General Discussion

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)

25. I started this story with the first posting last night.

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:22 PM

Dec 2012

The cavity search of the anus, followed by the vagina, on both women, was described explicitly, and presented as their claim of what the video depicts.

My objection is to the specific claims made.

And the legal definition of various sorts of sexual assault does not ber on the question of whether the claims are exaggerated. It bears on whether what really happened is objectionable -- which it is.

It is very objectionable.

But this "overstaing the truth serves a higher truth" racket sucks.

"Parents give six year old gun to take to school."

"The article says nothing to suggest that the parents were aware the kid took a gun to school."

"So it's fine with you if kids take guns to school?" or... "They didn't have the guns secured, which is the same thing..."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Texas women sue over cavity search. "The officer didn't even change gloves!" (Warning:Very Graphic) [View all] aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 OP

They remained remarkably composed... KansDem Dec 2012 #1

Me too! aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #2

+100 Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #7

Outrageous deutsey Dec 2012 #3

Everyone in the world, please stop the casual lying cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #4

Uh, "lying" jberryhill Dec 2012 #6

Yes, the woman or women are lying cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #12

"involving genital contact" jberryhill Dec 2012 #13

jberryhill, you cannot be going there. You know better. cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #23

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS NOT A "Cavity search"? You've said that multiple times with NO explanation. EOTE Dec 2012 #35

No, I don't "know better" jberryhill Dec 2012 #101

Not only touching someone else's anus and ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #37

Exactly. Sivafae Dec 2012 #82

my exact reaction also. TeamPooka Dec 2012 #103

"One can argue that the level of intrusion is tantamount to a cavity search" jberryhill Dec 2012 #19

I started this story with the first posting last night. cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #25

You called those women LIARS. EOTE Dec 2012 #33

Very confused by your posts here - HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE WOMAN'S ON SCENE COMMENT??? jsmirman Dec 2012 #49

Not that it matters redqueen Dec 2012 #71

She did. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #107

I'd have to listen again, but agreed, it doesn't matter jsmirman Dec 2012 #117

Listened again - you're right jsmirman Dec 2012 #118

Absolutely disgusting. EOTE Dec 2012 #22

If the police officer was only searching externalities, why did she put her hand down their pants? Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #26

And remember, it's only a cavity search if the fingers reach the esophagus. EOTE Dec 2012 #41

In addition to looking foolish.... Cali_Democrat Dec 2012 #30

Not dishonest, he's a LIAR. EOTE Dec 2012 #38

Change your gloves before your next random asshole encounter jberryhill Dec 2012 #39

I'd prefer an asshole removal team, but that might work. NT EOTE Dec 2012 #45

MIRT? n/t intheflow Dec 2012 #87

If only. EOTE Dec 2012 #88

Not only that... KatyMan Dec 2012 #75

words have meaning cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #51

EXPLAIN WHY! EOTE Dec 2012 #58

How can you tell? Tien1985 Dec 2012 #60

What do your words mean then? pecwae Dec 2012 #63

The Texas Rangers (not the Bball team) FloriTexan Dec 2012 #32

She said back then front Aerows Dec 2012 #70

notice - cop didn't search anywhere but private parts - lots of feeling about breast Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #116

Then when the second lady was being searched, what was her hand doing down there for 12 seconds? Sivafae Dec 2012 #86

Excuse me...but how do you know these were not insertion/invasive searches? FLyellowdog Dec 2012 #8

When reviewing evidence cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #16

You still can't use the label "lying" jberryhill Dec 2012 #24

sure we know cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #80

You CAN'T SEE THEIR FINGERS when they were inside the pants of those women. EOTE Dec 2012 #83

If a police officer Aerows Dec 2012 #92

You can see the second woman flinch when those fingers get were they are going jberryhill Dec 2012 #95

Exactly Aerows Dec 2012 #100

You don't know if the officer stuck her fingers up the cavities of the women Cali_Democrat Dec 2012 #9

Serious question Tien1985 Dec 2012 #10

That's not the point. The fact that at minimum its debatable is enough for me. nt aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #11

What the fuck do you call sticking one's finger inside of their asses and vagina? EOTE Dec 2012 #17

I would call that a cavity search cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #81

