Posted on 08/09/2012 8:20:31 AM PDT by jaydubya2
LOS ANGELES (KTLA) -- A former beauty queen is suing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department after she says deputies kicked down the wrong apartment door, pointed guns at her and her fiancee and watched as she got out of bed, naked.
Calenche Ranae Manos, a former Miss Nevada 2007, says in her lawsuit that the incident happened on the night of November 15, 2011.
Manos and her fiancee, Eric Otto Ryder, say deputies had a search warrant for apartment "C" but entered their unit -- clearly marked as apartment "A."
"At that time Ms. Manos was still in bed and was naked," the complaint, obtained by Courthouse News Service, states.
"The sheriff deputies, all of which were male and armed with guns, ordered Ms. Manos to get out of bed and then watched as she attempted to do so," it alleges.
The officers then spent a "significant amount of time" in the apartment before they realized their mistake, according to the complaint.
One of the officers allegedly joked that Manos would have a good story to tell at Thanksgiving.
Manos is seeking damages for negligence, false imprisonment and civil rights violations.
She is also accusing the deputies of sexual harassment.
Another sanctimonious bluenose who wants to let their narrow definition of morality rule over all.
Conservatism is about growing the economy and maintaining national defense, not irrelevant social issues.
Who the hell cares who’s zoomin ‘ who?
Sex is a way you treat other people also, and it reflects something that is in your heart - which is what God cares about.
So how committed is “committed”? At what point is a person committed enough to justify having sex with the other person in God’s eyes - to be morally pure and cause no harm by it to self, the other person, or anybody else? How do we know whether our actions will cause harm or not? Is consentual sex between committed but unmarried people harmless, or does it have unintended consequences?
Regarding the couple you mentioned, when the one spouse dies the other will get nothing, unless special legal arrangements have been made - arrangements that are assumed for married people. Unless they are in a state that has common-law marriage.
So why didn’t this couple get married in the eyes of the law? In the eyes of God they may be married, if they made a promise to God and to each other. But why not make that promise public in order to not offend or lead astray anybody else who knows about their relationship?
Good enough for what? What is God measuring us for?
And what as a total package is “good enough” for that standard?
I am so far from a hippy and so far from anti police that it is insane for you to make that claim. One of my lifelong friends is the local sheriff here... and I have many friends in the municipal police... and I support local organizations that support our police. Our police NEVER make these kinds of mistakes and the only dog that they have killed this year was a pit bull that bit an officer twice before he put him down.
LLS
"The things that's you's liable to read in da bible...they's ain't necessarily so."“I read almost every day about these police that act like nazis and are above the law”
—
Of course you do. Police doing the right thing doesn’t seem to be newsworthy.
I also don’t think this incident,even if true,calls for destroying someone’s life.
It has nothing to do with being a Sixties hippie or anything like that.
Its about making a very public example or two out of someone.
You only have to do this to a few big departments and soon word would get around for the cops to watch their step.
Cops don’t prevent crime anyway. There is NO situation that cannot be made worse by calling the cops.
Maybe because Jesus said not to make a show of one’s religion and to pray in secret.
;-)
“There is NO situation that cannot be made worse by calling the cops.
==
Tell that to the families of the 23 that lost their lives on 9-11. Their presence sure made the situation worse.
Maybe if the cops stayed out of it the building wouldn’t have collapsed.
Oops,”buildings” in post 109. Mea culpa.
No, not at all... as a matter of fact they should give everyone involved a citation and a massive raise.
LLS
This is a moral/social issue, indeed. And conservatism is also about social issues. Conservatism is about conserving what we have.
Are you aware that one of the key steps in the subversion of a free nation is demoralization? Our Founders realized that if you have an immoral people a democratic form of government cannot survive. So whoever can rid a society of sound moral judgment and behavior can destroy that nation. And that has specifically been the plan of the communists for a very long time. There are many reasons for that, but I’ll just address a couple.
First off, if a person’s core beliefs about morality rely on human reasoning or interpretation, it is easy to just get the right person or interpretation into a position of trust and then the whole foundation of morality can be re-programmed. If there’s no such thing as natural law or objective truth, then people can set their own standards - which may or may not be sustainable or good in the long term.
