Susan's Place Transgender Resources

April 3, 2012 • 10:59 PM
Conservative Supreme Court justices hands transgender people a serious invasion of their personal privacy
Lexie Cannes

http://lexiecannes.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/conservative-supreme-court-justices-hands-transgender-people-a-serious-invasion-of-their-personal-privacy/ (http://lexiecannes.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/conservative-supreme-court-justices-hands-transgender-people-a-serious-invasion-of-their-personal-privacy/)

THE GUERRILLA ANGEL REPORT — A divided U.S. Supreme Court with swing voting Justice Kennedy joining the 4 conservatives ruled that jailers can subject people arrested for minor offenses (such as traffic stops) can be subject to invasive strip searches.

I do not need to explain the tremendous negative impact this will have on trans people, especially those that are transiting. Now its open season if you get busted for a minor traffic offense and taken to jail. Backward thinking jailers in backward thinking counties and states may do who-knows-what.

The more I read about what goes on in other countries, the more determined I become to never, ever, emigrate.

When I read some of the things that go on in the US it puts me off the idea of ever travelling there, which is a shame because there are a lot of good things over there.

Quote from: Beverley on April 04, 2012, 07:48:10 AM
The more I read about what does on in other countries, the more determined I become to never, ever, emigrate.

When I read some of the things that go on in the US it puts me off the idea of ever travelling there, which is a shame because there are a lot of good things over there.

Well, their immigration authorities aren't one of THEM good things...
I had my share of "orange folders" working there for some 2 years +.
I'm pretty happy I'm done with that by now!
Frankly I always got this GESTAPO feeling... just the way they assert themselves.
Plain awful to say the least - and this NOT only after 9/11 mind you.

Axélle

This country is already a police state and it's rapidly expanding.

The case had nothing whatsoever to do with transgender issues.

(Justice) Kennedy gave three reasons to justify routine (strip) searches - detecting lice and contagious infections, looking for tattoos and other evidence of gang membership, and preventing smuggling of drugs and weapons.

Kennedy also said people arrested for minor offenses can turn out to be "the most devious and dangerous criminals." Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh initially was stopped by a state trooper who noticed McVeigh was driving without a license plate, Kennedy said.

- From the linked Politico article

The bottom line (pardon the pun) is don't get yourself arrested.

The bottom line (pardon the pun) is don't get yourself arrested.

You do realize this was all about arresting someone for a warrant that was no longer valid and though he proved it, he still was arrested.

So not getting arrested isn't as simple as 'don't do anything against the law.'  That's so pre-9-11 thinking.

Quote from: tekla on April 04, 2012, 10:52:55 PM
The bottom line (pardon the pun) is don't get yourself arrested.

You do realize this was all about arresting someone for a warrant that was no longer valid and though he proved it, he still was arrested.

So not getting arrested isn't as simple as 'don't do anything against the law.'  That's so pre-9-11 thinking.

That was just a minor twist in the story.

The thrust of the article suggests that the decision was meant to cause transgendered individuals harm or anxiety. The fact of the matter is law-abiding persons, trans or not, have nothing to worry about.

law-abiding persons, trans or not, have nothing to worry about

You really need to cut back on the wacky weed, you're off in Alice in Wonderland space now.  There are lots of people in the United States who are in jail for crimes they didn't commit.  These days often 'suspicion' is enough.  But it's always been pretty pro-forma for the last few decades that if you're going to be booked in a jail, you will be stripped searched as part of that procedure - regardless of the crime (or non-crime).

I've been detained and strip searched without being arrested or charged with anything. Stuff happens.

Quote from: tekla on April 04, 2012, 11:18:21 PM
law-abiding persons, trans or not, have nothing to worry about

You really need to cut back on the wacky weed, you're off in Alice in Wonderland space now.  There are lots of people in the United States who are in jail for crimes they didn't commit.  These days often 'suspicion' is enough.  But it's always been pretty pro-forma for the last few decades that if you're going to be booked in a jail, you will be stripped searched as part of that procedure - regardless of the crime (or non-crime).

Indeed. There are currently thousands of laws on the books at the Federal level alone. Add in state laws, county laws, district laws, city laws, etc. and you have a *staggering* number of laws, with more being created every day. We also have a de facto precept in the justice system that "ignorance of the law is not a defense." This means you can be arrested for, and convicted of, breaking a law even if you were unaware that the law existed or applied to you.

Consider also that the US currently has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated than any other country. We don't make much else in this country anymore, but we know how to invent crimes and build prisons.

In this day and age, it is almost impossible to be absolutely sure that you are not unknowingly breaking a law about something. Add in the occasional corrupt law enforcement officer or judge, conflicting laws, odd blue laws, and ambiguous laws, and I think the average citizen has good reason to be at least concerned.

Quote from: Felix on April 05, 2012, 12:21:56 AM
I've been detained and strip searched without being arrested or charged with anything. Stuff happens.

It's nice if it doesn't though.

Quote from: tekla on April 04, 2012, 11:18:21 PM
law-abiding persons, trans or not, have nothing to worry about

You really need to cut back on the wacky weed, you're off in Alice in Wonderland space now.  There are lots of people in the United States who are in jail for crimes they didn't commit.  These days often 'suspicion' is enough.  But it's always been pretty pro-forma for the last few decades that if you're going to be booked in a jail, you will be stripped searched as part of that procedure - regardless of the crime (or non-crime).

I agree.  So what's the brouhaha about the court decision then?  Politicking, I think.

And I don't think there are "lots" of innocent people in jail.  There are some who are unjustly convicted, but they had their day in court, and lost.  And there are some who have not exercised their right to a speedy trial, and who can not make bail.  But the vast, vast majority of those in jail are criminals.

Quote from: Dana_H on April 05, 2012, 01:02:51 AM
Indeed. There are currently thousands of laws on the books at the Federal level alone. Add in state laws, county laws, district laws, city laws, etc. and you have a *staggering* number of laws, with more being created every day. We also have a de facto precept in the justice system that "ignorance of the law is not a defense." This means you can be arrested for, and convicted of, breaking a law even if you were unaware that the law existed or applied to you.

Consider also that the US currently has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated than any other country. We don't make much else in this country anymore, but we know how to invent crimes and build prisons.

In this day and age, it is almost impossible to be absolutely sure that you are not unknowingly breaking a law about something. Add in the occasional corrupt law enforcement officer or judge, conflicting laws, odd blue laws, and ambiguous laws, and I think the average citizen has good reason to be at least concerned.

mens rea  Latin - guilty mind

You are not likely to be convicted of a crime if you lacked intent.  Your argument is largely a strawman.

I do agree with your point that the criminal codes need to be simplified.

Internet GED in law?

  There is a problem with the DPD here detaining and charging people who have the same or similar names of those who have warrants against them.  These are not being checked close enough by the officers and the DA's office.  Some of these actually go to the courts and the discrepancy is found there.  A lot of these people cannot make bail, get fired from their jobs and get into financial ruin because of this.  There is still that danger.
  Joelene

Quote from: Jamie D on April 04, 2012, 11:13:00 PM
The fact of the matter is law-abiding persons, trans or not, have nothing to worry about.

That reasoning has been used by totalitarian regimes the world over to justify their existence. The law may not have been specifically about transgender people but it will simply make the life of those who are TG even more difficult.

Quote from: tekla on April 05, 2012, 01:41:34 AM
Internet GED in law?

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

Quote from: Beverley on April 05, 2012, 02:10:13 AM
That reasoning has been used by totalitarian regimes the world over to justify their existence. The law may not have been specifically about transgender people but it will simply make the life of those who are TG even more difficult.

The United States is not a totalitarian regime.

Strip searches, as Tekla pointed out, above, are fairly common occurrences for those who have been arrested.  Is a trans person going to be any more or less embarrassed than a non-trans person by a rubber glove in their rectum?

The court ruled that a person's privacy rights must yield to security measures under certain circumstances.  As far as I am concerned, that is not unreasonable. 

I like latin AND I have a GED. Not in law though. Just in pretend highschool subjects.