And it's your amazing dark world powers that allows you to determine that didn't happen? EOTE Dec 2012 #84

What's it called? "The Aristocrats!" jberryhill Dec 2012 #89

Sick... EOTE Dec 2012 #93

It's a cavity search obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #20

Not sure about the back but the front search absolutely had me cringing. nc4bo Dec 2012 #36

Rape apologia Ash_F Dec 2012 #40

Apparently you have little or no experience redqueen Dec 2012 #43

What's your pecwae Dec 2012 #44

She shoved her hands in both women's pants! Aerows Dec 2012 #52

You know that line you shouldn't cross? Look behind you. n/t Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #59

I watched the tape. You have no idea what you're talking about. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #61

If you are at the point Aerows Dec 2012 #64

Oh, I definitely agree DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #79

I don't think it has anything to do with authority. redqueen Dec 2012 #91

I agree. I expect that everyone agrees. cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #85

You keep saying they made a false statement Aerows Dec 2012 #98

you know noiretextatique Dec 2012 #108

We're still waiting for your apology or explanation. EOTE Dec 2012 #77

Do we know if the cop is a lesbian? joeunderdog Dec 2012 #119

It's sexual assault regardless Aerows Dec 2012 #120

I wonder what the officer subsequently did with the gloves... jberryhill Dec 2012 #5

I didn't watch the vidoes, but the story is very disturbing. nt ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #14

sheriff arpaio doesn't even do that shit to blueamy66 Dec 2012 #15

I was surprised they were white obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #18

Another victory in the "War on Drugs" Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #21

Another victory in the war on women, as well. ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #78

That's Just RANK! nt TheBlackAdder Dec 2012 #27

The porkess should be forced to pay from her own pocket/bloated pension. Dawson Leery Dec 2012 #28

Bloated Pension? nt. NCTraveler Dec 2012 #53

I'd have refused and called my attorney. williesgirl Dec 2012 #29

besides the horrific nature of this search... waddirum Dec 2012 #31

OMG Aerows Dec 2012 #47

And a woman did it. ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #54

How did a woman NOT know that is a no-no? Aerows Dec 2012 #62

If she doesn't know it's a no-no, ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #72

Eeeeeeew! slackmaster Dec 2012 #34

Seriously? ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #42

And the fuckstick pecwae Dec 2012 #48

I think they should be charged ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #50

On the side of the freaking road Aerows Dec 2012 #55

I "commended" ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #68

Yet another WTF! I think the most outrageous statement made was it can be RKP5637 Dec 2012 #96

There's no end in sight ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #99

Probably have put them in stocks in the town square so everyone could have a good RKP5637 Dec 2012 #104

Don't give them any ideas. n/t ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #105

Yeah, good point!!! n/t RKP5637 Dec 2012 #106

Holy Crap! Aerows Dec 2012 #46

Don't most people ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #74

That is a cavity search Harmony Blue Dec 2012 #56

Correct Jim Warren Dec 2012 #66

Ugh. Sounds like something one should have a medical license to do..either one. libdem4life Dec 2012 #90

Yes, and a warrant Jim Warren Dec 2012 #97

Thank god for the requirement for dash cameras. Progress. We know this crap has been going on libdem4life Dec 2012 #113

They should start with sexual assault charges. NCTraveler Dec 2012 #57

You can "commend" ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #65

Prove it WASN'T a cavity search. This is 100 times worse than the "so what is rape" drivel. libdem4life Dec 2012 #67

Of course it was Jim Warren Dec 2012 #69

That's totally unacceptable. Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #73

And prosecuted. n/t ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #76

Imagine the husbands, or sons, or daughters or family or neighbors...there is no end libdem4life Dec 2012 #94

Yikes! TheOther95Percent Dec 2012 #102

Because your right to bodily autonomy is second to our right to FIND TEH WEEED Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #109

why are you arguing about it? Trueblue Texan Dec 2012 #110

I don't see the problem. RedCappedBandit Dec 2012 #111

Fuck the civil charges. That cop should be criminally charged. Vattel Dec 2012 #112

I can't believe that policewoman! Catherine Vincent Dec 2012 #114

glad they are suing the troopers directly, glad gloved one has been suspended Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #115