don't believe I've said the police are innocent. I believe we have been given all the most damning evidence her lawyer could find, packaged in the most damning way they could think of. The police deserve the same right: to present their side of the case with all their evidence, with all their own video interpretation, and a judge or a jury can decide where the truth lies; this is our legal system.

In any court proceeding, it is standard for an attorney to portray his or her client as innocent, an angel, if you will. This is why murderers and drug dealers that may have lived on the street show up showered and shaved, with haircuts and nice blue suits. In the case at hand, the lawyer will obviously be expected to present her as an attractive, respectable woman and a victim of an assault who said and did absolutely nothing wrong. Why, she is so kind and caring she is only releasing this tape to help us all! Not, of course, to sway public opinion against the police.

The Police lawyers will do the same.

In most cases, I believe the truth is somewhere in between the two sides.

I respect the opinion of all of you that believe you have seen all you need to see to render a verdict. Please respect my opinion that I want to hear both sides of the story before judging. And please let's not call each other names or make accusations against one another.

 

[Chessic]

She should ahve been taken to the hospital, they HAVE to provide medical treatment for anyone in their custody, it is illegal not too.
Tell me, what was the problem with her having underware?
Maybe someone just wanted a peek.

Just watched the video again, the woman was bleeding and still she was arrested instead of getting medical attention.

If her injuries were deemed serious enough to warrant a hospital, by all means should should have been taken. A chipped tooth and pulled hair may not equal that level of severity, and I expect there are guidelines for that procedure.

 

[windcatcher]

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.

It amazes me that you demand proof that she was a victim of assault (when the story so states it), yet you consider her 'at risk of suicide or mentally impaired" when there are no statements confirming this...... even the reply to 'the question' doesn't answer this.

No, stripping a person is not reasonable procedure of a victim of assault.

One may argue and defend the lawfulness of stripping a person in some instance, but I don't think you can cite any law that says 'the law requires a detained person must remove all clothes, and will be forceably assisted, if protesting or refusing.'

I did review the video again and I see that her hands are freed, before their leaving the room.... which explains how she was able to wrap herself in the toilet paper.

If you see the strip as necessary, may I suggest, does this look like human dignity or human indignity? They left her with NO covering. They filmed it. (What's the purpose of filming? To review latter in their locker rooms? Or to add to her humiliation? Or a 'cya' technique meant to protect them from the potential of claims that they beat her up or had police brutality?) Where are her interest or the interest of the community being served?

If the stripping of clothes is meant to be punishment...... how does this play with 'innocent til proven guilty?' ------Oh, that's right! They had her already convicted, right? Wrong!

As to the male-female thing..... Any situation requiring stripping should involve persons of the same sex if necessary to attend or assist. In a nursing class I took, there was much emphasis placed on having a reason for everything you do. What ever is said, whatever is done, affects those to whom it is done or said.... and is this not true of all interpersonal relationships?

The unfortunate outcome of this situation is that it exposes some bad apples which inclines to generalize that this fits into a lot of misbehavior that is common to law enforcement officers (LEOs) when that is not the case..... Most law enforcement officers are deserving of the respect and support by the members of the community. However, there is enough evidence that corruption does take place..... and that mistakes of judgement do occur..... and frequently when a mistake of judgement occurs (which can be so easy given the pressure of the job, exposure to violence and life threatening) that cover ups, often fraternally involving others assistance, does occur to plant evidence on the innocent, or declare false witness.

A local community... Mobile Al ...recently found two officers, involve in drugs...... the 10 year veteran had loads of cash and thousands of dollars worth of drugs.... and another police accomplice --with about a year at this department.... had several pounds of drugs

The Atlanta Georgia situation where police made a 'bust' at the home of an elderly woman, about a year or so ago, based on false address given by informant, and killed her when they busted down the door to find her in her apartment and armed and shooting at the gang that she perceived to be threatening her life. After perceiving their mistake too late.... they not only searched for drugs but then planted some to cover their own patooties.

This should make us more understanding and compassionate of the difficulties faced by LEOs BUT it should NEVER desensitize us into accepting that corruption, abuse, and graft are acceptible and that they have immunity from the laws which they are supposed to enforce.

