• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
‘I wanted my ears pierced’: Quartet of Arkansas cops caught on video arresting man for piercing teenage son’s ear

Apparently having solved all other crime in Arkansas, four cops barge into a home and arrest a man for giving his son an ear piercing.

Police in Arkansas arrested a man for piercing his son’s ear last week. Now, he faces felony charges.

The incident was caught on video that went viral on TikTok.

In the clip, four members of the Tontitown Police Department can be seen pushing their way into a home and forcing Jeremy Sherland, 45, against the wall as the man’s wife and son react with shock.
Click to expand...

The statute under which he was arrested:

Under the Natural State statute cited by law enforcement, it is unlawful to perform body art on a minor without parental consent. The statute also expressly does not apply to minors “when piercing the earlobe.” The statute does, however, make it “unlawful to perform body art in any unlicensed facility.”
Click to expand...

That last part means you can't operate an unlicensed body art facility. It was NOT intended for situations like this. This arrest is a real stretch. If this came before me as a judge, I'd throw it out and tell the cops to go deal with real criminals for a change.

It's just another case of armed thugs throwing their weight around on a slow day. Gotta make that arrest quota!
 
They just want an excuse to bust a junior high girls slumber party....

"I hear there's ear piercing going on..."
 
I don't have my thumb on the pulse of the dumb and stupid anymore, is "pierced ear" still considered a "gay thing" by some?
 
JoeMorgue said:
I don't have my thumb on the pulse of the dumb and stupid anymore, is "pierced ear" still considered a "gay thing" by some?
Click to expand...

I don't think so anymore, really. For a while it theoretically depended which ear, then they couldn't make up their mind which was the "gay" ear, and it kind of fizzled out. Around the time "metrosexual" became a thing, I think.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I don't have my thumb on the pulse of the dumb and stupid anymore, is "pierced ear" still considered a "gay thing" by some?
Click to expand...

Interesting...

I had my left ear pierced for the first time in 1979 and the sixth piercing in 1988, and still routinely wear five ear-rings in that ear (the highest one never settled down, the cartilage kept trying to grow over the ear-rings even after five years so I gave up).

I can vaguely remember something about gays having piercings in their right ears, but couldn't swear to it. That may have affected my choices, but mainly I preferred the look of only having one pierced ear.

I'm struggling to recall anyone trying to tell me that I was gay for having a pierced ear, but that could be because: (a) generally people didn't feel comfortable baiting me, or (b) it just wasn't interesting enough to be memorable.

Working for the navy, it did cause some concerns, some of my work mates said they'd never sail with me, because I must be the unluckiest sailor in the world! (They were allowed to wear an ear-ring with their uniform if they had survived a ship wreck - i.e. incredibly rare to see one.)

Similarly a Chinese friend asked me if I had been an 'uncontrollable child' because of the number of ear-rings. In his Shanghainese tradition, a brat would get an ear-ring and that would calm them down. Two was incredibly rare, six was unheard of!

So, not sure how much of a thing, "ear-rings are gay", would be especially now, were people have so many body piercings.
 
I guess cops just can't get their addresses right.

Black youth leader says he was mistakenly detained and escorted outside half-naked by Los Angeles County deputies

A Black California youth leader says he woke last week at 4 a.m. to find deputies in his bedroom, guns drawn, who then escorted him out of his home half-naked — only to let him go after they realized he was not a burglary suspect they were looking for.

Derrick Cooper, 54, said that when he was wrongfully detained on April 18, he felt “less than human” and “humiliated.”

“I was not valued as a human being,” he said Tuesday. “To just come in and blatantly take me out of my safe place and put me in a place that I’m helpless and afraid for my life —it’s one of the worst things imaginable.”

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said deputies from the Compton Station were dispatched to an attempted burglary call near the L.A. City Wildcats facility, a youth sports academy Cooper has run for 27 years. Cooper’s apartment is in the same building, he said.

Cooper was detained in the facility but was later determined not to be a suspect and was released, the sheriff’s department said in a statement.
Click to expand...
 
novaphile said:
So, not sure how much of a thing, "ear-rings are gay", would be especially now, were people have so many body piercings.
Click to expand...

It's Arkansas. People there still point at planes.

What really happened is that the cops got a dodgy tip about a guy getting drunk and putting holes in his son's ear. They investigated, they were annoyed that this guy didn't immediately submit to their wishes, found out the abuse charge was almost certainly BS, and they probably sat around the cop store scouring the code for a crime that would stick even without the son's testimony. So they came up with the license bit.

So then they charge him with all the crimes they can't prove along with the one they can and offer a deal that he probably needs to take because fighting these people in court is extremely expensive and carries massive personal risk. Especially when you are going to lose on at least one count.

In this case the license bit probably wouldn't hold up on appeal, but extremely expensive again.
 
Suddenly said:
It's Arkansas. People there still point at planes.

What really happened is that the cops got a dodgy tip about a guy getting drunk and putting holes in his son's ear. They investigated, they were annoyed that this guy didn't immediately submit to their wishes, found out the abuse charge was almost certainly BS, and they probably sat around the cop store scouring the code for a crime that would stick even without the son's testimony. So they came up with the license bit.

So then they charge him with all the crimes they can't prove along with the one they can and offer a deal that he probably needs to take because fighting these people in court is extremely expensive and carries massive personal risk. Especially when you are going to lose on at least one count.

In this case the license bit probably wouldn't hold up on appeal, but extremely expensive again.
Click to expand...

Probably won't. The license thing, is you cannot operate a business, ie you cannot do this thing for profit. If it does holdup, that would also mean things like a mom cannot cut her own kids hair without a stylist/barber license, and you cannot put down insecticide in your own house.
 
Oh heres a good one:



Pulled over in WV for flashing headlights to warn drivers of speed trap (not a crime). Ticketed for failure to sign his registration (not a crime). Arrested for laughing (also, not a crime).
 
lobosrul5 said:
Probably won't. The license thing, is you cannot operate a business, ie you cannot do this thing for profit. If it does holdup, that would also mean things like a mom cannot cut her own kids hair without a stylist/barber license, and you cannot put down insecticide in your own house.
Click to expand...

The nightmare of textualism and textualist judges general fondness for "prosecutorial discretion" makes this less of a done deal that we'd like to think think.
 
I'm going to give a rather contrived example. The poster in question said:

As I mentioned upthread, they're in a bit of a spot... investigation wise.
Not a damn thing they do right now is gonna surprise me. Shock and disgust, yes. But not surprise.

[LINK]
Click to expand...

The link is to a web search engine (Google) with the text "los angeles sheriff gangs."

Right now, in 2023, there is an on-going scandal with extensive gang activity in the L.A. sheriff's department. Now, suppose, the city of L.A. does a massive overhaul of the department. The gangs disappear. The new sheriff does an exemplary job. A series of initiatives, either strongly social in nature or strongly draconian, drives down gang activity in the city to background noise. It takes time, effort, and a hell of a lot of money, but it works.

In 2033, someone follows the link again and gets a series of headlines:
  • L.A. County sheriff commended for continued success in controlling gangs
  • Los Angeles is a "Model of how gang activity can be brought under control"—Attorney General
  • L.A. County Sheriff very happy to see no increase in gang activity over the last year
  • 12 members of Fluffy Bunny gang arrested — L.A. County Sheriff blog
  • J. Romano Gang, County Sheriff for Los Angeles, Peru, announces retirement
  • County Cookies and Sheriff Foods gang up on rival Angels Biscuits

And the poster was complaining about what?
 
Last edited:
US police officer 'flips' car driven by pregnant woman who was following police guidance on what to do when pulled over by the police.

https://jalopnik.com/cop-flips-pregnant-womans-while-she-tries-to-pull-over-1847062704

I have not heard of this manouevre in the UK, but it seems to be a commonly adopted policy by US police. Is it something commonly done elsewhere?

Police chases seem from statistics to be dangerous, half of those injured are by-standers and usually for trvial offences. Although the evidence suggests police chases should be resricted, it seems that like appropriate use of guns, appropriate use of cars by police is hard to enforce.
 
Planigale said:
US police officer 'flips' car driven by pregnant woman who was following police guidance on what to do when pulled over by the police.

https://jalopnik.com/cop-flips-pregnant-womans-while-she-tries-to-pull-over-1847062704

I have not heard of this manouevre in the UK, but it seems to be a commonly adopted policy by US police. Is it something commonly done elsewhere?

Police chases seem from statistics to be dangerous, half of those injured are by-standers and usually for trvial offences. Although the evidence suggests police chases should be resricted, it seems that like appropriate use of guns, appropriate use of cars by police is hard to enforce.
Click to expand...

Imagine your car being intentionally crashed by police for a violation of the traffic code that amounts to no more than a fine. I hope she wins a huge settlement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom