Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Police spot gay marriage license thru window, notify miliary, woman discharged from army

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Liberal_in_LA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:25 PM
Original message
Police spot gay marriage license thru window, notify miliary, woman discharged from army
Edited on Sat Mar-13-10 04:26 PM by Liberal_in_LA
looks like the police retaliated against the woman

------------------
The Rapid City Police Department says Newsome, an aircraft armament system craftsman who spent nine years in the Air Force, was not cooperative when they showed up at her home in November with an arrest warrant for her partner, who was wanted on theft charges in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome's home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.

"It's an emotional issue and it's unfortunate that Newsome lost her job, but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the license, or not document the license, or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it," Allender said Saturday. "It was a part of the case, part of the report and the Air Force was privileged to the information."

He said his department does not seek to expose gay military personnel or investigate the sexuality of Rapid City residents.

Allender said the department was finishing its internal investigation and has determined the officers acted appropriately. They have not been placed on leave during the investigation.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/13/national/a105705S41.DTL#ixzz0i5txl8X3
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. 'The license was relevant to the investigation' - swine. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fuck the Rapid City Police Department. What bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. Got Fourth Amendment?
:grr: :banghead: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. Not anymore! And the Democrats just pissed on it again by renewing the USA PATRIOT Act! (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. Since when was the policy 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell, & Make Sure No One Else Tells?'
This is nuts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCappedBandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. Tax dollars funding the sexuality police. Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. Wait, you mean cops could 'read' the names on a license
through the window and determine they were both female names? Fishy, at best. I bet they were tipped off before they "looked through the window".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demoiselle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Do they have a photograph taken through the window to prove it?
Or did they really just walk into her house without a warrant because they knew she wasn't there and snoop until they found it?
Words fail me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. Even if they did, unless the Rapid City, SD PD has high-tech zoom lenses,
they would still have been on her property to take it, hence, an illegal search and seizure under the former Fourth Amendment, in effect until 2001. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demoiselle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. That's what I thought, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. Says they "saw it through the window".
I ain't buying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Is a marriage license evidence of a crime? Is it probable cause?
How about her tax papers, did they see them on the table? Personal letters? Bills? How about her scrap books, photo albums, her laundry, her food? Address book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. Absolutely ridiculous. DADT has got to go - now. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. What a piece of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. this is effed up
this is so unfair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. Is it fascism yet?
Sadly, many here on DU will say "no"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. No
If it were fascism, the police would not have to create such a contorted justification of 'seeing a marriage license through a window in the course of a legal investigation'. They would just do whatever they wanted. Thankfully, we have laws that make police create wacky justifications for their actions that make such little sense that they often get thrown out of a court of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinJapan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Disagree. Even the Nazis had kangaroo courts.
And I've read quite a bit about the old Soviet Union and how their secret police would still "sneak around" to a point, only invading ones home when the occupant was out while gathering up their secret info to use at a later time (trumped up stuff, to be sure).

Totalitarian does not mean they don't still need a shoestring of a pretext in order to keep the public at large from completely rejecting it and rising up against it.

Like in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. It's interesting you mention the Nazis
The Nazis rounded up homosexuals, put them in concentration camps, and executed them. Where in this country are they treating homosexuals, or any minority group, like the Nazis did? Same goes for the USSR, which killed probably 500 times more of its own citizens than did the Nazis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinJapan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. You really want to compare mistreatment of minority groups?
How would you characterize American treatment of African-Americans throughout our history?

Gays didn't have it any better through most of those periods, either (except that they could hide much more effectively).

Sure, it's all a part of a larger spectrum, America certainly isn't the worst but nor is it close to being the best in these matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. I didn't intend on comparing, but let's do it
Summation: The original statement was: "Is it fascism yet?" To which I said 'no' because we have laws restricting the actions of law enforcement. To which you said 'Even the Nazis sometimes kept the appearance of law for its law enforcement'. At this point I could have gone in two directions. First, I could have pointed out the difference between keeping the appearance in a rigged system that has neither check nor balance (fascism), and our system, which has both. But given that you cited the Nazis in particular, and given that it's well-known that the Nazis executed gays, I felt that was the stronger point. It may have been slightly outside the original topic of 'search and seizure' but I thought it juxtaposed a fascist system with our own succinctly.

Yes, many cruel and inhuman policies have been committed by American governments, but given that the original statement is in re: 'trending toward fascism', and your supporting point is in re: a 'trend AWAY from fascism', I think you've lost sight of the topic.

So, "Is it fascism yet?"

NO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
13. Should get names of Rapid City PD officers and create marriage licenses for them.
Making sure that somewhere on the document it says it is not a legal document.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. How is this legal? Doesn't that count as "telling"?
Edited on Sat Mar-13-10 05:27 PM by anonymous171
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
28. No. DADT applies to the individual that is involved
if they do not reveal their orientation, the Service will not ask them about it. However, if a third party outs an individual or the Service finds out about a persons orientation in a manner other than direct interogation, the Servics will start action to discharge the person under existing laws. In this case, the PD outed her to the command.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. Allender is a scumbag that needs to be horse whipped.
Since they were legally married there was no justification for them to report anything to the military.

The military is also out of bounds in my opinion. Newsome did not tell anyone she was married and it was none of their business considering they weren't paying for her partner's insurance or anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
16. Well, here's one reason why it would have been a good idea to end DADT in 2009.
It would have been great if, in the 2008 elections, Americans had overwhelmingly supported candidates from a party that made gay rights a priority.

I *thought* that had happened...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
18. I wonder, if this were a hetero situation,
would the spouse be expected to come home and help the police locate their wife, husband, significant other? This smells to me like "vindictiveness of a third party outing" that the article suggests the Pentagon is telling military officials to consider in their DADT policies until the whole rule is removed. I think the military and the police are both at fault here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
21. Unreal.....The RABID City PD.
Sick mofos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Last_Stand Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
23. Pig bigots...
More of the country's finest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
35. pigots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 03:17 AM
Response to Original message
27. they will be judged by the creator for doing that to this couple. their love is no less holy than
Edited on Sun Mar-14-10 03:17 AM by Divine Discontent
any of the marriages of convenience that the closeted right wing swine marry into to protect themselves from other right wingers judging them, and self hatred.

God bless that couple - like they needed this on top of their other problems. Those cops are not worth the value of their badges for scrap metal.... fascist bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
31. Assholes!
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyTrib Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
33. I don't believe they saw it from the outside.
Which means, they broke in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. ding ding ding...we have a winnahr!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyTrib Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. What do I win?
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_in_LA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. a visit from your local authorities
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
34. I know I can always spot the little signatures on those documents from 10 yards

It's a learned skill - because you always hear about this in court cases, where someone calls out under oath that they saw someone's 1/2" handwritten name on a wall certificate from outside a window at 10 yards, through glass reflection and at an angle in the midst of a heated altercation.

It's quite a Penn & Teller feat, and it is part of early training for all police officers. Didn'ja hear??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
38. Yay, cops!
They're the best!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC