Funny or appropriate?  Hey I could focus on the fact that this woman was tragically raped, or how the system was so fucked up that they were more worried about a delinquent fine than catching a dangerous felon and seeking true justice.  As if that sentiment would be original?  That is a given.  

So I make a snarky little comment about pirates, it was OBVIOUSLY meant to be funny.  But of course one should never try and inject humor into a serious and sad discussion, huh?  That is SO inappropriate to wallow in the seriousness of the discussion?  The subqueue comment may have seemed callous to you Sue, but I found it funny.  It did mock her trauma a bit, so it was insensitive.  But it did focus on the uniqueness of her story.  There are no rules that one has to be sensitive to every trauma they read about.  

But since that was a subqueue comment and not actual discussion of the write up, I shall share my feelings about the situation.  And this is not an attempt to be sensitive or sympathetic to teh victim here.  It is my true feelinsg about this.  

1.  It is a shame and a tragedy that this woman was brutally raped.
   
2.  It is a tragedy and a shame that the police have been unable to catch the perpetrator, even worse because of the perception that the effort to do so seems at face value to be half hearted at best.
   
3.  It is a further travesty that this victim has been incarcerated for an outstanding fine.  Certainly this transgression can wait and the victim of a violent crime be cared for first.
   
4.  Being denied the birth control medication while incarcerated should be considered criminal negligence.  This woman runs the risk of pregnancy and/or sexual disease.  

Now having said all of that, any inndignation over an insincere and obviously meant to be humorous.  I understand that there is very little funny about rape and injustice.  That being said, pirate festivals are funny.  

I am not bothered by your complaint Sue.  You know me well enough to know that I will at times try and be humorous at the most inconvenient of moments and it ways that will ruffle some feathers.  I accept that many people will not appreciate that and some other fringe elements will.  And I think the comment was funny but not appropriate for the discussion.  But I'm fine with comments like that in the subqueue.

"I am not bothered by your complaint Sue."

And, obviously it didn't, because you managed to ignore it magnificently.

"You know me well enough to know that I will at times try and be humorous at the most inconvenient of moments and it ways that will ruffle some feathers."

That might be the reason there are so many unemployed comedians, nmiguy.  They're probably all sitting around, wondering when their next gig will come going, "if only they'd get my humor, I could be the next Dane Cook."  What I find odd is your time honored routine in all this.  You begin by making some dumb, irrelevant, and/or offensive joke.  Then when someone says something to you about it, you get all: "Hey, I was just trying to be funny.  What's the matter with you?  Lighten up."  Do you go through real life like this or do you just reserve your zany, unrestrained side for the internet?

"And I think the comment was funny but not appropriate for the discussion."

But isn't that what we come to TnT or Plastic to do -- discuss stuff?  Even comments the poster believes to be witty and clever and other people find objectionable.

"But I'm fine with comments like that in the subqueue."

Why just in the subqueue?  You thought the comment was funny and original (based upon your comment about how saying anything about the subject wouldn't be original).  If it was truly funny and original, why wouldn't it be worthy of posting in the thread?  Often times, the best thread discussions are those that are interlaced with serious and humorous observations.  It's just that most people like to see at least a trace of humor in humorous observations.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Thanks Mayorbob for the analysis.  At times someone just wants to make a juvenile remark, but not open a sore sub thread.  I find teh subqueue is only really good for two things.  One critiques and suggestions on the submission, and two a snarky, funny or obnoxious comment about the write up or loosely related to the write up.  

Witty comments in the discussion are fine, as long as they are not trolling.  Since I did not make my obnoxious comment in the thread, I am not trolling per se.   But Sue felt the need to drag my subqueue comment into the thread because it bothered her so much.  It couldn't be left there.  She asked me to explain myself, and I did, and if you see my other posts in the discussion, you find that they are on topic and not trolling obnoxious comments.  

