Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This emerging circumstance does not apply only to leftists, who admittedly are inclined to dislike authority (as did the rebellious American Colonials). The fact is an increasing number of contemporary Americans who ordinarily adhere to right-wing principles are beginning to view the police with a critical eye. The reason for this is the relatively recent progression of publicized police misconduct typically involving unnecessary and excessive force.[...]
Just say it. You lefties believe whatever testimony will be bad for the cops.
Most ordinary Americans want to respect and support their police. But the increasing flow of reported misconduct incidents, most of which are the result of increasingly available surveillance implements (dashboard cameras, camera phones, etc.), has substantially altered a formerly held impression in the public mind that the police were knights in shining armor who could do no wrong. This impression has been seriously eroded because of the stupidly unconstrained performance of a relatively small but conspicuous percentage of sadistic, often undisciplined racist goons, such as the players in the topic drama,
Compounding the emerging negative impression is the ("Thin Blue Line") tendency of virtually all cops to express support of and to justify or excuse even the most egregious examples of misconduct.
Because over-doing something tends to inspire doubt.If a cop says a guy went for his gun...and it's not on camera...you lefties never believe it.
[...]
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?First...do you know what a pat down is?
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?First...do you know what a pat down is?
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?First...do you know what a pat down is?
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.
Video shows white cops performing roadside cavity search of black man
Here’s what happened: Lakeya Hicks and Elijah Pontoon were in Hicks’s car just a couple of blocks from downtown Aiken when they were pulled over by Officer Chris Medlin of the Aiken Department of Public Safety. Hicks was driving. She had recently purchased the car, so it still had temporary tags.
In the video, Medlin asks Hicks to get out, then tells her that he stopped her because of the “paper tag” on her car. This already is a problem. There’s no law against temporary tags in South Carolina, so long as they haven’t expired.
Medlin then asks Pontoon for identification. Since he was in the passenger seat, Pontoon wouldn’t have been required to provide ID even if the stop had been legitimate. Still, he provides his driver’s license to Medlin. A couple of minutes later, Medlin tells Hicks that her license and tags check out. (You can see the time stamp in the lower left corner of the video.) This should be the end of the stop — which, again, should never have happened in the first place.
Instead, Medlin orders Pontoon out of the vehicle and handcuffs him. He also orders Hicks out of the car. Pontoon then asks Medlin what’s happening. Medlin ignores him. Pontoon asks again. Medlin responds that he’ll “explain it all in a minute.” Several minutes later, a female officers appears. Medlin then tells Pontoon, “Because of your history, I’ve got a dog coming in here. Gonna walk a dog around the car.” About 30 seconds later, he adds, “You gonna pay for this one, boy.”
Moments later, an officer named Clark Smith arrives with a police dog. He walks around the car with his dog. A fourth police officer then shows up. The four officers then spend the next 15 minutes conducting a thorough search of the car. Early into the search, Medlin exclaims, “Uh-huh!” as if he has found something incriminating. But nothing comes of it.
After the search of the car comes up empty, Medlin tells the female officer to “search her real good,” referring to Hicks. The personal search of Hicks is conducted off camera, but according to the complaint filed by Phillips, it allegedly involved exposing Hicks’s breasts on the side of the road in a populated area. The complaint also alleges that this was all done in direct view of the three male officers. That search, too, produced no contraband.
The officers then turn their attention to Pontoon. Medlin asks Pontoon to get out of the car. He cuffs him and begins to pat him down. Toward the end of the first video, at about the 12:46:30 mark, he tells Pontoon: “You’ve got something here right between your legs. There’s something hard right there between your legs.” Medlin says that he’s going to “put some gloves on.”
The anal probe happens out of direct view of the camera, but the audio leaves little doubt about what’s happening. Pontoon at one point says that one of the officers is grabbing his hemorrhoids. Medlin appears to reply, “I’ve had hemorrhoids, and they ain’t that hard.” At about 1215 in the video, the audio actually suggests that two officers may have inserted fingers into Pontoon’s rectum, as one asks, “What are you talking about, right here?” The other replies, “Right straight up in there.”
Pontoon then again tells the officers that they’re pushing on a hemorrhoid. One officer responds, “If that’s a hemorrhoid, that’s a hemorrhoid, all right? But that don’t feel like no hemorrhoid to me.”
The officers apparently continue to search Pontoon’s rectum for another three minutes. They found no contraband. At 1225, Medlin tells Pontoon to turn around and explains that he suspects him because he recognized him from when he worked narcotics. “Now I know you from before, from when I worked dope. I seen you. That’s why I put a dog on the car.”
Again, I ask the bootlickers. What is an unlawful request from Police? I hope this guy gets paid and they get fired for their made up laws and reasoning
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?First...do you know what a pat down is?
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.
FALSE. Because if the dog hit on the car drugs would be in the car. Thanks for adding in events that never happened tho
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?First...do you know what a pat down is?
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?First...do you know what a pat down is?
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.
Cars are considered open fields under the constitution. Rectums are not, regardless of what any worthless fascist bootlickers say.
Video shows white cops performing roadside cavity search of black man
Here’s what happened: Lakeya Hicks and Elijah Pontoon were in Hicks’s car just a couple of blocks from downtown Aiken when they were pulled over by Officer Chris Medlin of the Aiken Department of Public Safety. Hicks was driving. She had recently purchased the car, so it still had temporary tags.
