The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: rangerrebew on November 11, 2013, 10:01:44 am
-
STOP THE MADNESS: Third person reports being anally violated by police
Posted By Robby Soave On 10:58 PM 11/10/2013 In | No Comments
A third New Mexico resident is claiming that she was physically abused by police and medical staff who exceeded their authority to search for drugs she never had.
The woman’s attorney came forward with her story just a few days after a local news channel reported similar stories involving New Mexico police forcing two suspects to undergo invasive surgery to prove they weren’t carrying drugs. Police used expired and nonexistent warrants to justify the improper and unethical searches, according to KOB-TV 4.
The unnamed woman is being represented by Laura Schaur Ives of the New Mexico chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Schaur told KOB-TV 4 that her client was stopped by police in El Paso, Texas. After a drug-sniffing dog indicated that she might have drugs, police strip-searched her and then allegedly assault her by sticking their fingers into her vagina.
When the on-site search failed to turn up any drugs, police took the woman to University Medical Center of El Paso. There, she was given an X-ray, cat scan and full body search. Medical personnel probed her anus and vagina, according to Schaur.
“They then did a cavity search and they probed her vagina and her anus, they described in the medical records as bi-manual — two-handed,” she said in a statement. “Again, they found nothing.”
Schaur claims that police did not have a warrant to conduct the search.
If this horror story sounds familiar, it’s because two other New Mexico residents were violate by drug-seeking police officers. Timothy Young and David Eckert were pulled over for traffic violations in separate incidents, and were searched on the authority of the same unlicensed drug-sniffing dog. They were then taken to Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City, New Mexico, where doctors performed a full battery of invasive medical procedures. (RELATED: Horror: Police force man to undergo invasive anal operation)
While these incidents involved New Mexico police, the woman who Schaur represents was allegedly handled by Customs and Border Control–suggesting that abusive practices are not limited to a single malicious police department.
All three victims protested their treatment at the hands of police and medical staff and refused to be examined. (RELATED: It happened again: Police forced a second man to have invasive procedure)
Not only were their protestations ignored, but in Eckert’s case, doctors even stuck him with the bill for his own forced colonoscopy.
Follow Robby on Twitter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/10/stop-the-madness-third-person-reports-being-anally-violated-by-police/
-
The cure (an ever-expanding police state) is worse than the disease (personal drug use).
-
The solution is simple, IMO.
Legislate that if the authorities conduct a cavity search and find nothing....the person 'violated' gets $1 MILLION cash.
.....Oh....and get rid of any dog that doesn't know the difference between the scent of marijuana and never-mind. :laugh:
-
It's only a matter of time before these demented authorities develope a 4 handed procedure
-
New Mexico? What is Gov. Martinez doing about this? She's a Republican. This is way over the line.
-
Any word on the family dog?
-
a security team performed a thorough multi hand multi orifice deep search and found nothing at which time they shot the dog so they could go home safely
Ps the dog’s carcass was turned over to TSA for further testing and evaluation
-
After a drug-sniffing dog indicated that she might have drugs, police strip-searched her and then allegedly assault her by sticking their fingers into her vagina.
Those drug-dogs are trained to 'hit on command', giving the police all the 'evidence' they need to do whatever they want...
-
.....Oh....and get rid of any dog that doesn't know the difference between the scent of marijuana and never-mind.
It's not the dog's fault. Either the police are lying about the dog's response or they have trained the dog to give the proper response on command.
Please people... stop believing what you are told. 99% of the time it's total BS...
-
Where did they train these guys, San Francisco?
-
It's not the dog's fault. Either the police are lying about the dog's response or they have trained the dog to give the proper response on command.
Please people... stop believing what you are told. 99% of the time it's total BS...
I don't know what the full truth is, but if I had no drugs on me, there is no way I would allow the abuse without a fight. I wonder if these people are known drug dealers? I can't think of any other reason for these types searches to happen. I have a suspicion these people are false flag operators.
-
I don't know what the full truth is, but if I had no drugs on me, there is no way I would allow the abuse without a fight. I wonder if these people are known drug dealers? I can't think of any other reason for these types searches to happen. I have a suspicion these people are false flag operators.
