US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7930

ACLU: Cops Don’t Have a Constitutional Right To Rape Protesters

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) went out on a bit of a limb Wednesday, stating that police officers who raped people in their custody committed Constitutional rights violations–specifically infringing the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments–and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

But first let’s go back to January 20, 2017. It was one of the first pitched battles of the so-called “resistance” movement against President Donald Trump; in fact, it happened before Trump was officially inaugurated as president.

Scores of Black Bloc anarchists initiated relatively moderate amounts of property damage within the confines of the designated protest route, prompting the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to kettle a much larger group of people, including peaceful protesters, journalists and legal observers.

Pepper spray doused those unlucky enough to have been corralled. Tear gas and crowd-control grenades were also used. The kettling went on this way for hours until upwards of 230 people were arrested–most of them slapped with felony rioting charges. Some of those charges have since been dismissed.

The ACLU’s Scott Michelman told ThinkProgress that the civil liberties organization said D.C. cops’ use of guilt by association, torrential pepper pray and kettling tactics–and that such methods were “Constitutionally dubious.”

But a lawsuit filed in federal court on Wednesday documents a series of shocking abuses which amount to physical and emotional abuse carried out for no particular end other than alleged retribution.

The suit charges that an officer stuck a gloved finger into detainees’ rectums about an inch deep and then wiggled it around, yanked on their testicles without warning, barked commands not to flinch or resist–and laughed about it all the while with the other officers present as he “moved down the line” and then subjected four others to the sexually humiliating treatment.

Additionally, the complaint notes:

“[The officer] did not change gloves when he moved from one individual to the next.”

Rather than limiting the charges to the few-bad-apples theory, however, the lawsuit takes wholesale aim at the D.C. police establishment, stating:

“The coordinated MPD response is part of a custom of the District of Columbia of responding with overwhelming and unlawful force to non-violent demonstrators at largely peaceful demonstrations where some law-breaking is occurring.”

On June 24 2017 02:24 farvacola wrote:
Rumor has it that the NYPD protest response handbooks at the center of disclosure litigation repeatedly recommend that responding officers do what they can to humiliate and otherwise discourage protestors from engaging in protest behavior. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone with knowledge of these things on the ground.

On June 24 2017 02:08 Plansix wrote:

Of course. In the NC law, they split the two into difference offenses, rape and sexual assault.

Damn it, now I care enough to read the ruling and charges.

Edit: Ok the ruling is specifically for rape(proper intercourse) and does not address sexual assault(other sexual acts). The basic ruling is that anything goes, including violence, once the proper fucking starts.

On June 24 2017 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Wait, so does NC law actually define sex as a penis going in a vagina? I was mostly joking...

Out of curiosity, does this mean that by NC law a woman couldn't rape a woman, man couldn't rape a man, etc. because there is no "proper intercourse"? (sexual assault laws still applicable though, I should hope)

Federal investigators are examining financial transactions involving Paul Manafort and his son-in-law, who embarked on a series of real estate deals in recent years fueled by millions of dollars from Mr. Manafort, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The transactions involve the financing of apartments and luxury homes in New York and California using money from Mr. Manafort, as well as from other investors solicited by the son-in-law, Jeffrey Yohai, including the actor Dustin Hoffman and his son. F.B.I. agents have reviewed financial records related to Mr. Yohai, who has been accused in a lawsuit of defrauding investors, the sources said.

...

Mr. Manafort has emerged as a key figure in the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, which has focused on interactions between Trump associates and Russians during and after last November’s presidential election. In addition to his work for Ukraine’s former president, an ally of the Russian leader Vladimir V. Putin, Mr. Manafort’s long lobbying and consulting career has included numerous financial dealings with Russian oligarchs. One of his former employees has been investigated in Ukraine on suspicion of having ties to Russian intelligence.

The revelation about investigators’ interest in Mr. Yohai’s activities comes amid indications that the scrutiny of Mr. Manafort has intensified. Besides the F.B.I. and congressional inquiries, the New York State attorney general’s office has opened a preliminary inquiry “focused on certain real estate dealings” involving Mr. Manafort, according to a third person with direct knowledge of the matter.

...

Mr. Yohai, who had a degree in journalism and became a real estate professional only in 2011, was forming shell companies to purchase luxury properties in the Hollywood Hills, worth tens of millions of dollars, which Mr. Manafort would put money into. Mr. Manafort was more than a passive investor; Jessica Manafort told her sister last year that Mr. Yohai had “a contract that says dad and him are 50/50 business partners.”

...

“Her hubby is running a Ponzi scheme,” Ms. Manafort wrote. “I’m sure of it.”

That is what Mr. Yohai was accused of in a lawsuit filed in November by an investor in Mr. Yohai’s real estate business. The suit asserted that Mr. Yohai employed a “web of dozens of limited liability companies” to repay early investors with money from new investors to create the illusion of a “quick and large return on their investments.”

...

Many of Mr. Manafort’s real estate purchases over the years coincided with his long-running work as a political consultant to the Russia-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine. During his time there, Mr. Manafort used a network of shell companies in the tax havens of Cyprus and Belize to move money around and collect payments from clients, who, in addition to the Ukrainians, included Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with whom Mr. Manafort partnered in investments.

Back in the United States, Mr. Manafort created still more shell companies to make cash purchases of expensive properties for millions of dollars and other investments. His Los Angeles investments were handled through a limited liability company called Baylor Holding, in which Mr. Manafort and Mr. Yohai were partners, according to court records.

On June 24 2017 02:08 Plansix wrote:
Of course. In the NC law, they split the two into difference offenses, rape and sexual assault.

Damn it, now I care enough to read the ruling and charges.

Edit: Ok the ruling is specifically for rape(proper intercourse) and does not address sexual assault(other sexual acts). The basic ruling is that anything goes, including violence, once the proper fucking starts.

On June 24 2017 03:35 Buckyman wrote:


Non-consentual violence during sex would be illegal as (ordinary) assault, right? Or have we degenerated so far as a society that we consider violence to be a necessary or inherent component of sex?

On June 24 2017 03:35 Buckyman wrote:


Non-consentual violence during sex would be illegal as (ordinary) assault, right? Or have we degenerated so far as a society that we consider violence to be a necessary or inherent component of sex?

On June 24 2017 04:41 KwarK wrote:
If you'll recall he only said that the 2nd amendment folks should do something about Hillary if she won. Trump won so Hillary is allowed to live.