21 votes

Felony Friday: Officer Sexually Assaults Mother in Front of Children

If you ever find yourself at a post office in Mission, Kansas tread softly my friends.

Catrina Engle quickly discovered how irrational and criminal police officers can be when they are summoned to defend another tentacle of the State apparatus, the post office. The following report and video were submitted this past week by Catrina to Copblock.org, detailing the disturbing and downright criminal actions of three police officers from Mission Kansas.

On the evening of 3-16-2013 around 5 pm I was leaving the Mission Post Office. I had just put my two young daughters (Ages 4 & 2) in the minivan. While I was putting packages in the car, I was unexpectedly approached from behind by a female cop– Officer Michelle Pierce.

She stated, “I’m going to need your identification.” I asked her, “Why?” Again, she said, “Give me your ID.” I again asked her, “Why?” The third time she was more demanding & said, “GIVE ME your identification.” I then agreed that I would give her my ID but I wanted to know WHY first. I said “Okay, but why?” She still would not tell me. At that point, you can see what happens in the video. Without warning, she started walking towards me, twists my arm, starts cuffing me, flings me around & slams me on the ground while finishing cuffing me. At that point, Officer Tim Gift arrived & assisted her. They hurt me when they dropped me on the ground & also got my thumb stuck in the cuffs. You can hear my toddler age girls crying & screaming in the car as they took me down & throughout the hour or so they had me there.

For the police to respond in this manner it would be logical to assume that this woman was behaving belligerently, perhaps waving a gun around, threatening someone’s life, or endangering her children.

Too often, when reviewing the actions of the boys and girls in blue, it is not advisable to surmise that police officers’ actions align with logic.

The officers claim that a postal employee dialed 911 to report that a woman was yelling at her in the in the lobby of the post office and throwing rocks through the mail slot. The officers then responded to the scene, tackled the allegedly boisterous patron to the ground, left her young daughters in a minivan crying for almost an hour, refused to call the children’s father, and sexually assaulted the suspect in public by performing a cavity search in the post office parking lot.

Mrs. Engle provides a much more plausible scenario to explain the events that occurred in the post office that contradict the story told by the postal worker, from Copblock.org.

“I was arguing with my husband on the cell phone in an EMPTY Postal lobby while using the automated machine. My bored toddlers dropped pebbles in the mail slot.”

Continue to video

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sorry that many of you don't get it

I'm sorry that many of you don't comprehend the hypocrisy of NOT using gender to define the officer BUT using gender to define the parent within the title. The OP used collectivism and sensationalism to get readers, which distracts from the actual story.

Go ahead and continue to downvote me...but you're being hypocritical.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

Wow, now this stuff is happening in Overland Park, KS of all pla

The Beverly Hills of the Midwest isn't even safe from these thugs. Just goes to show, bad cops are in all kinds of neighborhoods. I love the video showing the little girl explaining how she dropped the rocks in the mailbox.

Dare we talk to people like human beings before assault them?

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

I'm guessing a bit more

I'm guessing a bit more happened at the locked post office door than is disclosed in this story.

None the less if someone flipped off, called names, and dropped rocks in the mail box they wouldn't deserve to be taken down, arrested, and strip searched.

They should have banned her from that post office forever and been done.

Two sides to EVERY story

Disclaimer: These three cops are total pigs and need a "wood shampoo".
But...
More and more when I'm out I see people acting like entitled little brats. Often times toward people who serve the public.
~ Two suggestions for this lady;
1.Don't indulge in phone b-i-t-c-h-i-n-g in a public place
2.Watch your kids. What if the girls decided to go play in traffic.
~ It's about priorities. And I see so many people in a variety of public places just act like the world is their toilet.

http://youtu.be/aCe5qyur6xM

Raw full video

It is very difficult to present any

extra legal questions because of the circumstances:

1. The US Postal Service is a federal privilege.

2. The US Postal Service is in the business of transporting Articles of Mail for hire which are items of commerce.

3. It is reasonable to presume a person who was in a US Postal Service branch attempting to mail something transported those articles by a vehicle with a license plate parked in the parking lot they are seen getting into.

In order to use a federal benefit such as the US Postal Service one must be acting in a business capacity irregardless of whether it is a citizen or alien business capacity. The purpose of the trip to the location was to conduct federally privileged US Postal Service business. The purpose of being on the premesis was to conduct federally privileged US Postal Service business. There are rules applicable to conducting federally privileged business in the form of statutes and codes which do not apply to pursuing happiness in the ordinary course of life. Demanding to see ones government identification while conducting official federally privileged US Postal Service government business upon receiving an official complaint is within the boundaries of what is deemed legal. The only variable is who owned the items to be mailed but whether one is conducting business for themselves or another ... they are still conducting business.

That doesn't mean just because one is subject to certain rules in the form of codes or statutes while conducting federally privileged business superior officers can violate the body of ones person, regardless of what capacity they are acting in. There will certainly be some linguistic acrobatics in any attempt to justify probable cause to search a vagina in a parking lot based on the type of complaint and circumstances. Ignorance of capacity or ones duties or obligations while exercising a federal privilege does not justify searching ones vagina in parking lot. Mild resistance to demands for identification because one is ignorant of any federal privilege being exercised does not justify searching ones vagina in a parking lot.

