Ofcourse she brough it on herself, she is the one that called out for the police for help...

Never call the police, take care of the problem yourself or pay the consequences.

If you decide to go to jail and make smart ass remarks regarding thinking about harming yourself to cops, don't be surprised when they put you in what is referred to as a "strip-cell" which is a commonplace way in law enforcement to take away any tools you may have to allow you to hang yourself, cut yourself etc.

It involves putting you in a special cell that doesn't have a mattress or pillow and all furniture is bolted to the walls and floors. Your clothes are taken away. The sink typically has a warning alarm that goes off if it is stopped up (If a drastic amount of difference is noted between the amount of water coming out of the faucet and the amount coming down the drain). Normally the bed is a concrete slab and there is a toilet and a sink.

It's done for protection, not humiliation.

This was my feeling as well. Unfortunately around here saying so brings the wrath of guys like "Carded" LMAO.

Here is the cop that all other cops hate..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFsnaCtt1bo

TY. I'm going to add this to my favorites. This is actually not "The Best Cop In The World" this is very typical. This is normal cop behavior. Not these other shock videos.

Late to the movie theater? Think twice you might get blind sided.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyrL6...eature=related

Late to the thread? LMAO.

Yeah, that might have been normal cop behavior 17 years ago when that video was filmed.

And jesus 137 dollars is a big fine for speeding in 1992.

And I'm sure she did nothing in between the time she called for help and was arrested, other than misrepresent her ID of course. If what DBJ says is true about safety cells or whatever, and I believe him when he says it, then I'm having a much harder time siding against the police here. The whole jacket at court thing, I assume, has a reason too, and they weren't, as the story seems to suggest, just doing it to parade her around half-naked and humiliate her. But I could be wrong there.

The woman is clearly hysterical, emotional, and insinuates that she is/has thought about self-harm. I will jump on the police if they overreact, and I expect them to be able to handle people like this normally without doing so. But, from my vantage point, their reactions seem understandable and I would really need to know the full story before deciding against them. The woman can claim what she wants, and her husband and lawyers can look so sweet and try to play the victim card for what I suspect will be a nice settlement, and the news can do a crap job and edit the story for pure shock value and ratings, but I'm not going to knee jerk "abuse of power" unless I see clear reason to believe it occurred.

When the police ask you questions, don't bs them. I've learned that quickly. I'm sure DBJ will back this up, but they are legally required to react in certain ways to certain answers.

Here's what I believe, at least from what I can piece together. It's just a theory however.

I believe this woman was drunk, and got into a fight with someone, then one of the people with her called the cops. She was probably rather belligerent with the cop from the outset due to her intoxication and became defiant when the cop confronted her concerning her sister's ID.

She got arrested, got to jail and during the routine questioning decided to respond with some sarcastic, smart ass response when asked if she'd ever thought about hurting herself.

They explained to her that she would have to be placed in a strip-cell and put on suicide watch, and she became more aggressive, causing them to forcibly strip her.

As to why the male deputies were involved, that seems wrong to me, however it is acceptable if there weren't enough female deputies around to properly handle the situation.

As to the statement that she was taken through booking in nothing but a vest, that seems unbelievable to me. If it happened, it's wrong. At our county jail, we have special "suicide suits" that appear to be normal inmate jumpsuits, but they are bright yellow instead of the normal khaki or orange color, and they are made of ripstop cotton to prevent the inmate wearing them from tearing them. She should have been put into something other than a vest during the booking procedure.

But as others have said, I just don't trust her. Something doesn't add up. I believe she is lying about the vest incident entirely, because they have video of the strip search, but not the video of her being escorted around central booking in a vest? Doesn't seem right. As for the video, I'm willing to bet my bankroll this was edited by the news dept (or someone before being sent in, such as a disgruntled deputy) to show the cops in a worse light, and I bet on the full video there is probably at least a minutes worth of her being given instructions by deputies and refusing prior to them moving in and forcibly stripping her.

Just to clarify, in most jails when an inmate is on suicide watch, it is SOP to videotape them every time they are removed from their cell, as a measure to cover your own ass as the agency, as well as any involved officers, can be sued if an inmate is able to kill themselves while in your custody.

34 pages ago, thread is only 8 pages long imo

Norm Stamper a retired police chief takes about his past in police brutality and how the police culture brought him there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-s..._b_173427.html

Disclosure: During my rookie days back in the sixties as a San Diego police officer I used excessive force, more than once. I remember most of the incidents, though I'm sure I've conveniently forgotten some. I'm ashamed, wish to hell I hadn't done it. But I did, and visceral memories of these incidents help shape an answer to the question of why certain cops engage in brutal behavior, and others don't.

Forty-three years ago I was an idealistic, vaguely liberal 21-year-old when the San Diego Police Department hired me. The last thing on my mind was taking to the streets to punish people. And lest there be any doubt about the department's policy, the police academy, even then, drove it home: excessive force was grounds for termination.

So, why did I abuse the very people I'd been hired to serve?

Not to get too psychological, I did it because the power of my position went straight to my head; because other cops I'd come to admire did it; and because I thought I could get away with it. Which I did--until a principled prosecutor slapped me upside the head and demanded to know whether the U.S. Constitution meant anything to me.

It comes down to this: real cops, those with a conscience, those who honor the law, must step up and take control of the cop culture.

If it turns out the arrest was improper are the officers that made the arrest ever charged with kidnapping? Is there a reason that officers that arrest someone without probable cause aren't treated the same as any other person that drags someone to a building at gun point and refuses to release them until their friends or relatives pay money?

I think you've been making some great posts in this thread until this case came up. It bothers me that you would defend this despicable behavior, or that you think it is okay for the police to go to these lengths to "protect" someone. Is it really true that anyone who gets arrested is striped? Never mind that it was a terrible arrest to begin with.

Also, if this is really a case of cops following standard procedure, why don't they say so instead of leaving it to you to explain it. (I would guess it is because they know that this is a terrible standard procedure and the public would demand changes).

Maybe they did and the crap journalism didn't mention it? For ratings, shock >>> reasonable discussion.

I'm a bit amazed at how willfully you are taking the blatantly biased story the news put out here, one dominated by the lawyers, a few video clips repeated ad nauseum (wonder what happened during the other X minutes of video... nothing perhaps?), and the words of the lawyers and ever-so-sweet husband.

It's clearly not objective and more information is needed. And this practice could be accepted by people normally, but once it has been thrust into the sensationalist media they have to approach it completely differently, even if a rational discussion would lead to the conclusion that it is acceptable, because they aren't going to have such a discussion just knee-jerk reactionism on the part of the viewers.