In the video, Medlin asks Hicks to get out, then tells her that he stopped her because of the “paper tag” on her car. This already is a problem. There’s no law against temporary tags in South Carolina, so long as they haven’t expired.
Medlin then asks Pontoon for identification. Since he was in the passenger seat, Pontoon wouldn’t have been required to provide ID even if the stop had been legitimate. Still, he provides his driver’s license to Medlin. A couple of minutes later, Medlin tells Hicks that her license and tags check out. (You can see the time stamp in the lower left corner of the video.) This should be the end of the stop — which, again, should never have happened in the first place.
Instead, Medlin orders Pontoon out of the vehicle and handcuffs him. He also orders Hicks out of the car. Pontoon then asks Medlin what’s happening. Medlin ignores him. Pontoon asks again. Medlin responds that he’ll “explain it all in a minute.” Several minutes later, a female officers appears. Medlin then tells Pontoon, “Because of your history, I’ve got a dog coming in here. Gonna walk a dog around the car.” About 30 seconds later, he adds, “You gonna pay for this one, boy.”
Moments later, an officer named Clark Smith arrives with a police dog. He walks around the car with his dog. A fourth police officer then shows up. The four officers then spend the next 15 minutes conducting a thorough search of the car. Early into the search, Medlin exclaims, “Uh-huh!” as if he has found something incriminating. But nothing comes of it.
After the search of the car comes up empty, Medlin tells the female officer to “search her real good,” referring to Hicks. The personal search of Hicks is conducted off camera, but according to the complaint filed by Phillips, it allegedly involved exposing Hicks’s breasts on the side of the road in a populated area. The complaint also alleges that this was all done in direct view of the three male officers. That search, too, produced no contraband.
The officers then turn their attention to Pontoon. Medlin asks Pontoon to get out of the car. He cuffs him and begins to pat him down. Toward the end of the first video, at about the 12:46:30 mark, he tells Pontoon: “You’ve got something here right between your legs. There’s something hard right there between your legs.” Medlin says that he’s going to “put some gloves on.”
The anal probe happens out of direct view of the camera, but the audio leaves little doubt about what’s happening. Pontoon at one point says that one of the officers is grabbing his hemorrhoids. Medlin appears to reply, “I’ve had hemorrhoids, and they ain’t that hard.” At about 12
Pontoon then again tells the officers that they’re pushing on a hemorrhoid. One officer responds, “If that’s a hemorrhoid, that’s a hemorrhoid, all right? But that don’t feel like no hemorrhoid to me.”
The officers apparently continue to search Pontoon’s rectum for another three minutes. They found no contraband. At 12
Again, I ask the bootlickers. What is an unlawful request from Police? I hope this guy gets paid and they get fired for their made up laws and reasoning
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?First...do you know what a pat down is?
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.
Cars are considered open fields under the constitution. Rectums are not, regardless of what any worthless fascist bootlickers say.
They did not check his rectum, so try reading for once and watch the video.
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?First...do you know what a pat down is?
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.
FALSE. Because if the dog hit on the car drugs would be in the car. Thanks for adding in events that never happened tho
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?First...do you know what a pat down is?
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?First...do you know what a pat down is?
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.
FALSE. Because if the dog hit on the car drugs would be in the car. Thanks for adding in events that never happened tho
The dog just knows if the drugs were there, not that still are there! Are you that ignorant or are you taking classes for it?
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.
Cars are considered open fields under the constitution. Rectums are not, regardless of what any worthless fascist bootlickers say.
They did not check his rectum, so try reading for once and watch the video.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
That's the reading that some of us need to be doing before approving the behavior of worthless traitors.
The dog never hit on anything so the point is moot
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.
Cars are considered open fields under the constitution. Rectums are not, regardless of what any worthless fascist bootlickers say.
They did not check his rectum, so try reading for once and watch the video.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
That's the reading that some of us need to be doing before approving the behavior of worthless traitors.
So exactly where were these rights violated since he was suspected of being in possession of illegal drugs?
Man, I swear some of you people need some serious psychological help!
Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?
Hes trying to avoid the question of what was the probable cause for the search. He cant answer
The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.
FALSE. Because if the dog hit on the car drugs would be in the car. Thanks for adding in events that never happened tho
The dog just knows if the drugs were there, not that still are there! Are you that ignorant or are you taking classes for it?
Now you're making up stories for the dog too? Amazing
Thankfully you aren't a cop although you do have that piggy mentality and a need for false respectThe cavity search was illegal, there was no probable cause to justify it and even had there been, no exigent circumstances to conduct it there in public.
If the officers had legitimate probable cause (they didn't) then the proper course of action was to arrest the individual get a search warrant and transport him to an authorized and trained medical professional.
Some people feel the need to justify the most egregious and unprofessional conduct usually because they were dirty themselves...
ACLU and NAACP should have a field day.
They wont. Because you dont know WTF you're talking about.
You said "arrest the person" then get a search warrant...for the hard object in his pants? What if it was a weapon? You don't need a search warrant to search someone you arrest. And...what would they arrest him for to do such a thing your propose?
Your knowledge of the law is too bad to have this discussion .
I'd lick a boot before I'd eat dog. Gross.
