Ouch! Atlanta Killer Got Away Because of Female Cop

Politics International Politics
41

I am not anti-feminist but I still want to know what this woman was doing by herself guarding this person. Is that an unreasonable question? Is it odd that the media thinks that this is irrelevant to the story? Also, you seem to be mistaken, Cynthia Hall was not the one who was killed at least according to this report:

Good I am glad that we agree. That was my point so why don’t you pour yourself a nice tall glass of calm the fuck down juice and tell us what those pros and cons are.

I will take your “experience” into account.

Why? You just agreed with me a few lines ago that there were pros and cons. What’s the matter? Have too much chili with lunch?

Well then, excuse me for bringing up the topic and for upsetting you with my shit. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Bye bye now!

I would not characterize myself that way nor would I characterize this argument that way. You yourself did not characterize it that way recognizing that there are pros and cons merely a few sentences ago.

Fine. I have a private agenda. So sue me. Now, why are my points not valid in this discussion?

[quote]Now-to put it in rap terms-let me throw down some education.
First; escapes like the Atlanta one are always going to happen—period. [/quote]

I did not say that there would be no such cases, but I think that I have a valid point here no matter how much you want to play the PC card. We have a 51 year old woman who is 5 feet tall escorting a prisoner that is probably double her weight. Why? Unarmed? Why? Was he handcuffed? Why not?

No argument from me.

Did not say it was man and woman. I said it was a case of a 5 foot 51 year old woman escorting this ex college football player by herself unarmed and what? He was not even handcuffed? What the hell? This is not a relevant concern? Why was this woman alone? Why was she escorting this prisoner under these conditions? Why?

[quote]
I have had the “good fortune” to be on a first name basis with several hundred felony inmates [/quote]

Well bully for you. No wonder you talk like one. I ain’t one of your cell mate friends buddy so lighten up a bit.

Anyone? I don’t think so, but perhaps some people yes. So again, why put a 51 year old woman who is 5 feet tall in with this guy ALONE and UNARMED? Why?

[quote]And when I say anyone I am not talking about Arnold The Terminator or Bruce Lee

42

Uh, actually you did, in the very title of this thread, “…because of female cop.” You attributed the escape to a cop and identified her by gender.

So now, [Moderator’s note: text in violation of Rules deleted / It is appropriate to say, “your facts are wrong,” but it is not appropriate to say “you are a liar.”] you’re likely to say that you wrote “female” for descriptive purposes only. We’ll that might be true, but had someone else written this title with “female” replaced by a quality that you hold dear, then you’d be all over them.

Suppose she voted Bush. The title of the thread could be “Con escapes because of Bush-supporting cop.” And you’d be right in there crying bloody murder. (Assuming you support Bush, which if not, then I trust that you can still understand my point.) You’ve incriminated yourself under your own apparent standards of accountability, which are obvious to anyone who reads your replies to others posting in this thread.

As some people have already mentioned, the gender of the cop doesn’t seem to be a major factor. Was it a factor? Certainly. The colour of the room’s paint was probably a factor too, as was what the con had for lunch. Was gender a -defining- factor? Probably not, and certainly impossible to tell no matter how much idle conjecture you come up with.

Thanks for the entertainment.

43

For his next trick, Fred will likely insist that women police officers should pay “reparations” for not doing enough in the line of duty. Perhaps he can suggest that women, in general, take a pay cut versus the salaries of men for the same work.

44

[quote=“rowboat”][quote=“fred smith”]

Did not say it was man and woman…

[/quote]

Uh, actually you did, in the very title of this thread, “…because of female cop.” You attributed the escape to a cop and identified her by gender.[/quote]

Uh, actually, if you have followed the thread, I think you will have noticed that fred has changed his opinion and now is asking why someone of such small physical stature without a weapon was left to guard a much larger unrestrained prisoner.

45

He’s been doing that a lot lately. Is he ill?

46

My main argument still stands. I agree with Ann Coulter for two reasons:

  1. I think that this woman should not have been guarding this person and I doubt that she could have passed the same kind of physical exam required of men.

  2. I think that there are issues here regarding women and men in combat, police or fire services that require further attention.

The rest is just changing the tack and tone. I think that the left lowers standards and I think that this has occurred here. I think that has also occurred in our nations universities and in the army and I think that hurts morale and can be deadly. I think that there should be more extensive discussion about this and that the media should not self censor how they report this news. There. That’s what I mean.

I think that this could be a very good discussion. We will see if the other posters have the balls for it. haha

47

A good argument could be made that it’s the Republicans who lower the standards. Quite a few of the National Guard and Reserves troops serving in Iraq right now have left jobs as police officers and fire fighters, and it has already been noted that many emergency-services crews have been left a bit shorthanded as a result. If you really want to make this into a partisan issue, then sure… it’s the GOP’s fault.

Add in how the Republicans are now scraping the barrels to find people they can call up for duty in Iraq and are currently recruiting retired soldiers to come back in to serve again, it appears our military forces are starting to look like the Volksturm circa late-April 1945. I’m glad to give the Republicans full credit for the lowered standards for physical fitness.

48

[quote=“fred smith”]My main argument still stands. I agree with Ann Coulter for two reasons:

  1. I think that this woman should not have been guarding this person and I doubt that she could have passed the same kind of physical exam required of men.

  2. I think that there are issues here regarding women and men in combat, police or fire services that require further attention.

…

I think that this could be a very good discussion. We will see if the other posters have the balls for it. haha[/quote]

Don’t go out on a limb with those two propositions.

  1. You don’t think that that woman should have been guarding the prisoner who, prior to you making this statement, escaped from her? What a revelation! Let me try: I don’t think that the French should have left so many regiments on the Maginot line. Again: I think Bruce Lee should have just slept the headache off rather than taking an aspirin. Hey, I’m a genius, too.

  2. There are issues? Issues with men and women? In fire, police, and combat? And these issues require further attention? You…don’t…say. One question: Could you be any less specific?

And your main argument, whatever that is, still “stands” because you say it does.

Sigh. What a wonderfully boring discussion. I like the one we were having when I got reprimanded.

49

Can we have a poll…How long do you think it would it have taken the prisoner to take Fred Smith’s keys???

50

That would be relevant to the discussion in what way?

51

Good point Fred. Only a real man such as the below officer has the superior strength, speed, agility and hand-eye coordination necessary to fight the bad guys and keep us safe (plus they’re better drivers); women may look pretty, but it’s a known fact that they are physically incapable of doing a man’s job. . . and if the rest of you would read Ann Coulter you’d understand that.

52

All right then MT and Rowboat, let me ask you this? Do you think that physical strength is important in a police officer, fire fighter or military personnel? Should the same standards be used to rate physical standards for BOTH men and women? or should there be different standards? Why? How would they work? What would the difference be?

Do you think that regardless of the sex that having someone 51 years old and five foot tall guarding such a dangerous prisoner was wise? Who is going to be responsible for this? Three people have died.

I think it is intersting to see the usual kneejerk reactions to this. I have not said anywhere that I do not think that women should not be policemen. I merely posted Ann Coulter’s comments and I asked a series of questions. I asked if anyone had any other information on this and what if anything anyone here thought.

I think that this is a serious issue. If we should be looking at overweight or old male police officers or fire fighters then so be it. I just want to know how anyone could think that this woman could possibly be a match for this tough, huge hardened criminal. That is all I am asking. How did this happen? How can we prevent it? Is there a problem here? Why is the press so eager NOT to mention or seems to be eager to avoid mentioning the incredible mismatch between these two people?

53

Of course it wasn’t wise. No one disputes that. The prisoner was very big and strong, was being re-tried for a serious, violent felony, the case was going poorly for him, he was facing life in prison, the authorities had found prison shanks (handmade knives) on him, he had been acting cocky and arrogant, I believe he had made actual oral threats and his handcuffs were removed so he could change into street clothes for the trial. There’s no question the authorities should have recognized the risk and had either one very large guard or two guards assigned to watch him.

Who is going to be responsible for it? I’m not sure what that means. I know some may blame the Sheriff and I’m sure he feels like hell, but I agree with him that he shouldn’t be blamed too much as he’s only held his job for 2 months or so. Certainly the former Sheriff (who was thrown out of his job for illegal/unethical conduct that lost the department $7 milllion) bears a lot of responsibility, in particular because I think he was in office when the Fed government took over running the prison, due to serious security lapses and other problems. It appears he may have been incompetent and failed to implement sound policies and procedures. But perhaps it’s not solely his fault either. Perhaps the department was so short of funds that they were unable to hire sufficient personnel. Without more facts it’s hard to say whose fault it was, but I am absolutely certain it was not the fault of the 51 year old officer. She was probably doing her job to the best of her abilities and that particular prisoner surely could have overpowered most men posting on forumosa (or you) if any of us had been assigned to guard him.