I'm also pretty okay with strip searches in any situation where an agency has to take custody of a person. Imo the place to tackle the discrimination is in regulations about what to do when the strip search reveals unexpected anatomical features.

Quote from: Jamie D on April 05, 2012, 02:27:45 AM
The United States is not a totalitarian regime.

I never said it was, but it could become one if the rights of the system trump the rights of the citizens.

If you are not worried about it then fair enough. I am not worried about it either as I do not have live with it. When I read stuff like this or some of the other ways in which the US treats TG people (Tennessee springs to mind as just one example) I just get less and less inclined to ever visit the place.

To an outsider like me, it seems to be in social decline, which is sad and I feel sorry for those of you who do have to live with some of the zanier regulations and laws.

Quote from: Beverley on April 05, 2012, 03:30:37 AM
I never said it was, but it could become one if the rights of the system trump the rights of the citizens.

If you are not worried about it then fair enough. I am not worried about it either as I do not have live with it. When I read stuff like this or some of the other ways in which the US treats TG people (Tennessee springs to mind as just one example) I just get less and less inclined to ever visit the place.

To an outsider like me, it seems to be in social decline, which is sad and I feel sorry for those of you who do have to live with some of the zanier regulations and laws.

Certainly the statists want to take the U.S. there.

There are not many of us left who have a thorough understanding of the founding principles and the role of natural law theory in the origin of the country.

You are not likely to be convicted of a crime if you lacked intent.  Your argument is largely a strawman.

Nope, that's just total bull->-bleeped-<-.  As your law GED must have covered, "intent follows the bullet"^*.  It does not matter if you 'intended' to do it, all that matters is that you put a chain of events into motion that end up in illegal activities.  About the only time 'intent' matters in a US court is not in innocence, but rather in terms of enhanced penalties for things like 'hate crimes' which do take intent into account, or in the distinction between murder one, and lesser killings.  But you may not have 'intended' or had a guilty mind when you made a math error in your favor on your tax returns, try getting the IRS to care or understand.  You can be charged (and many are) with being an 'accessory' after, before or during the crime even if you did not know a crime was being committed, or even if the criminal lied to you about what was going on and why.


But here is the funny part:
The fact of the matter is law-abiding persons, trans or not, have nothing to worry about.
yet, prior to that you noted that though the person was in fact, innocent, that matter - the innocence - was just a minor twist in the story - so which is it?  Do innocent people have nothing to fear, or is 'innocence' as a matter of law now a secondary consideration? Which is exactly what it seems to have become.  You can't have it both ways.

In fact, this is one more ruling that moves the goalposts further away from 'innocent until proven guilty' to LA standard of "we'll arrest them now, and find out what they are guilty of later."  It is a very radical revision of the most basic foundations of US law.

If, as the Court found, that: "people detained for minor offenses^** can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals" (directly citing both Tim McVeigh and Mohammed Atta) then you can expect a growing trend of treating even the most minor offences like you just blew up the World Trade Center or the OK City Federal Building - or at the very least, you would like to blow them up.  And that's no joke at all.  (also that's an idiot's argument, as neither McVeigh or Atta was guilty of doing something - like shooting a prison guard - that strip searching them would have prevented in the first place.)

Not to see how such a ruling has deeply chilling ramifications for everyone lack a certain critical thinking component.




* - If person A goes to kill person B, but misses and instead kills person C who is some random by-stander, because the intent was murder one, the crime is murder one - even if you didn't put a cap into the right homeslice.

** - and this was very minor, the person was not the driver who committed some minor traffic infraction (so the long held 'you have no civil rights as a driver because driving is a privilege not a right' didn't even apply), they were only a passenger in the car.  So that even being in the car now also means you are exercising 'privilege' not 'rights' and are subject to whatever the police can come up with.

Beverly, did you know this site comes out of Tennessee? They can't be all bad! Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn on April 05, 2012, 01:06:15 PM
Beverly, did you know this site comes out of Tennessee? They can't be all bad! Hugs, Devlyn

I know there is a lot of good stuff over there Devlyn, but I do not choose to expose myself to the plentiful bad stuff just to get to the good.