About me off the internet and in real life, I can be funny at times, but there's this rule "know your audience" so I am more careful in person with my comments.  On TnT and Plastic I am a persona, a handle so to speak, so there is a bit more liberation and freedom to post offensive remarks, understanding of course that it is meant to ruffle some feathers but not to truly offend.  Sometimes being a bit off-color can be fun, when it is obviously done in jest.  I mean, Sue was asking if I really thought my comment was funny.  There is NO way anyone could read that as a serious comment.  It is NOT ambiguous at all.  She was just taking me to task because she didn't find it funny or she found it offensive that anybody could make a joke in the subqueue on a write up on such a serious topic.  

I guess lately Sue and I have had some antagonistic relationship.  She has complained several times at my modus operandi.  But I can't please everyone, I often post to entertain myself.  

Hey, nmiguy, I'm over here, the one waving her hand. :-)

I didn't take it as a serious comment. Of course I knew you were joking. And if it had been really clever, I could have probably managed a little chuckle despite the content, which was pretty base.

But as you say, each to his own. I didn't think it was clever or witty enough to overcome what you admit was its obnoxiousness. I thought it was overreaching and forced as jokes go. It didn't flow, if you will.  

We're free to post whatever we want. All of us. As for "some antagonistic relationship" between us, nah. Best not to take these things too personally...trust me.

Certainly Sue, it's just lately my posts have rubbed you the wrong way.  But I can't really apologize for just being me.  

I have to ask nmiguy if he really thought his subq comment was in any way funny...

A baby with a black beard and a peg leg? That's not funny to you? What if there were a l'il parrot on his wee shoulder? Not funny? Treasure map hidden is his diaper? No?

Um...eye patch? Cutlass? Spyglass? Come on!

For all the "police victimized her" rhetoric, I'm not reading how they did anything wrong.

No surprise here...but allow me to address your comments:

Bullshit number 1.

They can't go to the fair and question all males of a certain age and description; that's profiling.

They can't?  Aren't age and description two of the things that cops look for when seeking a suspect?  If what you say is true, then police artists are fucked since drawing a description of the suspect could be "profiling".

Bullshit number 2

They can't cordon off the area to search; it's unconstitutional restraint.

Really?  And here silly police throughout the nation have been conducting  DUI blocks on public roads unconstitutionally.

Bullshit number 3

They can't canvass the area without court approval

Are you serious?  The police can't walk around this area of the city looking for the suspect or asking other people if they have seen the suspect?  Since when do the cops need a warrant to look for a criminal in public spaces?

Bullshit number 4

RE: The drug...Is it legal? Is it lethal? Until a lab-certified expert examines it, who knows?

Maybe...too bad that's not why the jail matron refused the drug.  And any kind of "verification" needed by the sheriffs depart is specious at best.  For christ's sake, the woman was just raped...they couldn't bring the verifier in on an emergency basis?  They couldn't talk to the clinic nurse to "verify" that she needed the meds?  (They were just there, after all) And of course, this leads us to Bullshit Number 4...drumroll please.

every indication is that the police would have allowed an on-site counselor had one been available on weekends, but none were.

This is so mind boggling ignorant that I can't believe a smart guy like you would ever say it.  Obviously you are not in possession of all of the facts.  Let me help...

You can find the crisis center hours here.  Notice the bit about 24 hours?  I'm sure, had the cops allowed it, a counselor/advocate/somebody would have come to the jail to help the woman out.  But, knowing Hillsborough County Sheriff as I do, allowing a counselor in runs the risk of the press finding out just how badly they fucked up  before they could get their spin in line.  Tampa might a lot of things...but the town motto  sure isn't "Tampa: Where no one gets raped on the weekends!"

I'm just amazed.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

They can't?

No, they can't. Not without a reasonable suspicion of culpability, and "a woman was raped" is not sufficient to impinge on 4th amendment rights of every man of [insert ethnicity here] in a multiple square mile radius.

