Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Detroit Officer Severs Woman's Finger
The Detroit Free Press ^ | January 7, 2003 | JIM SCHAEFER

Posted on 01/07/2003 5:07:00 AM PST by AK2KX

Edited on 05/07/2004 7:12:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

A Detroit police officer with a knife cut off the finger of a 45-year-old woman he was trying to handcuff in a parking lot on 8 Mile.

The police, who were in plainclothes, said she was resisting arrest. The woman, Joni Gullas of Detroit, said Monday that she thought she was being carjacked.


(Excerpt) Read more at freep.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: actingonatip; carjacking; detroit; excessiveforce; lawsuit; plainclothes; police
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221 next last
To: SarahW
And what was the cops beef with showing his badge?

We don't know. Perhaps he felt he had adequately shown it, but she didn't see it? We'll see.

181 posted on 01/08/2003 8:00:21 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
I was racking my brain as to where I knew the Huddle Lounge was and it dawned on me that it is a huge drug and hooker hang out.

Funny; I was racking my brain as to how the sort of establishment the Huddle Lounge was is in any way relevant to the fact that a woman acting in reasonable self-defense has been threatened with attempted murder. Which is what she'd have been charged with if she'd pulled a knife and sliced off the cop's finger instead. If she'd lived, I mean.

I'm still not clear about your position on stoning harlots (or those suspected of harlotry) to death. Perhaps you'll be good enough to enlighten us.

182 posted on 01/08/2003 8:14:20 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
Of course I do not advocate stoning harlots, I wouldn't want you to lose all your friends.
183 posted on 01/08/2003 9:16:12 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs (Try thinking, it works)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
The article does not state that she had the engine on when she was approached. If she was merely sitting in the vehicle, that's not probable cause to make a traffic stop, IMHO. They may have said that they were police, but they refused to provide ID to verify their claim.
184 posted on 01/08/2003 9:17:24 AM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Henrietta
The article says the cops say she moved the car backwards. I guess you will tell us she did it by the Fred Flinstone method?

The article does not say police refused to provide ID. It says she did not see ID and asked them to provide it and got in a heated argument about it. They may have felt they had shown it. We just don't know because we don't know what was stated during the argument.

The third article posted by cvsvet noted that the woman had walked a block down the street to her car when noticed by police. Certainly, IF they observed her behavior while walking from bar to car, that could give them an opportunity to have probable cause if they saw she appeared drunk. As I keep saying we will see when we learn all the facts. I am refusing to draw conclusions here except to say that I wouldn't think the police just randomly assualted this poor dear (as most of you seem to be asserting with the blame the cop syndrome). They must have thought she was doing something suspicious to have warranted approaching her.

The third article also makes clear that another Officer initially approached the woman, and was joined by Officer Johnson after the argument started. As more comes out, we will find out exactly what happened. It would be helpful to hear that first Officer's version of events.

185 posted on 01/08/2003 9:34:01 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Are you telling me inner city residents can't pick out an undercover units car? Surely you jest!
186 posted on 01/08/2003 9:35:47 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
That was enlightening, even if unintentionally so. Given your enthusiasm for police thuggery at the small cost of a debauched Bill of Rights, shall I put you down as a Law 'n' Order whore? Here's hoping it stands you in good stead with the boys at the precinct.
187 posted on 01/08/2003 9:39:47 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
How lovely of you to call me a whore because I know where a bar is located.

Is your pleasant disposition because you suckled on a wolf and you have no means to repeat the experience?
188 posted on 01/08/2003 9:59:28 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs (Try thinking, it works)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
How lovely of you to call me a whore because I know where a bar is located.

Joni Gullas knows just how you feel. And now you know how she feels.

189 posted on 01/08/2003 10:16:39 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Are you telling me inner city residents can't pick out an undercover units car? Surely you jest!

Oh brother. Your argument has resorted to the absurd.

190 posted on 01/08/2003 10:55:28 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

Comment #191 Removed by Moderator

To: Damocles; Jimer
I had to read that twice. Gawd that was funny.
192 posted on 01/08/2003 11:02:01 AM PST by jjm2111 (Of course I'm driving officer, I'm too drunk to walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EricOKC
Nice reply.
193 posted on 01/08/2003 11:12:41 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
I believe Hermann's a Crank Yanker.
194 posted on 01/08/2003 11:18:27 AM PST by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: EricOKC
It isnt a discussion. I made a statement, you are unable to refute it. Your actions further demonstrate the accuracy of my statement. Issue closed.

I can't refute your feelings or an insane assertion like that. How could I possible refute your assertion? This is like: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer me!"

FTR, I belong to the Republican Party, not the Fascist Party.

Oh you cant? Hmm..let me see. I walk up to your car, late at night, say im a cop (im not), demand your license and registration, and while you're rummaging in the glove box, I whack you over the head, drag you from the car, beat you nearly to death, steal you wallet and keys, then go to your house (i know where you live now because i have your license, and i have your house keys too)and rape your wife and daughter. You're right. Cant be hurt by that at all.

And that is tres likely. Show me once where that has occurred. You ever tried whacking someone over the head through a car window or had it tried on you? Are you saying you'd be so incapacitated by this you couldn't fight back? Anyway, the woman got hit when she backed the car up and pinned the cops hand to the door. That leaves her "throwing the first punch".

An aside - keep your registration in your wallet, not your car. Dumb people keep it in their car, and then lose it when their car is stolen. Theives are more plausible saying "he's my cousin/brother-in-law/etc., I'm just borrowing it, here's the registration officer."

When an officer does not identify himself as one, he is no longer acting as an agent of the State, but as a private citizen.

Well, they did say they identified themselves as police officers, even the woman admits that. You just prefer to call them liars and claim they were hiding their ID's, which the story doesn't state.

Ok, we dont know for a fact, but, the fact that an argument ensued is pretty persuasive to the idea that he didnt. Had he shown it once already, where is the problem in him showing it again?

If he felt he already had shown it to her, why would he need to show it again? That sounds like how an arguement would start to me.

Again, as previously stated, "contempt of cop" is not illegal.

Try going up to one during a traffic stop and cursing him out. You'll have a fun time in the slammer.

195 posted on 01/08/2003 11:52:18 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
LOL, BUMP!
196 posted on 01/08/2003 4:34:04 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Any man riding around in the wee hours of the morning in civilian clothes and an unmarked car accosting lone females and refusing to show his identity, is up to no good, regardless of whether he is in fact a cop or an imposter. And anyone who defends such actions, has revealed himself to be an idiot.

Demanding identification from someone calling himself a cop, is not disrespect for the law-disrespect for the law is a cop ignoring proper procedure.

197 posted on 01/08/2003 4:52:08 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

Comment #198 Removed by Moderator

Comment #199 Removed by Moderator

Comment #200 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson