Hope Steffey summed up her ordeal at the hands of Stark County deputies and correctional personnel as "rape without penetration." I'm not sure I'd be that charitable in my description. I believe "terrorism" might not be an inappropriate description of the behavior and it's effect.
Hope Steffey's night started with a call to police for help. It ended with her face down, naked, and sobbing on a jail cell floor. Now, the sheriff's deputies from Stark County, Ohio who allegedly used excessive force during a strip search 15 months ago face a federal lawsuit, and recently released video won’t help their case.Steffey's ordeal with the Stark County sheriff's deputies began after her cousin called 9-1-1 claiming Steffey had been assaulted by another one of their cousins. When a Stark County police officer arrived, he asked to see Steffey's driver's license. But instead of handing over her own ID, she mistakenly turned over her dead sister's license, which she contends she keeps in her wallet as a memento. That's when the situation became complicated.
"Hope was not treated as a victim," her lawyer told WKYC News. "The officer said to her 'shut up about your dead sister.'"
And certainly, well, if the deputies were trying to "send a message" - well, they surely got my attention.
The thing that amazes me most is that the sheriff responsible for the actions of the people in this video is defending them - even though the tape is a record of a direct violation of policy that makes it an actionable offense (she IS suing) as well as, arguably, a sexual assault and a violation of her Civil Rights.
Of course, the irony involved here is that the practice of videotaping was started in order to forestall suits by prisoners intended to harass and intimidate police and guards. I would presume every uniformed individual in that room knows exactly why that camera is rolling - and that would include the dude with the camera.
So, if you are doing something you know to be "off book," something you KNOW to be against policy, why are you not making sure that camera "malfunctions?"
Everyone in that room should be looking for work, and if the official charges are the ones that most concern me, the sheriff should be at least a little concerned about how his employees care so little about his personal culpability in this matter. Now, in every situation I've ever been in that's at all similar, putting your boss in an embarrassing position like that will likely cost them time, money and maybe even their job is not the way to a brilliant and shining future in the career of one's choice.
And this is the Age of Google - and routine 39.95 background checks.
Best comment on the story is from a digger referring to the original Raw Story:
This is the kind of conduct that becomes acceptable when we start torturing "alledged" terrorists....Pam Spaulding appears to have picked this story up from the Dark Wraith Forums, because she includes the Dark Wraith's comment:
This is the kind of police conduct that becomes acceptable when we start giving people immunity from prosecution for breaking our laws.
Hat tip to The Dark Wraith, who said:
When you're finished watching the video of the strip search, go ask your favorite candidate of "hope" and "change" and all those other lies just exactly what he or she is going to do to end this rising nightmare of an authoritarian state.Well, between Pam, the Digger and the Wraith, I'm reduced to nodding my head violently.No, seriously. Don't find some reason why your choice for Heir to Empire is not responsible. He or she is. They all want to lead this country? Then let them explain precisely how they plan to lead it away from this mess.
Ask those Democrats and Republicans running for office when enough will be enough. Ask them when they plan to stop spewing their sweet little nothings. Ask them if they will vow to their very God or perhaps even to that piece of paper we call the Constitution of the United States of America to take upon themselves the enormous task of putting every monster of this spreading blackness of sovereign violence-from George W. Bush and Dick V. Cheney all the way down to the very last, badge-wearing jackboot on the beat-into prison to rot.
But I do have a suggestion for your next town council or civilian/police co-ordination event. Ask your police chief or sheriff to comment on how exactly they feel about this, what procedures they have in place to prevent such incidents, and what, exactly, would they do to officers under their command
Aside from all of this, one wonders what the allegations of "probable cause" will be that would necessitate such a search in such a manner, what procedural necessity would not permit her clothing but would permit her flammables substances such as toilet paper? If she was arguably so dangerous or so obviously suicidal, why was she not placed in six point restraints and transferred to a competent, secure facility for observation?
There are so many, so very reasonable, so very innocent-seeming questions that leap to mind, based on my own rather superficial knowledge of the law and law-enforcement that it is rather easy to understand the aura of smug complacency on the part of the lawyer:
"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."
The lawsuit says that Steffey remained in the cell for six hours and wrapped herself in toilet paper to stay warm. During that time, she was not allowed to use a phone or seek medical assistance for injuries she accrued that night, including a cracked tooth, bulging disc, and bruises.
You really have to view the tape to get the full impact of the lawyer's silky tones here - the subtext is "Oh, and what IS 40% of your current net worth and future earnings, anyhow?"
His amusement must well be compounded by the suspicion that there are any number of other violations, crimes and cover-ups waiting to reveal themselves. ...I mean, if they haven't already sought his representation.
And as for the voters of Stark County, Ohio. Folks, when it comes about that you have to choose between fewer officers on the street or higher taxes as a result of this lawsuit - remember, you get what you pay for. You voted for Good Old Fashioned Law and Order - and you got it, in the person of the Sheriff of Nottingham.
UPDATE: Sheriff Tim Swanson likes to make sure none of them pretty girls are suicidal.
8 comments:
There's nothing wrong with this.
1. Cop goes to scene. Family squabble. People drinking. Conflicting stories about who hit who first and why. Typical Jerry Springer + COPS crap. Best thing to do is arrest someone and end the argument. Otherwise, it's going to go on all night. Cop decides to arrest the one who gave him the wrong ID.
2. At jail, Sheriff has a responsibility to make sure no one sneaks drugs/weapons into jail. Sheriff also has a responsibility to protect inmates from their own self-destructive urges. She gave an unclear answer about that, so now it's time to search her.
3. Women commonly hide things in their vaginas, because of the mistaken belief that the police either won't or can't search there. Thus, this is going to be a strip search.
4. Female deputies available, but not enough to hold her down AND search her. The search can't wait, so male deputies join in the "holding down" part.
5. Hope screams like crazy. Big deal. Just because she's screaming doesn't mean the deputies are doing anything wrong.
6. Because she's acting nuts, deputies decide to film the search to protect themselves against the lawsuit.
7. Now, Hope is all pissed off that she got treated "like a criminal" instead of the middle-class white woman she is. (Apparently, special rules are supposed to apply to middle-class white women.)
8. Welcome to jail, Hope. It isn't a trendy weekend spa. It's a jail. Sober up, go home, and stop whining.
Thank you for so well illustrating the sort of authoritarian thinking that can lead down the primrose path to an appearance on 60 Minutes.
1: "Best thing" is not to arrest someone. Best thing is to sort out the problem and calm everyone down. If the job bores you or is beyond your capacity, consider McDonalds.
And from the stupid idea that the cops are there to impose a resolution by force, without regard to the situation or common sense, it all proceeds downhill from there, in like manner, with the perps in the drama so sure they are the good guys they videotape it.
Boy, had this woman been arrested for anything significant, and I were a defense attourny, I bet I could turn this tape into reasonable doubt in about half a minute.
If they don't think this is abuse, if the idea that others might reasonably consider it unprofessional and abusive, what might they have done that they would naturally choose to hide?
By the way, you stupid authoritarian apologist, in no way does any of that justify the fact that she was injured and refused both treatment and clothing.
This was "field justice" and the appeal is gonna be a bitch.
The comment by anonymous above is repeated verbatim from a post on another blog. I don't know if anonymous saw fit to repost here, or if they are someone else who thought the other post was the perfect response to the story.
I answered it point by point on the other blog, so I won't repeat that here.
But consider something...let's make some assumptions for argument's sake. All of these have been disputed, but just assume for a moment that they are true:
1. For whatever reason, emotional upset, drinking, reaction to injuries sustained in the assault, Hope Steffey was so out of control when being interviewed as a victim that she committed Disorderly Conduct.
2. Once at the jail, she responded to questions in a way that could reasonably be interpreted that she was suicidal.
3. When told that due to her suicidal status, she must exchange all her clothing for safe jail-issued clothing, she refused.
Now, given all that, given the need to forcibly change her into safe clothing, was there any reason for two males to be present in addition to the FIVE female officers? Was there any reason that none of the female officers tried to reassure her that they were only removing her clothing to change her into safer garb? Was there are reason to keep her stark naked in her cell without even a blanket or a paper dress for six hours? Was there any reason for her to go to her arraignment nude except for a vest on her torso?
Oh, procedure was followed, I'll give you that. It is shameful, however, that the procedure in Stark County for dealing with POTENTIALLY suicidal inmates includes neither compassion nor simple human dignity.
There is no date on these postings, but the article was posted at Digg this February.
The first post by Anonymous, #1 is pure speculation, but his guess is probably closest to the truth. I would not assume that the woman gave the "wrong" ID, I would assume, or speculate, given her behavior after arriving at the jail, that she deliberately presented FALSE ID. #2 is correct, as well as #'s 4 thru 8, but #3 is completely wrong. This guy probably got his info from COPS.
Women do not "commonly hide things in their vaginas" but female drug addicts with a criminal history do. A body cavity search can only be performed by a doctor, not a police officer or a correctional officer, EVER, PERIOD!
A strip search would never be performed on any arrestee for a misdemeanor charge, when that person will not be held any longer than it takes to book and process them, or for them to sober up so they can be released.
Her clothes were taken from her because she claimed to be suicidal and then refused to remove them herself.
Um, a bust for deliberately presenting false ID would have made this whole thing somewhat less controversial - although in my mind, presenting fake ID hardly excuses the videotape record of her treatment. Clearly they didn't think a judge or jury would take it all that seriously.
Personally, I think it was pure abuse - and is very probably also SOP at that particular cop-shop.
I know, I know, we all want to be reasonable, fair and balanced. But in this case, the evidence in hand, created by the offenders themselves, completely outweighs ANY misbehavior on the part of the victim that might have "justified" such behavior.
Even if, I submit, she had crack stuffed in every orifice and a shank taped to the bottom of her foot. Even then, there is procedure to be followed that ensures minimum risk to all concerned.
I know personally that if I'd been dog-piled like that, someone other than me would be on disability or worse, simply as a result of a panic reaction.
Of course, I'm not likely to find myself in that sort of situation anyway. I treat cops just like I would pit-bulls. I make sure I don't set them off with inappropriate body language or do anything that might confuse them.
Let's start with...this incident happened in October 2006. Ms. Steffy lost a jury trial on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest on June 8, 2007. She appealed. She voluntarily dismissed her appeal October 2, 2007.
There must be more on this video that the news is not showing.
Um... what would the video not show?
And I can think of many reasons for dropping an appeal.
1. Lack of money
2. Threats from police.
3. Threats from the internet.
4. Sick of all the crap.
5. Feeling one had made one's point.
6. Advice of Council.
7. Family.
Etc.
My question - a broad one, aimed at my readers - is simple: What "unseen" thing could justify what you have seen?
Look, my fellow Americans; you have a voyeristic taint to your souls regarding stories such as this, and you insist upon your "right" to pry into the lives of strangers to judge whether they "deserve" what's coming to them, and often to pre-try them before a court even gets a chance.
Well, ok, then. Suppose for a moment that's a citizenship duty as opposed to being a damn intrusive violation of rights.
Don't you think that if you insist on weighing the evidence, you should actually do it well, to the standards expected of a jury?
No?
Then please, dear readers, do not add to the confusion.
What I'm saying is, a jury saw the entire video and convicted her. It would appear that if they had only seen the parts of the video that were shown on the news they would have had to aquit her. I can't imagine that the jury was packed with blind and stupid people. There's got to be more...
It also amazes me that you are so quick to question the government and authority but nothing else.
Post a Comment