In any event, the important thing is not to blame someone for that tragic occurence. The important thing is for the department (and all other law enforcement departments) to perform a comprehensive review of their security policies and procedures, try to find potential weaknesses and remedy them.

I believe yours was the greatest kneejerk reaction. A tragic security lapse occurs and you’re ready to eliminate all women officers.

And George Bush never said there were WMDs in Iraq. Say what you want, but your implications speak loud and clear.

What I think is that Ann Coulter is disgusting. A tragedy occurs and she pounces on it without a shred of compassion, eager to use it as grist for her nasty, divisive writings, worse than Taiwan newsmen shoving their cameras in the faces of grieving victims.

54

Same standards. But in my opinion the problem here wasn’t a result of physical standards as much as it was a result of mental standards. -Several- people screwed up in this case, and I wager that some of the main screwer-uppers weren’t within 10 miles of scene.

With the right training and tools a 5-year old can keep a 600 lb tiger in its cage. But if you ask someone to crawl into the cage to brush the tiger’s teeth…

I hate to be a smart ass (wait, I love to), but the convict is pretty much the guilty one. I know, I know, innocent until proven guilty, but, it looks like an open and shut case to me.

Haha. Good one. You’ve really got to start proofreading your stuff. Or is this a subtle clue leaking out as to what you really think about it? Or maybe you enjoy crafting these sentences that implode under the weight of their own contradictions.

Anyway, I think the reactions that you mention are a result of your focus on the one guard the con escaped from. Someone put this guy under her control. Another someone, who was armed I believe, tried to stop him and got killed. The event didn’t occur in a vacuum. Oh, and don’t forget the 220-pound taser-totting ex-delta force commando who finally caught–what?! It was a lone female who cooked him pancakes!? Damn. There goes that theory.

The first report I read mentioned that the guard was a woman. Someone else mentioned it too. Apparently you read all the reports that didn’t mention this. Did they report on her stature? No, but they didn’t report on a lot of things, such as why she didn’t have a loaded weapon drawn on him or why she was alone.

I know this might be lost on you, but it’s possible that more people are concerned about how the chain got rusted out in the first place, rather than focusing on a single weak link after the fact.

55

You are right, Fred, that a serious problem exists. But it is not the fact that women serve as police officers. It is a problem with dangerous threats and assaults in the courts, that pose a threat to men and women alike.

[quote]In Courts, Threats Become Alarming Fact of Life

Last March, a federal prosecutor in Utah overseeing a racketeering case against a dozen members of the Soldiers of Aryan Culture received a chilling threat. “You stupid bitch!” the letter to the assistant United States attorney, who is an African-American woman, began. “It is because of you that my brothers are in jail.” The letter went on to mention the prosecutor’s home address, concluding, “We will get you.” It was signed, “Till the casket drops.”

After a second threat, a federal magistrate summoned the 12 defendants to a courtroom in Salt Lake City late last year and informed them that their family visits and telephone privileges would be suspended. The men, who are accused of operating a violent criminal enterprise that peddles white supremacist ideology and methamphetamine inside and outside Utah’s prisons, did not take the news well.

Seated in the jury box because they were too numerous to sit together at the defense table, the defendants were handcuffed and shackled. But this did not stop them from leaping to their feet, spewing profanity-laden protests, spitting, kicking and scuffling with more than a dozen United States marshals and court security officers.

It was not just another day in an American courtroom, but it was not an aberration either. Defendants act out. And threats against judges and prosecutors appear to be a regular, almost routine. . . Only federal authorities keep a count of annual threats, but the 700 reported against federal judicial officials alone suggest that the actual quantity of total threats against federal, state and local court officials is quite large. . .

Court-related violence is a chronic, costly preoccupation for those inside the system. . . That concern clearly ratcheted up considerably and went public after the back-to-back killings of a federal judge’s relatives in Chicago and of a county judge, court reporter, sheriff’s deputy and federal customs agent in Atlanta. The killings . . . prompted security reviews at courthouses around the country, an appeal by federal judges for bolstered security and a nationwide, soul-searching conversation among judges, prosecutors and other court officials shaken by the events.

In his annual state of the judiciary speech on Tuesday, Ronald M. George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, said the slayings highlighted “the physical vulnerability of our courts.” Two-thirds of California’s courthouses lack adequate security, Chief Justice George said, relating the story of one rural judge who stacked law books in front of his bench to protect himself from flying bullets during an attempted hostage-taking in 1997. . .

Just the day before, Erick Morales, a gang member on trial for murder in Los Angeles County, slashed the bicep of his court-appointed lawyer with a razor blade hidden in his mouth. Mr. Morales’s wrists were secured to his waist, but the restraints had been loosened to make them less visible to jurors, allowing him to spit out the blade, catch it and cut his lawyer . . .

“Over the years, we’ve seen numerous shanks in the courtroom,” Judge Coen, who specializes in death penalty cases, said in an interview. “Still, I think we’re seeing more bold defendants. When I was a young lawyer, I didn’t see judges getting attacked.”

Lethal attacks on judges and prosecutors remain relatively rare, but they do happen. Three federal judges were assassinated from 1979 to 1989 and two more have been assaulted in the last few years; at least seven state and local judges have been killed . . . . [/quote]
nytimes.com link

[Link abbreviated by moderator]

56

[color=blue]MODERATOR NOTE: WATCH OUT FOR LONG LINKS[/color]

Everyone:

Please try to be careful about posting lengthy url addresses in their full (un-abbreviated) form. Very long urls addresses stretch the width of the page and make it difficult for many users to read the thread.

If a url looks like it might distort the page, please consider using the {url=http://www.blahblahblah.com}YOUR ABBREVIATION{/url} [color=green]*[/color] construction. Thanks!

Hobbes

[color=green]* replace {} with [/color]

57

Well, one definitely true conclusion exists so far here: Mother Theresa is one helluva lawyer.

briankennedy as well: full credit (imnsho).

As an American, I can only impudently marvel at how MT’s skills - and circumstances - would improve if traditionally Republican (and American) values like “pay for services rendered” were applied. The stark revelation of the power of a formal education in law stands unabashed here, seems to me.

MT, you shoulda mebbe been a forensic patholigist: sweet dissection - scalpel to die for - although I doubt fred shares my opinion. :bravo:

That said, I give fred credit for (futilely, seems to me) stepping out to defend a traditional, Right stance on gender issues. I can’t include a “bravo” emoticon because he shoulda known better than to trust Ann Coulter on any obviously polemic she “makes” w.r.t. to gender issues. (hatches?- I’m thinking leathery eggs, a wise-but-acidic mother’s abandonment, sand, bright sunshine, and definitely something to do with tides - tube worms, too, but I can’t imagine how that got there - :slight_smile: )

Christ, that’s like trusting in Wanda Holloway for advice on raisin’ up daughters in modern-day America.

Earth to fred, you’re male right? What, you blind? If you doubt the efficacy of a female deputy, how can you take the word of a female pundit on any solution?

:loco:

58

They should: 1) Quit incarcerating non violent offenders when there is little chance of flight so there will be more resources to deal with the violent ones. 3) Make sure that security officers all pass the same physical tests regardless of whether they are male, female or in between.

59

Aw shucks, flike, thanks. :blush:

Actually, I handled a few employment discrimination cases in California before coming to Taiwan, so I know that in the US women’s rights in education, housing and employment are protected by numerous laws, including the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, something that Ms. Coulter is apparently unfamiliar with. That law states in pertinent part as follows:

[quote]Sec 703(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. . .

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. [/quote]
usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/law … vilr19.htm

One interesting side note is that initial drafts of the Civil Rights Act did not refer to sex discrimination at all and the bar against sex discrimination was only introduced to the discussion as a joke by southern lawmakers who were opposed to passage of the Act and hoped that mocking it in that way would help defeat it. They were wrong.

pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2001/griffith.html

So, Ms. Coulter’s rant about the alleged problems caused by feminists ignores countless federal, state, county and municipal laws that have protected the rights of all citizens based on age, sex, race, religion, national origin, sexual preference, etc. for decades. Many people consider those laws to be one of the good things about the US.

60

[quote=“Mother Theresa”] [quote]Sec 703(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. . . [/quote][/quote]

It sounds like affirmitive action and differing fitness standards for men and women is actually illegal. Perhaps a class action suit could be filed on behalf of all those white men who have been wrongfully denied employment over the years.