Sunday, August 26, 2012


Three videos of male officers trained to subject female victims to (ever so slow motion) sexual battery: (groped in first minute – released at tenth minute) (groping begins at 12 minutes -- no longer available)

The NYPD’s atrocious policy for male-on-female cross-gender friscking is that  “a woman is just like a man."  To most police departments around the country this is policy – including slipping hands down hips, over legs and even lifting breasts with the back of the hand (the supposedly less sensitive side).  That's policy; as far as they are concerned the criminal statuted doesn't prohibit a male officer doing pretty much anything likes to a female. 

Departments cite Terry v. Ohio’s “hands over clothing” formula as carte blanche to ingore the differences between sexes – the magic words of supposed "empowerment."  Terry spelled out the limits of police leeway to conduct a bodily search imposed by the Fourth Amendment.  Terry in no way dealt with felony prohibitions against sexual battery.

Courts may only decide issues brought before them -- may not reach out and mandate anything beyond that: checks and balances.  No female -- no ruling.

Were criminal law at issue the judiciary would more likely have been at work elaborating limits in the same sense that Gardner V. Tennessee set limts -- by reinforcing the prohibition against sexual battery as Gardner reinforced the prohibition against unjustified shooting of suspects.  No way any court would -- could -- set aside the felony prohibition, categorically saying: "A woman is just like a man."

Any woman groped privately by a male officer except under the most dangerous exigent circumstances should sue for a million dollars.  I don’t understand why there are not hundreds or thousands -- or hundreds of thousands -- of these cases across the country.  

The eighth-grade math: New York City has 30,000 male police officers.  If they sexually batter one woman apiece over their twenty year careers (maybe 90-95% of them have more sense -- maybe it's the other way around -- I have no way of knowing), that multiplies to 600,000 sexual attacks on women over twenty years -- to possibly save one or two police lives?  

A teen girl recounts her ordeal -- much resembling the last video above:  “He started on my left ankle and worked his way up, with the FRONT of his hands until he touched, well you know. Not for very long but still. He then continued down my right leg and then around my waist and up my sides until his hands rested under my armpits, his fingers touching the sides of my breasts. WTF IS GOING ON??? I didn't stop him because I couldn't speak. He then started digging in the pocket on my sweatshirt, which was large because it's my boyfriend's and the pocket hangs low over know. I felt his hand in my personal area quite a few times, as he's trying to play it off by asking me about the simple objects he's pulling out of my pocket.” 

These are felony sexual assaults -- that is what the law says -- police department policy is irrelevant.  In my opinion, a woman may not legally give her permission to a male officer to grope her sexual areas -- anymore than she could give her permission to perpetrate any other kind of battery.

Balancing tradeoff claimed (if anybody else objects):
"Officer safety comes first": 8 out of 8 citing “officer safety.” 

You can run a small flashlight [*] or similar object along anywhere a hand can reach and a gun might be concealed (checking wrists, ankles and waistline by hand not wrong). A rear-cuffed female -- checked for guns -- would have to, first, do the Houdini and slip the bracelets and, and then, do the Incredible Hulk and tear aside the police car partition in order to draw a sharp object from her bra and scratch the police officer (don't drive a bus. or God-forbid a taxicab, if you are afraid of that).

[*] "Searches are usually conducted in one of two ways either with the hands or with the aid of a mini-flashlight or Kubotana. Personally, my preference is for the mini-flashlight or Kubotana technique. It has been instilled in me repeatedly during my career that personal contact with anyone other than extremely close friends and/or family members should be avoided, whenever possible. The mini-flashlight or Kubotan search methods allow for thoroughness yet remove the intimate, up-close, personal contact."

He seems to include both sexes in avoiding "personal contact" -- nevertheless he advises the following -- as if  male hands where we know they don't belong were remained a legal option:
"When searching a female it may be helpful to:
    · Have a female officer present, if possible.
  • Be certain that the written report of the incident contains details of the arrest, mention of any weapons or contraband that were being sought, what if anything was found in the search.
  • The more immediate or important the arrest the better. If there is a legitimate belief that she is carrying weapons or contraband a search should not be delayed.
  • Do not search a female alone unless it is absolutely necessary.
  • Conduct the search of a female in the same manner that you would search a male.
  • Before starting to search the front of a female, tell her that the search is not meant to embarrass her. Ask if any weapons or contraband are concealed in her clothing or body. She may deny having any weapons or contraband, search anyway. If she admits to having weapons or contraband locate it, seize it, safely secure it and resume your systematic search.
  • Use good judgement and discretion. These basic steps may be employed similarly when a female officer searches a male."]
Law enforcement doesn’t really think there is any legislated need to do any balancing trade off at all.  "We are professionals doing a job” – even -- "We are like doctors.”  Law enforcement thinks Terry's words allowing frisking "over clothing" gives them -- undifferentiated -- carte-blanche to treat females just like a male.