And here silly police throughout the nation have been conducting  DUI blocks on public roads unconstitutionally.

DUI stops by now feature at least one of two things: specifically-crafted legislation allowing them, and judicially-approved warrants for specific times and areas. Most have both. I'm not aware of any "let the raped felon go free" warrants or legislation.

Are you serious?

Serious, yes, but possibly unclear. I intended this to mean the "bring the victim to the crime scene" policy, which was overridden by the felony arrest in this case.

too bad that's not why the jail matron refused the drug.

According to her lawyer, who is paid to act in the best interest of his client. If you think that's always identical to the best interests of society, I have some tobacco industry-sponsored cancer link studies for you to read.

I'm sure, had the cops allowed it, a counselor/advocate/somebody would have come to the jail to help the woman out.

From the linked article: "On weekdays, victim advocates from the police department provide referrals for counseling, McElroy said." If you want to believe that implies a strict "no weekend assistance" rule by the police, that's your call. I, however, read it as though the crisis center doesn't have the resources, in money or manpower, to have staff posted at the police station 24 hours/day, or apparently to accept collect calls from jail.

No, check that, I'm stunned.

No, they can't. Not without a reasonable suspicion of culpability, and "a woman was raped" is not sufficient to impinge on 4th amendment rights of every man of [insert ethnicity here] in a multiple square mile radius.

What?  No one said anything about every man or any ethnicity.  How about just the one that might fit the description given by the victim?  And who mentioned anything about ethnicity?  Of course, the cops were probably too busy congratulating them over another success from the cold case file to go out and actually do some fucking actual police work.  But then, as I said, I have some familiarity with the HCSD.  They probably do expect criminals to turn themselves in.

Serious, yes, but possibly unclear. I intended this to mean the "bring the victim to the crime scene" policy, which was overridden by the felony arrest in this case.

Unclear?  Yeah, I'd say you were unclear.  I'm not totally sure how to use the word disengenuous, but man, you have understatement down cold.

Your original statement...
They can't canvass the area without court approval, lest they violate habeas, because by then they knew she was a felon with an outstanding warrant.

Maybe you could for the sake of folks listening at home explain just what the frig you meant by this.

Also, just so I know...how many rape crisis counselors do you know?  I happen to know several.  The women I met while doing a United Way event were simply incredible.  The were rape survivors themselves and they spoke quite eloquently about going out at any time, day or night, to assist.

Finally...since we're talking about the "best interests of society", do you think it's in the best interest of a society for the cops to let an alleged rapist run around while the cops high five themselves over minor victory?  

"there were no time-sensitive leads," my ass.  These Keystone Kops couldn't nab a menace to society even though they had fours years to do it.  How much more "time sensitive" do they need?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

How about just the one that might fit the description given by the victim?

And how does this get accomplished without a dragnet? Or is it OK if they miss a few likely candidates in the crowd?

Maybe you could for the sake of folks listening at home explain just what the frig you meant by this.

Sweet Jesus. From the report: "Generally, in rape cases in which a victim does not suffer extensive injuries, it is standard procedure for officers to take the victim to a clinic to be examined by a nurse, McElroy said. If the victim is not at the original scene, officers will ask the victim to accompany them there to look for additional evidence, she said. [...] McElroy said the woman tried to show police where the rape occurred but had trouble finding the location because it was dark. While en route, police learned through a routine check that she was wanted."

To sum up: police were following traditional rape victim protocol until they discovered she was wanted on a warrant. At that point, another protocol took place -- the one hammered out over decades to prevent mistreatment of felons in custody. The only way the woman could have been taken to the site was through the established chain of custody, which would include getting legal representation for her, a prosecuting attorney and a judge to hear the whole affair and grant that temporary extradition was allowable.

But hey, if you want to go back to the days when prisoners could be moved from custody to unmonitored areas at whim, I'm sure some police would be happy to oblige.

