Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Texas women sue over cavity search. "The officer didn't even change gloves!" (Warning:Very Graphic) [View all]DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)79. Oh, I definitely agree
But with that post, I was countering this ridiculous notion that the other poster was able to somehow determine that no cavity search took place. What we do know from seeing with our own eyes is that the cop had her hand down both women's pants for the purpose of conducting a search. It's reasonable to believe, therefore, that a cavity search did take place, even though we cannot see it on the tape because of the nontransparent nature of blue jeans. But by the very same token, stating categorically that these women are lying is itself, a lie. I'll never understand why some people seem to thrive on mewling at the feet of authority. Anyway, I know I'm preaching to the choir, just wanted to clarify my previous post. Thanks.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
120 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Texas women sue over cavity search. "The officer didn't even change gloves!" (Warning:Very Graphic) [View all]
aaaaaa5a
Dec 2012
OP
WHY THE FUCK IS THIS NOT A "Cavity search"? You've said that multiple times with NO explanation.
EOTE
Dec 2012
#35
"One can argue that the level of intrusion is tantamount to a cavity search"
jberryhill
Dec 2012
#19
Very confused by your posts here - HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE WOMAN'S ON SCENE COMMENT???
jsmirman
Dec 2012
#49
If the police officer was only searching externalities, why did she put her hand down their pants?
Uncle Joe
Dec 2012
#26
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
You can see the second woman flinch when those fingers get were they are going
jberryhill
Dec 2012
#95
You don't know if the officer stuck her fingers up the cavities of the women
Cali_Democrat
Dec 2012
#9
That's not the point. The fact that at minimum its debatable is enough for me. nt
aaaaaa5a
Dec 2012
#11
And it's your amazing dark world powers that allows you to determine that didn't happen?
EOTE
Dec 2012
#84
Probably have put them in stocks in the town square so everyone could have a good
RKP5637
Dec 2012
#104
Ugh. Sounds like something one should have a medical license to do..either one.
libdem4life
Dec 2012
#90
Thank god for the requirement for dash cameras. Progress. We know this crap has been going on
libdem4life
Dec 2012
#113
Prove it WASN'T a cavity search. This is 100 times worse than the "so what is rape" drivel.
libdem4life
Dec 2012
#67
Imagine the husbands, or sons, or daughters or family or neighbors...there is no end
libdem4life
Dec 2012
#94
Because your right to bodily autonomy is second to our right to FIND TEH WEEED
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2012
#109
glad they are suing the troopers directly, glad gloved one has been suspended
Liberal_in_LA
Dec 2012
#115