We should pray for protection and wisdom and discernment for the noble LEOs which protect us and enforce the law.

Oh......... the suggestion that military police work does this: This is not the military. And there is a difference, a big difference between the military and community police. This is not a military action and has no justification based upon what is acceptible by the military.

 

[Chessic]

No wonder this woman was upset, you would be too.

Please do not predict how I would react.

no, two female officers couldn't handle her, so they needed 7!

Still believing her lawyers claims as truth? The claim is "up to 6 or 7." The video shows two men holding her down, two women stripping her, that's 4. The camera person is probably male, too (though the snippet in the second linked video should not be taken as proof the same camera person was in her cell). Where are the other 3, leering and giggling in the hall?

no, she was justed stripped, and left naked, not department policy is it?

I wouldn't know what department policy is in the case of someone they deemed a threat.

“And you have to ask yourself, what was the purpose of the strip search?” said Steffey’s lawyer. “What was the necessity of it? This was a disorderly conduct claim.“

They didn't strip her as part of her disorderly conduct claim. They stripped her, apparently, because they believed she was dangerous to herself or others.

 

[Chessic]

They violated the law, we can see that, and you believe them when they say it wasn't a strip search. Yeah, right.

What makes you think I believe them? Have I said I believe them?

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 didn't want her to change clothes. They wanted, I believe they claim, to remove her clothes to remove any risk she would hurt herself or another with them. Don't forget, recently there was a high-profile case of a woman who died in custody while trying to remove her shirt, strangling herself. I don't believe it was ever proven whether it was accidental or intentional.

They're covering themselves, they have too, or admit what they did and lose their jobs.

They very well might be and you are of course entitled to your view. I wish to give the police their chance to explain their actions before I conclude anything. My desire to hear both sides first has led to a lot of anger against me here and a lot of insults and accusations.

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?

I believe both sides agree there was a fight that led to the original call, but who was to blame, I do not know. The story claims she was convicted of disorderly

the woman was assulted, victimized by a cop, and then forced tot he florr and stripped, and you think she over reacted?

Even if your judgments are correct, that she was the victim in the assault, that a cop victimized her (both of which have evidence to the contrary we have not yet heard) and was stripped, yes I think she over-reacted. Have you ever seen a situation where screaming, kicking, clawing, and squirming against any authority figure produced a better outcome than reason and calmness? While she screeches like she's in a horror movie about demon-possession, I can't help but wonder what would happen with a simple, calm, even-toned, normal speaking voiced asking "Have I done something wrong? May I be allowed to disrobe without the men present?" Somewhere between her reactions and the police interpretation of those reactions, she was deemed a possible danger to herself or others. A calm demeanor would go a long way toward changing that perception.

 

[Chessic]

Thanks, Joe for sharing those experiences.

While I disagree with your conclusion, that procedures are more important that life, I respect your opinion.

Perhaps part of the difference in opinion on the case at hand is different beliefs about the severity of seeing someone else nude. I tend to think of it as a matter of modesty and dignity. Others here, and I won't put words in their mouths but will leave it to them explain their positions as they wish) have used words like "disgusting" and "sickening" for a person to see another naked, even in the extreme cases of safety and to save a life.

I don't mean to make light of what happened to this woman, but as I've said other places, I've seen as bad or worse on the TV show Cops, in college parties, in high school locker rooms, and other less grave places than a jail. I think modesty and dignity in covering a nude form, however, should not take precedent over saving a life, or ensuring someone's safety.

I believe we agree on the necessity of procedures, though. And if the police are found in violation of their procedures, there should be consequences: firings, perhaps, retraining, or legal consequences. I tend to think it might be better in some cases to discipline and retrain, rather than fire someone, or you just end up with a brand new, inexperienced recruit more likely to make the same mistake than someone who's learned the hard way. I'm told there is a severe law enforcement shortage nationwide because of low wages, dangerous working conditions, and high pressure.

 

[Joe]

While I disagree with your conclusion, that procedures are more important that life, I respect your opinion.

This is untrue. I said procedures prevent lives. Once you allow one Cop to be naked around a woman for any reason that right get's abused by other Cops and Jail staff. IT is to SAVE lives. It's because of the importance of lives we have these procedures and laws in place.

Perhaps part of the difference in opinion on the case at hand is different beliefs about the severity of seeing someone else nude. I tend to think of it as a matter of modesty and dignity. Others here, and I won't put words in their mouths but will leave it to them explain their positions as they wish) have used words like "disgusting" and "sickening" for a person to see another naked, even in the extreme cases of safety and to save a life.

You continously state the possiblity to save a life. Handcuffs work better to save a life than a mixed gender gang with weapons stripping her naked. What happened to her is sickening and disgusting, and if you think your view of modesty plays into it, well that has only a small part in it. A nudist would have emotional trauma from being stripped naked, gang forced by and left nude for 6 hours.
This is not about completely being unclothed, it's about a sexual assault which clearly took place.

I don't mean to make light of what happened to this woman, but as I've said other places, I've seen as bad or worse on the TV show Cops, in college parties, in high school locker rooms, and other less grave places than a jail.

Then you need to quit watching those violent shows, they are desensitizing you bigtime. In fact, from your posts, you appear to need help. Help yourself. Get rid of your TV, take down the antenna. Get yourself into the word, and learn what God's will is for you. Be around godly people, change your atomosphere.

I think modesty and dignity in covering a nude form, however, should not take precedent over saving a life, or ensuring someone's safety.

Of course a life is more important, that is what we have all been trying to tell you.

This is why it is so important not to strip someone of their dignity causing them undue trauma which ends up in suicide. This is why they are clothed and handcuffed, not to allow their hands the freedom to create something to hang themselves with. Except her hands were left free, and she used them to cover herself with TP. This is very interesting to me

Btw, it's not "If the police are found in violation of procedures" now is it? I showed you the law, they ARE in violation yet you REFUSE to see it. You continously create scinereos to make excuses for them, but not for that poor lady, even despite the fact the laws were broken.

 

[Chessic]

It amazes me that you demand proof that she was a victim of assault (when the story so states it)

The news story gave only her side of it. Her cousin may say this woman attacked her first and therefore the cousin is the victim. Shouldn't we at least hear what the cousin, or any other person that has evidence, have to say before judging? As it is, we have only the woman, her husband, her lawyer, and the journalist, all biased for different reasons giving their point of view. The cousin would likely be biased as well, but for her own side. Both sides should be allowed to speak and have their evidence heard.

yet you consider her 'at risk of suicide or mentally impaired" when there are no statements confirming this...... even the reply to 'the question' doesn't answer this.

I don't consider her anything in regards to her mental capacity. And what matters, in determining the correctness of the police response, is what they thought based on the immediate evidence they had at the time as relates to their procedures. They knew that, from their perspective: 1. She had already been involved in one violent incident that night. 2. She'd presented false ID. 3. She may have become belligerent and resisted arrest. 4. She'd said or done something, we don't know all of what, that led them to believe she was a danger to herself or others. These, and more that could be listed, led to the police seeing her as a possible threat to herself or others. At that point, it is unclear what procedure is, but they may have had little choice.

No, stripping a person is not reasonable procedure of a victim of assault.

No one said it was. She was stripped for being a suicide threat and threat to others, apparently, not for for being a victim (which hadn't been proven) nor for being involved in an assault.

One may argue and defend the lawfulness of stripping a person in some instance, but I don't think you can cite any law that says 'the law requires a detained person must remove all clothes, and will be forceably assisted, if protesting or refusing.'

I don't believe the law says that either. But that is irrelevant. She was more than a woman booked on suspicion of using a fake ID or assault, she was now a suicide risk and potential threat to others.

I did review the video again and I see that her hands are freed, before their leaving the room.... which explains how she was able to wrap herself in the toilet paper.

That was my impression as well. I don't believe she was hog-tied the entire time.

If you see the strip as necessary

I make no judgment about whether it was necessary without seeing how she reacted during and after her arrest and when questioned.

may I suggest, does this look like human dignity or human indignity?