The were rape survivors themselves and they spoke quite eloquently about going out at any time, day or night, to assist.

And yet, they haven't found the means to establish a 24-hour presence at one place rape victims tend to wind up. Go figure.

While it seems that the cops have guidelines for arresting for outstanding misdemeanors, they don't have the same for outstanding felonies.  Could this mean that the cops have some leeway in how they would handle a case like this?  And before you point out the severity of a felony, let me calm you by saying that yes, I know she committed a felony.  However, since the cops apparently have no guidelines for this sort of thing, perhaps they could have excersised some compassion?  Granted, had the girl had an outstanding warrant for murder, espionage, or international terrorism, I'd say, "book 'em, Dano".  But she was wanted for failing to pay a fine.  (Oddly enough, the failure to pay a fine was recorded as "failure to appear".  Another feather in the Competentcy Hat?)

All this is moot, anyway.  The girl is home, hopefully the meds will work, and the police are leaping to correct things...

"It's rare in police work that someone isn't arrested on a felony warrant, but you always want to have compassion for a victim," police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said Monday. "This may be a case where we need to revise our policy."

The citizens of Hillborough county can rest easy tonight...so too, can the criminals.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

But she was wanted for failing to pay a fine

Actually it was restitution, not a fine. (According to the news article.) She had been convicted of grand theft auto and burglary. Which means she probably did no jail time and instead got a deal for probation with the proviso that she pay for damage she caused to someone's property.

My mistake.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

With respect to the medication, it's fairly trivial to call the hospital and verify its legitimacy.  BUT here the matron clearly stated (according to the story) that she failed to give it to her as because of a religious objection.  You figure she was having a religious objection to handing over illegal drugs?

Your post is so very disingenious that it makes my head hurt.

Thalia

here the matron clearly stated (according to the story) that she failed to give it to her as because of a religious objection

No. The woman's attorney and mother clearly stated. Says so right in the article: "Adding to the mother's ire is her claim that a jail nurse prevented her daughter from taking a second dose of emergency contraception prescribed by a nurse at a clinic as part of a rape examination. The jail nurse, said the mother and the victim's attorney, denied the medication for religious reasons." As the woman herself has not spoken to the press, we have no better information than that.

Yes, it is the girl's (and her mom's) version of events that the jail nurse stopped her from taking her contraception medication because of religious reasons.  And, I guess it's a fair point that it's the girl's word against the nurse.  But, please do explain to us what the reason would be for the nurse to prevent the girl from taking the medication.  I mean, any rational reason will do.  She's a nurse and she ought to know that the medication isn't a narcotic or hallucinogen or any form of recreational drug.  And, if she had any questions about why the girl needed to take it, I would think a quick call to the clinic to speak to the first nurse could clear that up.  

Illegitimi non carborundum.

But, please do explain to us what the reason would be for the nurse to prevent the girl from taking the medication.

Prisoners aren't given a lot of leeway with what they can ingest in prison. Drugs from outside the system not deemed medically necessary are generally forbidden. (And I'm willing to bet that even the necessary ones are re-issued from in-house stock whenever possible.)

She's a nurse and she ought to know that the medication isn't a narcotic or hallucinogen or any form of recreational drug.

Using what super powers? She can know, perhaps, that the wrapping is the same, or that the pill looks similar -- but these are not the same as knowing what the medication is in the pill.

Using what super powers? She can know, perhaps, that the wrapping is the same, or that the pill looks similar -- but these are not the same as knowing what the medication is in the pill.

How the super power of Talking to the cops that brought her to Our Lady of Religious Bigotry? The same cops, I might add who were with the victim at the clinic.  Perhaps they could have invoked the super power of Competence and asked the nurse if the victim was prescribed anything to prevent a post rape pregancy.

Man, you will go to any length to defend the indefensible.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

The same cops, I might add who were with the victim at the clinic.

Unless the officer was present during the consultation with the nurse, this is a moot question. What are the odds that certifiable invasion of privacy took place?

Perhaps they could have invoked the super power of Competence and asked the nurse if the victim was prescribed anything to prevent a post rape pregancy.

In this, as with almost everything, governments tend to be behind the times. If such was allowed, it would have already happened.

Using what super powers? She can know, perhaps, that the wrapping is the same, or that the pill looks similar -- but these are not the same as knowing what the medication is in the pill.

Common-sense really needs to kick in here:
(1) This is a rape-victim, who is claiming to have been raped by some John Doe. There doesn't seem to be any reason to not believe the rape allegations - after all there is no named man for this to be a malicious rape charge against.
(2) The rape-victim was not expecting to be locked in prison, and therefore had no prior reason to dress-up any illegal substances as morning-after pills.
(3) There are no other credible reasons why those supposed morning-after pills are not what they claim to be on the packaging.

Furthermore, how will anyone check that those drugs are what they really claim to be? You talk about superpowers - but will they really send the pills to the lab to get them analysised? There will just be some papers signed, some questions asked, and some boxes ticked. No chemical analysis, unless the police have a good reason to suspect that the drugs are other than they claim to be (which we dealt with above)

There are two options:
(1) The mother and lawyer aren't lying, and the nurse really did refuse the drugs for religious reasons.
(2) There was an unbelievable lack of common-sense and humanity at work.

Personally, I think that either option is possible, and for either reason, heads deserve to roll.

Okay Gerry, I KNOW I was being obnoxious in the subqueue.  But your post (I must admire it because I didn't expect anybody to defend the cops here) is entirely disingenuous.  

1. The police have an obligation to throw that book at her, as hard as possible.

And why is that?  This woman just had a serious personal crime against her and requires medical attention, counselling and a strong effort to catch her attacker.  Her delinquent fine while a felony can wait.  They will have all her information from the police report and they can address that issue in due time.  Why the rush?  They could send a detective to her house to discuss that matter.  But to arrest and incarcerate a woman who has just been raped?  That is daft amd beyond defense.

2.  They can't go to the fair and question all males of a certain age and description; that's profiling. They can't cordon off the area to search; it's unconstitutional restraint. They can't canvass the area without court approval, lest they violate habeas, because by then they knew she was a felon with an outstanding warrant.

Certainly they can do all of those things.  It is called policework and it is how criminals are caught.  How else do you think criminals get caught?   DO they just apear out of the blue at the police station to be arrested?  Apparently that is the only kind of policework you approve of and that is exactly what these officers did.  The woman appears with an outstanding fine and they arrested her, yet they wouldn't get off their asses and catch the rapist.  

3.  Could the police have let her have her medication? There's no chain of custody until after her meeting with the clinic worker, so there's no sure way for them to know what the drug is. Is it legal? Is it lethal? Until a lab-certified expert examines it, who knows? As for counseling, every indication is that the police would have allowed an on-site counselor had one been available on weekends, but none were.

How can you excuse this?  This is inhumane.  To treat a rape victim like this is not only unacceptable, but indefensible.  She was denied her medication because of a woman's religious convictions.  This officer who denied her the medication meant to prevent pregnancy from her rapist does not belong in that job.  When her decisions can deny a woman this medication that she may need, and she does so because of some religious faith, she has been making judgements that she is not qualified to make.  Rape counselling, your comment on that shows you are callous to the facts.  You have shown yourself to be an apologist for a string of bad decisions and negligence and a lack of basic human kindness.  

Look, nmiguy, if you want to have special privileges carved out for raped felons, run it up the legislative flagpole and see how it flies. Right now what you're asking for is that the police to grant exemptions to procedures honed through the courts over decades, due to a special circumstance. Procedures which, I'll note, are in place to prevent mistreatment of those in custody. Procedures which, if broken, offer nothing but grief to the police force: "They had a felon in custody but let her go! They took a wanted criminal outside the system without legal counsel or judicial approval! They let a prisoner take drugs in custody!"