Terry went out of its way to state that cops are nothing at all “like doctors”:   "… it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public [my note: presumably straight male on straight male] by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a 'petty indignity.' It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly." (392 U.S. 1, at 16–17) 

"One lawsuit alleged—and the then-corrections commissioner largely confirmed—that an instructional videotape that DOCS then used to train officers suggested that a pat-frisk was to be conducted as follows: “An officer begins by ordering the inmate to stand against the wall with her back to him. The officer then approaches the inmate from behind, placing his hands on the inmate’s neck and inside the collar of her shirt. He works his hands down every inch of the surface of her body. Probing for small items, the officer runs his hands under and over the woman’s breast, brushing her nipples. Searching the woman’s legs, the officer grips one inner thigh. His hands press against the woman’s vagina before moving down her thigh toward the ankle. He then grips the other thigh and repeats this procedure on the woman’s other side.  [Emphasis mine]

“The policy mandated that officers conduct this procedure in certain situations. For instance, officers were required to pat-frisk every woman returning from a visit in which she had contact with un-incarcerated people. But the policy also allowed officers—regardless of their gender—latitude to conduct random pat frisks when an inmate aroused suspicion."  (13th-14th paragraph)

In the New York example there was no question of prison security – or even convenience of prison security. The prison system did not want males routinely frisking females – only in emergencies – or even guarding females in housing areas where naked viewing and clothed frisking most likely come into play. In the New York case it was the Department of Corrections’ effort to be in compliance with the fair employment provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that introduced male sexual battery into female lives.

But that cannot happen to female travelers at the airport, right?  Think again: 
“B. The STSO must ensure that the following notice is provided to an individual of the opposite gender before the individual enters the WTMD:
1) A TSO of the same gender as the individual presents him or herself to be is not available.
2) A TSO of the opposite gender will be required to complete the screening process, which may include physical contact between the TSO and the individual.
3) An LTSO or STSO, if possible, will be present.
4) Once the individual enters the WTMD, the individual must complete the screening process.”

[Note: how to avoid a gay male frisking you -- a male -- at the airport: “present yourself” as a female.]

Do touch; don’t tell:
“No personal or identifying information must be taken from the passenger for purposes of this report. For example, “three female passengers underwent opposite gender screening at Airport X” is an adequate count; however, including the names of the three female passengers in the count would be inappropriate.” 

”There is a standing legal decision in the 9th Circuit US Federal Court called Jordan v. Gardner (986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir.1992) that found it is cruel and unusual punishment to have male officers conduct clothed body searches on female prisoners.” 

Violates the Eighth Amendment in jail: automatically violates the Fourth Amendment in jail.  But not at the airport?  (The gay acting TSO in this audio would not likely have performed this frisk -- division of labor.)  Why does the TSA want to strip or grope air travelers arriving from outside the US without cause?  Haven't the federal court precedents specifically barred invasive searches of persons arriving over land borders without probable cause? Wouldn’t such even fail the Fourteenth Amendment’s  “rational test”: does the TSA fear air passengers will blow up taxi cabs?

Put an end to the training of male law enforcement and security to routinely molest females (and of gay males doing the same to males) with the kind of lawsuits that stopped dead same-sex strip searching for traffic violations in Chicago (only women; men not bothered); ACLU, are you awake?; Ms. Foundation, are you there?  Next is to give notice to law enforcement professionals that felony prohibitions of sexual batter actually apply to them.  (“There is no rule that a male cannot frisk a female.”)  New Hampshire and Texas, are you awake ---- do you want the courts to be wide awake when your legislation goes to the airport? 

For the meantime they think nothing of it:
They even staged it (!) with a female TV journalist -- would they have staged a stranger molestation – he even runs his hands up a leg he has already run down: 
They even practice teenage boy cadets on teenage girl cadets (!): 
Talk about inexcusable -- even in a safe courthouse -- a widely reported AP story that notes without taking any notice of a mother with two little boys groped -- scanner stripped at the courthouse entrance too; fear panties bombs in the courthouse (?): 

For the meantime ladies, your driver's licenses; don't leave home without them!

Male officers cannot currently be prosecuted for sexually battering females as long as they are trained by the state to do so -- as long as they have any job motivated fig leaf: agent provocateur. 

Thursday, August 23, 2012

A prolife constitutional amendment you can't refuse

A prolife constitutional amendment you can't refuse:

Even is we accept that a fully human fetus (medical consensus: 14 to 20 weeks?) is not a legal person until born -- if liberals incongruously insist on going Robert Bork, Edwin Meese-strict construction on this lone issue -- everyone should agree to the inalienable right to life of prenatal humans (and all other human rights) whether recognized by the Constitution or not.  

Therefore, all should equally easily accept a constitutional amendment insuring full equality of born and unborn rights -- to be regulated by legislatures prior to the stage of medical consensus on humanity.

Someday medical advances will permit prenatal humans to go temporarily postnatal -- to be temporarily removed from the womb and then returned to complete gestation.  Extracted fetuses will travel as legal persons and must retain that status upon return.  Will the courts then allow one class of fetuses to be "slave" and another "free"?  So much for strict construction.

Under strict construction, if a future traveling fetus leaves a stay behind twin, does the left behind become a legal person at any point in the travelers journey; and if so, when?  Under strict construction I would say that at the moment the traveling twin sees the light of day, the stay behind becomes a legal person: the social equal of my legal equal must be my legal equal.  For certain, when the stay behind is rejoined with the company of now a legal person it must be a legal person.  So much for silliness. 

For full silliness: if the courts use the kind of logic (or whatever it was) that produce the old "born alive" common law rule -- that if you injured an unborn baby and it was born alive and died you could be charged with murder (but not if it died prenatally) -- then in the case of a traveling fetus not rejoining the left behind, the courts could possibly rule that the left behind would not become a legal person; but if it returned the stay behind was a legal person from the beginning of the other's journey.  So much for the silliness of liberal-strict construction.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Is New York's stop-and-frisk disease all about ethinic cleansing -- or plain foolishness -- or both?

Next spring I may return to New York (after 30+ years absence) to cure New York City of stop-and-frisk disease – by organizing folks there to walk up to police and take their IDs off their badges (mimicking police asking citizens to ID) and then ask them one of more questions that make them feel uncomfortable (too). 

The likely question : “What is your private address?”  There are laws preventing the publishing of cops’ personal addresses – for obvious reasons.  But a legislature could not constitutionally pass a law preventing asking the question -- most especially if the question has a political aim. 

(Male) police may react fiercely to the question (note: females don't have the balls -- to make them want to react fiercely anyway), but that is not a true measure.  Look at the question as a "tickle."  When we are tickled we feel vulnerable but we really are not.  The political aim to to educate New York City police to stop ruining everybody’s sense of freedom with unwarranted (pun intended) personal intrusions -- by giving them a harmless taste.

Another ploy to give cops a bad taste about stop-and-frisk disease is to point out that New York’s mayor enthusiastically supports his ethnic group’s criminally brutal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from even the remaining 22% of their historical homeland the 1949 partition which was supposed to leave them 45% but the Jews grabbed 78% instead.  

(Am I an anti-Semite? No: but I am not an ethnic cleansing "denier" -- as in not a Holocaust "denier."  I am not afraid to embarrass Jews over here to get Israel to behave over there -- better for them here in the long run.  Right now, Jews here are being tarred with the actions of rouge Israel.  If you switched the 6 million Jews here with the 6 million there -- Israel would never cause trouble again.  The Jews here would never act like the crazy Jews over there [only 1 1/2% from US] -- but support Jews there.  Everybody understands their absentee amorality on Israel -- aren't we all guilty?  Embarrassing them here while -- explaining the difference -- is the only thing that will make a difference there -- and wont hurt them here.  And now back to our regular program.)

The only practical consequence of making 24X as many stops per reported crime (6X as many stops after something like a 4X drop in crime) is making the poorer ethnic groups’ lives (even more) difficult.  Could New York’s self-made, billionaire mayor be so foolish as not to understand that? 

Sad to say he could be that foolish.  In first years of this century – after crime had dropped 4X -- the Mad Mayor Bloomberg built a new $400 million dollar courthouse in the Bronx – right next door to the old-new $120 million courthouse that had been opened in 1977 to take the crimewave overflow from the stately not-so-old landmark courthouse up the street.  He built another $670 million dollar courthouse in Brooklyn -- after crime dropped 4X.

So Mayor Bloomberg could be a complete fool, about crime and justice -- or he could be a make-room-for-more-yuppies (now moving in on Harlem and the South Bronx) ethnic cleanser – or both.  Nice choice.  