Secondly - and this follows from the above - if you can take away a sound basis for morality and replace it with a broken one, you can destroy the foundations that work and thus create a crisis. The main rival to communism - where the government provides everything for everybody and thus also makes all the decision about everything - is the family. If families are providing for their own, there is no crisis for the government to step in and try to solve. That’s why the communists are pushing things that break the family - the “social issues” that are supposedly not relevant to government: promiscuity, drugs, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc. The end result of that is that people and families are broken.
Wanna know the leading cause of poverty? Single-parent homes. Sure, it was a personal moral issue when that girl decided to sleep with that guy, but now that we’ve got welfare - the public stepping in to care for people whose family situation doesn’t provide for them - who has really ended up footing the bill? How many young Black guys (for instance, as one demographic where marriage is considered irrelevant) do we have who put their sperm all over the neighborhood and leave you and me to pay for those kids and their mothers?
And as long as that is happening the rest of us are faced with a dilemma: Do we coldly let those people get the just rewards for their decisions - and let those kids starve to death, for instance? Or do we step in and help the kids, who didn’t deserve the situation they’re in?
You and I both know what the answer has been, and the only way it’s going to stop is if we either stop paying for their choices and let the kids suffer for the sins of the parents, or if people learn to make choices that are sustainable.
That’s where the rubber hits the road. Every “big government” issue we face comes down to the morality of the people that created a “crisis” that the government used as an excuse to step in and “fix”.
Right now the government would love to own my healthcare because if they did, they could tell me what I have to eat, how long I can sit rather than walk, and what I can read - because they are in effect my “parents”, the people who decide everything about my health because they are the ones who are going to pay for it all.
I love liberty, and I am not saying that it is the government’s business who you or I sleep with, what we eat, or what we read. Those are personal choices and need to remain so, or else we become just like the sharia folks. Which is what I hope you are trying to say as well.
But I do recognize that if people break the social foundations that have sustained civilization throughout the centuries, we will get BAD, BAD, BAD results both socially and in government. We will get a bunch of feral cats acting like animals in large enough numbers that they can vote to have everybody else pay for their choices. As a case in point, I present to you Sandra Fluke. It is a disaster in the making.
A person can say that they aren’t forcing anybody else to pay when they sleep around, as long as they either prevent pregnancy, abort any conceived children, or take care of whatever kids they allow to be born. But if the pre-marital sleeping around that they do ends up making them unable to make a marriage work and they end up divorced and in poverty, with their kids getting government assistance, we ARE paying for their choices even if they never realized their choices would cost the rest of us. Same thing with if they abort a child and because of the coping mechanisms they use to deal with that, they end up incarcerated (people who do ministry in women’s penitentiaries have said that the vast majority of incarcerated women began their descent into crime in response to an abortion).... that ends up costing us all.
You might think that a “narrow definition of morality” is from party-pooper “sanctimonious bluenoses” but the truth of the matter is that our finite vision doesn’t know what works in the long-term, or what has unintended consequences. The one who can truly know whether it hurts us to sleep around before we’re married is the One who made us, and who has observed all the history of mankind. The people you are calling “sanctimonious” are merely passing along the wisdom of One who knows what works and what doesn’t.
Fortunately for us, He also knows how to fix what is broken, and has picked up the tab for our brokenness as well - the very expensive price of His own Son. He loves us. We would be fools to walk away from that love.
Uh huh....
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” 1 Cor 6:9
Now tell me G-d doesn’t care.
Knowing cops, if you tried that they’d probably say “DROP YOUR WEAPON!”
Well, trailhkr1 and others who I seem to have offended, my tongue was at least partly in cheek. But I am a bit amazed at how many people were so quick to defend living in sin, as it used to be known. Talk of sin isn’t all that popular these days, at least to be discussed in ordinary company.
Let me put it another way: sin is more popular than ever because the “If it feels good, do it” philosophy has taken hold, even among some conservatives. I rather doubt that God’s position on the subject has changed a whole lot since the pill and women’s lib and abortion but lots of folks would like to think it has.
“I’m no longer very religious but still believe in God...I think. Not sure at times.”
It wasn’t I who said that.
Cheers:>) EasyDoesIt
How are you in a position to make such a guarantee?
It’s really amazing what passes for “conservative” these days.
That's what I took from it.
and Roe V Wade sealed the deal
And "no fault" divorce opened the door to both of these. What's the point of saving it until marriage when there's only a 50/50 chance that's going to last?
Sorry, R2. I mistook the point you were making earlier. Thank you.
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.