The Blaze had a report that one had a drug history and had actually done that before. BUT (couldn't resist that), after an X-ray, it should have been obvious he had no drugs internally stashed. Everything after that is WAY over the line.
-
It's not the dog's fault. Either the police are lying about the dog's response or they have trained the dog to give the proper response on command.
Please people... stop believing what you are told. 99% of the time it's total BS...
Correct. Watched a fascinating documentary on sniffer dogs - both drugs and explosives - and they have a (slightly) over 50% false positive rate if they can see their handler. It isn't their fault at all. They pick up cues from their handler and respond accordingly. They don't even need be trained to respond on command, they will do so anyway.
-
Is it possible the dogs are mistaking the scent from skid marks on the underwear for dope? :silly:
-
Is it possible the dogs are mistaking the scent from skid marks on the underwear for dope? :silly:
:tongue2: Actually - if you have money in your wallet and your wallet in your pocket, chances are very high (around 85%) you'd be a positive for cocaine.
-
Correct. Watched a fascinating documentary on sniffer dogs - both drugs and explosives - and they have a (slightly) over 50% false positive rate if they can see their handler. It isn't their fault at all. They pick up cues from their handler and respond accordingly. They don't even need be trained to respond on command, they will do so anyway.
Absolutely, the dog's goal is to please his master. The dog doesn't know he has a 'job'. The dog doesn't know he is acting as a judicial magistrate who is granting search authorization. The dog is just guessing what his master wants and is doing what will get a 'treat'. That is all. After all, ITS A DOG!
Off topic, DWI tests are similar. The most common thing for people to say when given the DUI test is, "I couldn't do this even if I was sober." And they are right. If you give a standard DWI test to a group of completely sober people, 50% will fail. And that is the point. You've been pulled over. You are nervous, scared, you have red/blue lights flashing, and maybe you have had a few, and then you are being asked to do these absured, unatural, 'tricks'. DWI test are designed for people to fail.
-
There was once a time in America when we valued judgment. We actually paid people to exercise judgment. But now we have a fully entrenched bureaucracy and everything is by the book.
It doesn't matter if you're capable of driving safely, if you're blood-alcohol level is certain number that's it buddy, the life you knew is over; if you're in an intersection and the light turned red .002 seconds ago you get a $45 ticket in the mail; if the edge of your inspection sticker is scratched that's a $65 ticket; if you don't have your engine running while you're at the parking meter getting your tag, the agent can still ticket your car.
There are thousands of examples covering all aspects of life in America today.
-
There was once a time in America when we valued judgment. We actually paid people to exercise judgment. But now we have a fully entrenched bureaucracy and everything is by the book.
It doesn't matter if you're capable of driving safely, if you're blood-alcohol level is certain number that's it buddy, the life you knew is over; if you're in an intersection and the light turned red .002 seconds ago you get a $45 ticket in the mail; if the edge of your inspection sticker is scratched that's a $65 ticket; if you don't have your engine running while you're at the parking meter getting your tag, the agent can still ticket your car.
There are thousands of examples covering all aspects of life in America today.
I agree AC. Why not leave productive responsible adult citizens to live their life as THEY see fit? The problem with our society is that we punish the good people along with the guilty and it drives away the motivation to succeed. What is needed is to restore the notion of "actions have consequences".
-
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Not.
-
And all of this is the result of government - local, state and federal - trying to do too much. They need more and more of your money so they devise all these ways to separate you from your cash. It makes living in the city a nightmare.
-
And all of this is the result of government - local, state and federal - trying to do too much. They need more and more of your money so they devise all these ways to separate you from your cash. It makes living in the city a nightmare.
Which probably explains, in part, why even NYPD cops generally don't live in the city; they live in LI or NJ. Personally, I'd go for LI over NJ. Come join us outside the city, the water's much better out here!
-
I wonder when this "ripped from the headlines" story will hit Law and Order? Probably never.
-
The cure (an ever-expanding police state) is worse than the disease (personal drug use).
Absolutely. This War on (Some) Drugs has been a magnificent way to separate us from hundreds of billions of our dollars and to slowly tilt the populace toward giving up more and more freedom and liberty each passing day. And sadly, it's been a huge success (though I doubt it's done a whit to lessen drug consumption)!!
-
It's not the dog's fault. Either the police are lying about the dog's response or they have trained the dog to give the proper response on command.
Please people... stop believing what you are told. 99% of the time it's total BS...
Yup, pretty much!!
-
Which probably explains, in part, why even NYPD cops generally don't live in the city; they live in LI or NJ. Personally, I'd go for LI over NJ. Come join us outside the city, the water's much better out here!
I already live on an island – Staten Island. Not the same, huh?
-
Absolutely. This War on (Some) Drugs has been a magnificent way to separate us from hundreds of billions of our dollars and to slowly tilt the populace toward giving up more and more freedom and liberty each passing day. And sadly, it's been a huge success (though I doubt it's done a whit to lessen drug consumption)!!
And that's the kicker. The war onsome drugs - but not all. As a society do we really need to spend billions of dollars a year? Seems to me that money could be better spent.
I give up. I don't even want to discuss this. We end up making the same circular arguments. The subject is just too depressing for one more go around.
-
And that's the kicker. The war onsome drugs - but not all. As a society do we really need to spend billions of dollars a year? Seems to me that money could be better spent.
I give up. I don't even want to discuss this. We end up making the same circular arguments. The subject is just too depressing for one more go around.
I hear you on that AC, very much so. It's kinda why I will go long periods of time without posting at all....
-
And that's the kicker. The war onsome drugs - but not all. As a society do we really need to spend billions of dollars a year? Seems to me that money could be better spent.
I give up. I don't even want to discuss this. We end up making the same circular arguments. The subject is just too depressing for one more go around.
I have a difficult time wrapping my brain around you insisting drugs be legalized on one hand and on the other hand supporting restrictions on what foods we can choose to eat.
-
You have me wrong. I don't want restrictions on food we choose to eat. Notice what I said, choose to eat.
As it stands now manufacturers put ingredients in food that don't belong there – hydrogenated oils where they are not found in nature. Instead I argue for full disclosure. The decision to eat saturated fats should be mine, not the manufacturers just because it extends shelf life, which of itself is not natural. I think it's healthy to eat butter and eggs and cream and beef. Those foods are part of our evolutionary success as a species.
But with recent changes in food technology, when manufacturers put saturated fat in places where it's not found in nature? And in high concentrations? Ubiquitously in a majority of our foods, sweet and savory? Then the choice is no longer mine to make. It's everywhere and only an astute consumer can avoid getting such high concentrations.
Nutrition has been a hot topic of discussion in magazines and in popular culture for decades. We have the knowledge, yet the high rates of obesity and heart disease speak to the truth of what I'm saying.
-
You have me wrong. I don't want restrictions on food we choose to eat. Notice what I said, choose to eat.
As it stands now manufacturers put ingredients in food that don't belong there – hydrogenated oils where they are not found in nature. Instead I argue for full disclosure. The decision to eat saturated fats should be mine, not the manufacturers just because it extends shelf life, which of itself is not natural. I think it's healthy to eat butter and eggs and cream and beef. Those foods are part of our evolutionary success as a species.
But with recent changes in food technology, when manufacturers put saturated fat in places where it's not found in nature? And in high concentrations? Ubiquitously in a majority of our foods, sweet and savory? Then the choice is no longer mine to make. It's everywhere and only an astute consumer can avoid getting such high concentrations.
Nutrition has been a hot topic of discussion in magazines and in popular culture for decades. We have the knowledge, yet the high rates of obesity and heart disease speak to the truth of what I'm saying.
Yes, AC but we do "choose" to eat those things, no one twists our arms to eat crap and if we didn't eat it then manufacturers would take it out on their own without the government getting involved... I do not choose to eat those things - I don't need to government to protect me from my choices and there is where your support for leagalizing drugs comes in - I don't choose to smoke crack or use heroine and even if the government didn't make it illegal I would still refrain from it because frankly I don't understand why people choose to smoke, drink or do drugs and fog their brains.
-
By the way, I never once said that I think the government should ban hydrogenated oils. My argument has always centered on why saturated fats shouldn't be in all of our foods. But because it's in so much of our food – I can see why the FDA might want to ban it. However, I never said I support a ban.