You're asking the police to do abuse the system in ways which would cost them their careers. So dial back the indignation a bit, OK?

I am not arguning for a dismantling of a system that works.  I am saying the system doesn't work if it is not used with good judgement.  Strictly following rules and doctrine do no good if people are not open to using good judgement and being prepared for exceptions and circumstance.  

If this woman was not arrested, I can think of very few people who would say "Oh they let a felon go"  knowing the circumstances.  This felony is not an emergency felony.  We want our law enforcement personnel to enforce the laws, but to do so prudently.  Their job is to protect and serve.

Because she was a minor when she committed her crime?

You would have already known that if you read the first story, linked in the writeup.

Usually juvenile records are sealed when the person turns 18

Not when there is not a disposition to the case. The woman was a wanted criminal; she hadn't paid her debt to society.

Not when there is not a disposition to the case. The woman was a wanted criminal; she hadn't paid her debt to society.  

Well, I guess she fucking well paid it now, eh?  

Oh my god...a wanted criminal!  Yes, the good people of Hillsborough country..nay, the world can rest easy now that this dangerous malefactor has been apprehended.  Too bad about the rapist that's still on the loose.  But hey, that's a small price to pay now that $4000+ dollars has been added to the coffers.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Well, I guess she fucking well paid it now, eh?

That's not entirely clear. Her attorney said that she thought she had already paid, but we haven't seen the canceled check yet, have we?

Oh my god...a wanted criminal! es, the good people of Hillsborough country..nay, the world can rest easy now that this dangerous malefactor has been apprehended

I wonder: if she had been an escaped convict would you suggest that the police let her go free?

Too bad about the rapist that's still on the loose

Have the police stopped investigating the alleged rape? I hadn't read that.

But hey, that's a small price to pay now that $4000+ dollars has been added to the coffers

I explained above that the unpaid funds were restitution, not a fine. Do you not understand the difference?

I wonder: if she had been an escaped convict would you suggest that the police let her go free?

Now you're just being silly.  Was this a serious question?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Was this a serious question?

Were you being serious when you wrote, "the world can rest easy now that this dangerous malefactor has been apprehended"?

That comment was this new sarcasm thing that everyone is talking about.  Just think of me as an early adopter.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

That comment was this new sarcasm thing...

I understood it to be sarcasm. And that your point was that the woman was not a dangerous criminal. But so what? She had a felony arrest warrant - that's quite serious indeed.

My question is, in your opinion how serious would the circumstances have to be before you would support the police arresting the woman? Are there circumstances that would change your mind, or does an alleged rape victim get a free pass no matter what she has done in the past?

Anyone who has been raped, whether or not he/she is a hardened criminal or just is a victim of mistaken identity, and overdue fine/restitution, or whatever should be treated with...(wait for it)

COMPASSION

Whatever the rule or protocols are, first and foremost, compassion comes first.  Even if they must remain incarcerated until things get straightened out...compassion.

While the police in this sad event MIGHT have been following their own rules, they did NOT act with COMPASSION.

Nes pah?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Anyone who has been raped...

Well, in this case, allegedly raped.

Whatever the rule or protocols are, first and foremost, compassion comes first

No, justice comes first. There ought to be quite a heavy component of compassion in the administration of justice (I hope we can at least agree on that point) and the authorities in this situation have now announced that, yes, their policy was flawed and that they are formulating a new policy that would give the police some latitude in the future.

Still, I find it curious that the various media reports of this story have attempted to portray the woman's past behavior as somehow irrelevant. One article I read said that she had been "jailed on an old warrant" (as if the age of the document had any pertinence) and this very discussion suggests that the woman was "raped...by the system" (as though the lawful actions taken by the police were somehow equivalent to a brutal sex crime).