Quote from: Devlyn on April 05, 2012, 01:06:15 PM
Beverly, did you know this site comes out of Tennessee? They can't be all bad! Hugs, Devlyn

Well.......  The politicians are fairly backward.  Stomp a mud hole Floyd didn't get his bathroom bill, and don't say gay got postponed.  But even then there are some exceedingly stupid laws getting passed (teaching creationism...).

Quote from: tekla on April 05, 2012, 11:57:37 AM
You are not likely to be convicted of a crime if you lacked intent.  Your argument is largely a strawman.

Nope, that's just total bull->-bleeped-<-.  As your law GED must have covered, "intent follows the bullet"^*.  It does not matter if you 'intended' to do it, all that matters is that you put a chain of events into motion that end up in illegal activities.  About the only time 'intent' matters in a US court is not in innocence, but rather in terms of enhanced penalties for things like 'hate crimes' which do take intent into account, or in the distinction between murder one, and lesser killings.  But you may not have 'intended' or had a guilty mind when you made a math error in your favor on your tax returns, try getting the IRS to care or understand.  You can be charged (and many are) with being an 'accessory' after, before or during the crime even if you did not know a crime was being committed, or even if the criminal lied to you about what was going on and why.


But here is the funny part:
The fact of the matter is law-abiding persons, trans or not, have nothing to worry about.
yet, prior to that you noted that though the person was in fact, innocent, that matter - the innocence - was just a minor twist in the story - so which is it?  Do innocent people have nothing to fear, or is 'innocence' as a matter of law now a secondary consideration? Which is exactly what it seems to have become.  You can't have it both ways.

In fact, this is one more ruling that moves the goalposts further away from 'innocent until proven guilty' to LA standard of "we'll arrest them now, and find out what they are guilty of later."  It is a very radical revision of the most basic foundations of US law.

If, as the Court found, that: "people detained for minor offenses^** can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals" (directly citing both Tim McVeigh and Mohammed Atta) then you can expect a growing trend of treating even the most minor offences like you just blew up the World Trade Center or the OK City Federal Building - or at the very least, you would like to blow them up.  And that's no joke at all.  (also that's an idiot's argument, as neither McVeigh or Atta was guilty of doing something - like shooting a prison guard - that strip searching them would have prevented in the first place.)

Not to see how such a ruling has deeply chilling ramifications for everyone lack a certain critical thinking component.




* - If person A goes to kill person B, but misses and instead kills person C who is some random by-stander, because the intent was murder one, the crime is murder one - even if you didn't put a cap into the right homeslice.

** - and this was very minor, the person was not the driver who committed some minor traffic infraction (so the long held 'you have no civil rights as a driver because driving is a privilege not a right' didn't even apply), they were only a passenger in the car.  So that even being in the car now also means you are exercising 'privilege' not 'rights' and are subject to whatever the police can come up with.

Had Mr. Florence not had previous legal problems, there would have been no issue.

The way to prevent abuses in civil rights is to legislate what the police can, or cannot do.

Serious crimes require a criminal act and criminal intent.
It is right to punish only people we can blame - people who are culpable.
The principle of men rea consists of four states of mind (levels of culpability).
The most culpable state of mind is purpose, followed by knowledge, recklessness, then negligence.
Most minor offenses dont require mens rea - a voluntary act that causes criminal harm is enough.

"Even a dog distinguishes being stumbled over or being kicked." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

You really don't get it do you?  It must be swell to be white and in LA...







For now.

Quote from: tekla on April 06, 2012, 12:35:50 AM
You really don't get it do you?  It must be swell to be white and in LA...

For now.

I'm not in LA.
I'm out in the semi-rural 'burbs.

We're not quite as jaded outside of The City.

If, as the Court found, that: "people detained for minor offense can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals" then just wait till they figure out  that some people who have never been arrested are even more dangerous and devious.

Quote from: tekla on April 07, 2012, 06:18:12 PM
If, as the Court found, that: "people detained for minor offense can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals" then just wait till they figure out  that some people who have never been arrested are even more dangerous and devious.

Is there anything there (in the Court's decision) which can not be remedied by legislation?

I'm thinking it's going to be remedied by 8 more years of Democrats appointing SC justices.