I'd say indignity; the question is who is to blame, the police, "the system," her, someone else? The police's job was to protect her from harming herself or another the moment she seemed a threat. It seems procedure places a higher value on safety than on the dignity of wearing clothes.

They filmed it. (What's the purpose of filming? To review latter in their locker rooms? Or to add to her humiliation? Or a 'cya' technique meant to protect them from the potential of claims that they beat her up or had police brutality?) Where are her interest or the interest of the community being served?

I'd assume the video was to protect them legally, to show, as much as possible, what happened. Also, perhaps to capture anything she may say or do that affects the case for which she was arrested.

If the stripping of clothes is meant to be punishment...... how does this play with 'innocent til proven guilty?' ------Oh, that's right! They had her already convicted, right? Wrong!

I don't believe anyone beyond her lawyer has claimed that the stripping was for punishment. The stripping was for safety; punishment is for the courts to decide.

As to the male-female thing..... Any situation requiring stripping should involve persons of the same sex if necessary to attend or assist.

Your opinion is noted, and I think most agree with you to varying levels of intensity.

Regarding your comments about corruption, that is certainly an issue any free society must do all it can to combat. Privacy is another, sometimes conflicting issue. In this case, if the whole thing had been taped start to finish, and if that tape were available to us, many questions might be answered. But there is no complete record, apparently, and if there is, it has not been released. My understanding is the police are not allowed to release these types of things, which makes them unable to defend themselves, imo, in the eyes of the media and public. My position is to withhold judgment until more evidence (ideally, all of it) is made available.

I may have missed something about how the military relates because this thread is getting rather long. The military has its own procedures which are not always as citizen-friendly as some civilian law enforcement procedures; but detainees still have certain rights, even there.

 

[windcatcher]

Edited to say, my 'quick reply' was too slooooooooow!

 

[windcatcher]

It was my intention to agree with post #129.

No one said it was. She was stripped for being a suicide threat and threat to others, apparently, not for for being a victim (which hadn't been proven) nor for being involved in an assault.

Being a suicide threat is an assumption which is not evidenced in the tape or the reports.

My reference to military police.... sorry about that curve ball.... was a poster, much earlier, promoted this sort of like routine procedure for the military police: Even should it be that a deputy had prior training in the military, on a sheriff's force, military procedure submits to the constitutional rights of the citizens served by those in civilian uniform and comes under a different standard.

 

[Joe]

Others here, and I won't put words in their mouths but will leave it to them explain their positions as they wish) have used words like "disgusting" and "sickening" for a person to see another naked, even in the extreme cases of safety and to save a life.

Don't know how you came to this conclusion. No one here said in extreme cases of safety it is "disgusting" to see another naked.
We have no indication this was an extreme case of safety, in fact, we have indication more towards the opposite. She would have been handcuffed the whole time for her own protection (hands only) Not stripped naked! Handcuffs are tight as heck, you can't even pull down your own pants.

 

[Chessic]

This is untrue. I said procedures prevent lives. Once you allow one Cop to be naked around a woman for any reason that right get's abused by other Cops and Jail staff. IT is to SAVE lives. It's because of the importance of lives we have these procedures and laws in place.

Women don't die from being stripped. Whether she is traumatized is partially determined by her reaction to the strip (I just know some of you are going to say I am blaming her now). She may laugh, she may scream. She may care or not. Nor does one woman being stripped cause another woman down the line to die or be traumatized in turn. When a screaming, out of control inmate comes in, she is at risk right now--and leaving her to kill herself or someone else is not saving lives, serving the public, protecting citizens and inmates, nor protecting law enforcement from the suits this would bring about.

You continously state the possiblity to save a life.

You are criticizing me for stating the possible position of the police?

Handcuffs work better to save a life than a mixed gender gang with weapons stripping her naked.

I was not aware that you were any expert on jailhouse safety techniques, but at least your false analogy is amusing.

Let's see:

handcuffs

or

a gang of men and women with weapons stripping her naked

Which side of the comparison has more loaded language?

I prefer the handcuff method myself, just as you, but as has been stated, people have been dying with that method, and the police are held responsible.

What happened to her is sickening and disgusting, and if you think your view of modesty plays into it, well that has only a small part in it.

Thanks for clearing that up!

A nudist would have emotional trauma from being stripped naked, gang forced by and left nude for 6 hours.

You could find some that would, I'm sure, as well as some that would laugh about it.

This is not about completely being unclothed, it's about a sexual assault which clearly took place.

Since neither sexual activity nor arousal had anything to do with it, and gender had to do with it only in so far as women officers were present, I have trouble seeing this as a sexual assault. The same would have been done to a man in identical circumstances and I would not have seen it as a sexual assault. But, again, I respect your opinion. I wish you would respect mine. If this issue is a sexual assault in your estimation and the worst form of "sickening and disgusting" behavior, and if your sentiments are the norm, then clearly another method of dealing with these types of detainees needs to be found.

Then you need to quit watching those violent shows, they are desensitizing you bigtime. In fact, from your posts, you appear to need help. Help yourself. Get rid of your TV, take down the antenna. Get yourself into the word, and learn what God's will is for you. Be around godly people, change your atomosphere.

While I appreciate the snappy wrap-up of my life and how to improve it, the assumptions here are more than I care to reply to. My whole point is that in this case we should first prove what was done then why it was done then what should have been done before making judgments. We are arguing over the why when the what hasn't even been settled.

Of course a life is more important, that is what we have all been trying to tell you.

Siding for one side in this issue when the other hasn't even presented its case and then making accusations about me for disagreeing is an odd way to present that particular case.

This is why it is so important not to strip someone of their dignity causing them undue trauma which ends up in suicide.

I agree with your point that trauma, including this one, can in some cases lead a person to greater depression, etc, and therefore a higher chance of suicide in the future. This needs to be balanced, however, with immediate safety when an immediately suicidal or homicidal detainee is in custody.

This is why they are clothed and handcuffed, not to allow their hands the freedom to create something to hang themselves with.

Except that people are dying from this method, and the police are held responsible. Either a better method has to be implemented, or the police have to be relieved of some responsibility here (even more dangerous, imo) when people find a way to die while in cuffs. I don't view clothes being removed and the trauma it may cause as equal to the immediate matters of suicide and homicide. There should be, imo, better restraining methods. Since sedatives and physical restraints like straight-jackets and being strapped down to a bed are increasingly viewed as barbaric and not allowed, what else is there? Clearly stripping and forcing detainees to wait naked in the cell is not acceptable to most of you. Do you have alternatives that would ensure the safety of the detainee, other inmates, and officers?

Btw, it's not "If the police are found in violation of procedures" now is it? I showed you the law, they ARE in violation yet you REFUSE to see it. You continously create scinereos to make excuses for them, but not for that poor lady, even despite the fact the laws were broken.

If we can't even agree on what procedure is in involved, why on earth would you feel it was violated? There has been no agreement about whether she was strip-searched, as her lawyer claims, or stripped for her and others safety, as the police apparently claim. The law which you showed applied to strip searches and I remember no instruction in it about what to do in a case involving an out of control detainee in any case.

 

[Joe]

“She was stripped for being a suicide risk to others, apparently, not for for being a victim (which hadn't been proven) nor for being involved in an assault”

She was more than a woman booked on suspicion of using a fake ID or assault, she was now a suicide risk and potential threat to others.”

So she was a mental case, not able to reason enough to keep herself alive. Interesting 2 posts

If you are going to present false ID, portray yourself as a mentally disturbed person and a suicide risk, refuse to be searched, and scream and kick and claw at officers, yeah, you might not want to call

Funny, I thought those were the exact situations we are to call for help.

“Have you ever seen a situation where screaming, kicking, clawing, and squirming against any authority figure produced a better outcome than reason and calmness? While she screeches like she's in a horror movie about demon-possession, I can't help but wonder what would happen with a simple, calm, even-toned, normal speaking voiced asking "Have I done something wrong? May I be allowed to disrobe without the men present?"

Submission at its finest. Yeah maybe this would work"Oh pretty please Mr. Officer, will you allow me some dignity to disrobe in the privacy of my own gender. I'll kiss your shoes. I'll grovel. Oh Please Mr. Officer's, follow the law and don't hog tie me, strip me down naked, and leave my naked body face down on the cell floor for six hours. Pretty please..."

She shouldn't have to ask to be allowed to disrobe without men present, Ohio law forbids men to be present.

Are you saying men shouldn't be present? If so, this in an opinion.

It's Ohio law that men not be present! Not an opinion
IT IS AGAINST BB RULES TO PROMOTE SOMETHING WHICH GOES AGAINST CHRISTIANITY.
To say that this is an opinion that men be present around naked women is Ludicrious.

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.

This was provided, you ignored it.

Turns out the law shown was for strip searches, not just stripping.

Nice twist, but no dice. Ignore the law all you want.
PROMOTING ILLEGAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE BB IS AGAINST THE RULES

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. Post 93

As Christians we are not to entertain thoughts that women be naked around men, little lone be violently stripped naked by them.
PROMOTING ILLEGAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS AGAINST BB RULES
PROMOTING THINGS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY IS AGAINST BB RULES

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 strip search.

Renaming the crime doesn't make it less evil. Quit promoting this ungodly breaking of the law.
PROMOTING ILLEGAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS AGAINST BB RULES.

What makes you think she called them for protection? No one said she was in any danger.

Whatever.....

If we can't even agree on what procedure is in involved, why on earth would you feel it was violated? There has been no agreement about whether she was strip-searched, as her lawyer claims, or stripped for her and others safety, as the police apparently claim. The law which you showed applied to strip searches and I remember no instruction in it about what to do in a case involving an out of control detainee in any case

Strip searches are always done for safety reasons. There is no safety search in palce of a strip search. The procedure was a strip search by law, the Police cannot rename the procedure anything else to tone it down, they do not have that authorty. So yes, by law, there is an agreement. By giving this validity, you are promoting illegal criminal activity which is against BB rules.

The whole thing reeks of melodrama to me, and I'm not sure why some of you place so much more value on a female's body than a male's.

Acts which are in violation of biblical principals, human decency and respect understandably..oh nevermind.

Women don't die from being stripped. Whether she is traumatized is partially determined by her reaction to the strip (I just know some of you are going to say I am blaming her now). She may laugh, she may scream.She may care or not. Nor does one woman being stripped cause another woman down the line to die or be traumatized in turn..

"That a strip search done to a woman cannot cause trauma to anther woman" which is completely untrue. Their daughters, their mothers and best friends are often affected by trauma endured by the one the love she may laugh, care or not. So a woman who laughs is showing she is not traumatized or possibly less traumatized by a group of men and women holding her down, stripping her naked, and leaving her naked on the cell floor for 6 hours. You made two references in posts to women lauging during a strip search, that this will ease being traumatized or cause no trauma to occur to them. You stated depending upon their modesty level, it wouldn't bother them to be cuffed, stripped naked with men, and left naked for 6 hours. It isn't "disgusting" to some women. . YOU OUGHT TO BE BANNED! Your posts are resembling Ted Bundy more and more..In fact, there isn't much more you could say

Nevertheless... In the video, there is a stripping, which she resisted with screams and kicks

Yeah, that's probably the reaction by most people when cops comit crimes against their bodies.

I'd say indignity; the question is who is to blame, the police, "the system," her, someone else?

amazing….

Are you just all emotion on this one?

Yeah sure whatever

I do believe there are scenarios when "men can handle a woman to the floor, hold her down, and rip her clothing off.

You need to stop promoting your deranged mindset onto the innocent women and children who patronize this Christian website.

 

[donnA]

Seems that someone has been breaking the BB rules a lot by promoting illegal and promoiting things against christianity.

I do believe there are scenarios when "men can handle a woman to the floor, hold her down, and rip her clothing off.

lets see....
1. rape
2. her body is one fire and she needs rescuing, or some other dire extreme emergency
3. in the emergency room, except she would be on the floor

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not care what this woman may have been guilty of there was no need for men to disrobe her or even be in the room for it. The police officers were wrong. This is shameful. And she needs to win a huge law suit to see it never happens again.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Why was this thread archived?