Texas cops search womans vagina for pot during traffic stop because they "smelled it"

[d-ray657]

I quote from a recent case: U.S. v. Fowlkes, 770 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2014):

Mark Tyrell Fowlkes appeals his conviction for drug distribution and possession with intent to distribute. Fowlkes raises a number of claims on appeal, but only one has merit: that the forcible removal of drugs from Fowlkes's rectum by officers without medical training or a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Because we conclude that the evidence obtained from this brutal and physically invasive search should have been suppressed, we vacate Fowlkes's conviction in part, vacate his sentence, and remand to the district court.

This sufficiently contradicts Zeke's suggestion that the ultimate recovery of pot justified the extraordinary invasion of a woman's body. I know Zeke is not an idiot. Any reasonable person would recognize that the conduct of the officers in this case was not legitimate. The woman did not pose any threat to them; there was no emergency that would have prevented the officers from obtaining a warrant (assuming that a judicial officer would find such a search reasonable). Because the misconduct in this case was so blatant, outright support of it and denigration of the woman who was subjected to a "brutal and physically invasive search" must be chalked up to trolling.

Regards,

D-Ray

[matteos]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Well, not if I possessed pot: I'd have no standing to do so beyond self-righteous indignation and entitlement.

As for being familiar with crack cocaine? That's called training, the same thing disavowing your skunk theory AND that rightfully and appropriately discovered marijuana on this whorish (no underwear), pothead (possession), female (vagina mentioned way too much for inflammatory purposes).

On her.

You are a vile man.

So why did you get kicked off the police force?

I mean, the Police go around raping young black girls, murdering whomsoever they choose WITH IMPUNITY.

And yet you got the boot?

You must be a fucking psychopath.

[matteos]

Zeke would spread his cheeks for the law.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Because the misconduct in this case was so blatant, outright support of it and denigration of the woman who was subjected to a "brutal and physically invasive search" must be chalked up to trolling.

Which is all he ever does and in the most disgusting manner. That's why I believe he contributes nothing positive to the board and why I plan to totally ignore him. I urge others to do the same and, if I find anyone quoting Zeke in your posts, I'll ignore you too!

[JJIII]

[QUOTE=Boreas;281903 ...if I find anyone quoting Zeke in your posts, I'll ignore you too! [/QUOTE]

Oh! No!

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I quote from a recent case: U.S. v. Fowlkes, 770 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2014):

Mark Tyrell Fowlkes appeals his conviction for drug distribution and possession with intent to distribute. Fowlkes raises a number of claims on appeal, but only one has merit: that the forcible removal of drugs from Fowlkes's rectum by officers without medical training or a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Because we conclude that the evidence obtained from this brutal and physically invasive search should have been suppressed, we vacate Fowlkes's conviction in part, vacate his sentence, and remand to the district court.

This sufficiently contradicts Zeke's suggestion that the ultimate recovery of pot justified the extraordinary invasion of a woman's body. I know Zeke is not an idiot. Any reasonable person would recognize that the conduct of the officers in this case was not legitimate. The woman did not pose any threat to them; there was no emergency that would have prevented the officers from obtaining a warrant (assuming that a judicial officer would find such a search reasonable). Because the misconduct in this case was so blatant, outright support of it and denigration of the woman who was subjected to a "brutal and physically invasive search" must be chalked up to trolling.

Regards,

D-Ray

Trolling that I'm coming to understand as, often, aggression motivated by animosity. Such animosity is a reaction of authoritarian personalities when they encounter disagreement and criticism, and aggression is their general response.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Trolling that I'm coming to understand as, often, aggression motivated by animosity. Such animosity is a reaction of authoritarian personalities when they encounter disagreement and criticism, and aggression is their general response.

I completely agree. However...

I need to say that a lot of stuff on this forum, and other like it, that it tagged as "trolling" is not. I remember one time (on a forum full of social misfits and maladaptives like Zeke) being accused of being a troll when I suggested that as soon as one of the complainants showed me even a little actual evidence that Barack Obama ordered somebody at the IRS to persecute conservatives...that I would happily add my finger to all the other gnarly IRS blame fingers being pointed at Obama.

"You're a fucking troll, Ike." Yeh...sure. If we want the real trolls identified, we need to stop using the tag when somebody simply disagrees with us in an aggressive or sarcastic way.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by matteos

Is this because you wish to be anally probed?

No, only pot smokers need to be.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

I completely agree. However...

I need to say that a lot of stuff on this forum, and other like it, that it tagged as "trolling" is not. I remember one time (on a forum full of social misfits and maladaptives like Zeke) being accused of being a troll when I suggested that as soon as one of the complainants showed me even a little actual evidence that Barack Obama ordered somebody at the IRS to persecute conservatives...that I would happily add my finger to all the other gnarly IRS blame fingers being pointed at Obama.

"You're a fucking troll, Ike." Yeh...sure. If we want the real trolls identified, we need to stop using the tag when somebody simply disagrees with us in an aggressive or sarcastic way.

Of course one must differentiate between troll as insult and troll as descriptor. My own usage would actually distinguish between people who 'get off' on purposefully manipulating and annoying others, and people who attack out of anger and animosity, because they have intolerant and aggressive personalities. The first are trolls, the second are authoritarian assholes.

Of course, there is some overlap. Zeke, for example, has a foot in each bucket. And I'd say you fall into some third category....

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Of course one must differentiate between troll as insult and troll as descriptor. My own usage would actually distinguish between people who 'get off' on purposefully manipulating and annoying others, and people who attack out of anger and animosity, because they have intolerant and aggressive personalities. The first are trolls, the second are authoritarian assholes.

Of course, there is some overlap. Zeke, for example, has a foot in each bucket. And I'd say you fall into some third category....

Never you though...eh Don?