Watching this video reminded of the racist Chicago I arrived in back in 1980.  Now Chicago has been cool racially for a very long time -- but this video makes me wonder if New York City has gone the way of the old Chicago.  ???

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Should gay males who admit attraction to boys be scout leaders (or school basketball coaches, etc.)?

Should gay men who admit attraction to boys be scout leaders (or school basketball coaches, etc.)?  Even "pretend-liberals" should be able to figure out the rest out for themselves.

In a lifetime of observations -- I usually know who is in the closet (Mr. voit-comp) -- most gay males I have known have "light up" around early pubescent girls.  I'm not saying they molest them -- not at all -- but it illustrates they have a problem and it is not just shortage of male partners (maybe especially if they are in closet) that can make their sex drive cross normal border lines looking for fulfillment.

Gay males also do not get enough of something else they need from fellow males (gay or straight).  Females give a lot of recognition -- I know you're there; I know you're there -- like a light house that keeps going off.  Males do not give that much of that (even gays to gays).  I believe the classic understanding is that this lack makes gay males go more hedonistic -- heavily into their pastrami sandwiches or whatever -- for compensation.

This can lead to some pretty bizarre compulsions.  When I first showed up in San Francisco in late 1996 the sneaky feel scene was unbelievable.  I had to keep my hands behind my back like I was handcuffed while browsing the shelves at the public library or inevitably the light touch would brush across my back (first time I remember was at the motor vehicle, bent over a shelf, filling out a form -- infuriating).  It was 100 times out of 100 -- and, the opposite of the bar scene, age and condition meant nothing.

When gays first made a move on the Boy Scouts back then I "panicked" and wrote and described this zany scene to Pat Robertson's ACLJ -- whom I addressed as "homophobes" BTW; I'm not; I just understand that gay males are every inch males -- also the early pubescent girl thing.  The drive dropped after that -- Pat and company confront them in the background?

A month after I sent said letter, in January, later I returned to San Francisco for three months -- one of them got me within five hours; in front of the checkout at the hardware store in the first block of Fourth Street (across from the Marriott) -- the light brush -- nothing but room to pass behind.

Next January I returned for seven months.  Somebody must have put it to them (Pat's folks?): perfect behavior.  No more leaning out of the way on the bus to let your girl friend by and then leaning hard up against you as you pass. 

But, next to last time I was in San Francisco: for four months every other gay male who rode in my taxicab had to pat on the soft part of the shoulder two or three times at some point in the ride -- or alternately extend their hand hard against the same place waiting for their change.  Not sex but intimacy.  Infuriating, but I didn't have the heart to tell them; they would have felt so mortified (which I might have mollified by assuring them that we -- heterosexuals -- see and accept men as predators, not as nice girls). 

(This would be a good spot to note that homosexuals of both sexes see the big, giant, overweening ego in females and completely miss it in males -- seems the core difference -- programmed between 3 and 6 years old.) 

Last time I was there for four months (2004/) it had stopped.  Somebody put it to them again?

I have always assumed that most gay males are attracted to boys.  I have been spotting boys and men since I was a boy -- propositioned between the lines to join the fun (nothing is between to Mr. voit-comp) by a 14 year old boy on my paper route.  About 25 years ago I witnessed two uniformed Chicago cops grabbing at the butt of a 15 year old boy on a bike about 15 times -- easy to figure out.  About a mile away was a store where I believed one of the two owners was running delivery boys -- or the boys were running themselves (sounds like a logical opportunity if you understand that 10% of males are gay; maybe even another 10% are serious switch-hitters).

It's just what they do.  The young boys have the bodies and the old men have the money and the toys.  Sound familiar?

Even if a gay male thinks he is not attracted to boys (most, I have always assumed, are extremely attracted) when he is surrounded by 25 boys he may find he has a change of mind. 

Age 13, I heard an openly gay male admonish another openly gay male against approaching a very young teen: "Don't play with fire and you wont get burned."

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Does it make any legal difference where Obama was born?

Does it make any legal difference where Obama was born?  Even if he was born in Indonesia -- just to make up an example -- he was an  American citizen -- born of at least one American parent.  As long as he lived his life in the states from the time he was aware -- say, from the age of reason (7 years old) -- would any court disallow his right to be president?

The Constitution is not clear on this -- plenty of room for "judge made law."  Democratic judges would definitely rule in favor -- (most of the) Republican judges would be afraid to take the heat. 

I found this:

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.