However, in my opinion to focus on the demand of identification in this instance instead of the violation of the body of ones person or the statements of the actual complaint is unwise. This is a non-legal opinion from a non-attorney so take any comment with a grain of salt and do your own research.

The heading is VERY misleading

Downvoted.

The heading is VERY misleading and intends to suggest that she was assaulted by a male police officer. Yes, you quoted the article where it indicates officer was a female, but the damage was done in the heading.

Also, despite this situation being about a female police officer, you still pushed "boys in blue" within your own commentary (and only added "girls" in parenthesis).

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

The Video Speaks for Itself

Flex, would you like this to happen to your Mother, Wife,Sister or any other female member of your family.

Stop acting like a bloody fool here with your silly posts......makes the site look idiotic!!

Flex - its almost four - evening shift is starting soon

put away the laptop and go get in your patrol car.

He can't

He has to finish his donut first

The title is misleading, why

The title is misleading, why the downvotes......what am i missing?

edit
ok, so there was a cavity search, then i agree, the title is not misleading, but the sexual assault is almost an afterthought to the dad getting harrased.
Im not belitiling the situation, just the way its been presented, even then, not belitiling, just pointing out how i took it

Edit
saying that, i think i just read it to fast.......or, too slow, depending on how you look at it, i guess

Um...what

How is the heading misleading? Where does it indicate it was a male officer? The heading states exactly what happened and exactly what the article is about.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

I respectfully disagree

I've removed the parenthesis around (girls).

Not intending to mislead. It is what happened. A police officer sexually assaulted a woman. Does it change in your mind, the significance, based on the gender of the officer? Or are you just runnning on the assumption that only male police officers committ sexual assaults? Sexual assaults can occur male on male, female on female, male on female, or female on male. I don't think it is prudent to point out the gender of the sexual assailant in the title.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Another point

Furthermore, if you don't think it is important to include the gender of the officer, then why didn't you simply state "parent in front of children" instead of "woman in front of children". You were sensationalizing and this proves that the use of gender was important to your slant on the story.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

Perhaps I should put "Mother"

Maybe you should name all my articles!

Your response is illogical

I'm not nitpicking grammar or spelling. I could understand your response if that was the case. I simply stated that the title was used to sensationalize and gain readers...and happens to be a discussion (Sensationalizing a post title) that has been mentioned in other threads on this site for legitimate reasons.

Sorry that you can't handle a logical debate.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

Move on

you must of had a bad day at home to be so condescending!

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

What Sensationalized This Post

was the actions of the police as seen in the Video.

I hope this woman sues the police department and wins big.

Oh for gods sake!

Get a life, will ya? I hate people like you! No body likes a know-it-all. Just stop!

You can't have a discussion, can you, Fonzie?

How was my original comment a "know-it-all" comment? It was completely logical. The OP created a title simply to gain readers.

You actually hate people because you disagree with them. Hate me all you want. Are you planning on stalking me now, too? Perhaps you should go back to one of your neocon websites, not sure the hatred belongs here.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

Perhaps

Perhaps you should start your own website since you have so many views on how articles should be titled, and the use or lack of use of gender in said articles?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Duh, okay Marc

I'm not nitpicking grammar or spelling. I could understand your response if that was the case. I simply stated that the title was used to sensationalize and gain readers...and happens to be a discussion that has been mentioned in other threads on this site for legitimate reasons.

Sorry that you can't handle debate a logical debate.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

If only

I love nothing more than a logical debate. This is nitpicking the title and accusing us of sensationalism for merely STATING WHAT OCCURRED.

If you were pointing out grammatical or spelling errors I'd actually appreciate it!

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

If you honestly do not see the hypocrisy...

If you honestly do not see the hypocrisy of using no gender to describe the police office BUT using gender to describe the victim, there is no use in discussing this any further. The heading is sensationalism.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

Who cares?

I'll admit I expected something a little different but I was still outraged when I saw it. So if the point of the title was to get me to look and the title isn't technically false, and the outcome matches the reaction you think you would get from the title as it reads, then who cares?

Good

Then no need to discuss further, because I don't.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

A couple points

I appreciate that you removed the parenthesis around "girls" suggesting both male and female. Thank you.

Of course sexual assaults can happen as M vs F, F vs M, M vs M, F vs F, and any other way people want to assign in this day and age. It is equally criminal no matter the gender of the perp and victim. All are equally reprehensible when a crime is committed.

However, your lack of adding female to heading is used to draw readers because it implies that a male officer sexually assaulted a female civilian. Why do I say that? Because that is what the majority of people are used to hearing.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

I appreciate your feedback

but I think it would be ridiculous to add the gender. Adding the gender implies that sexual assaults differ based on gender. I know you aren't saying that either, but I feel like this discussion on gender is missing the entire point of the article. A woman was assaulted in front of her children for no reason! Let's move on from the title. The male officer was right there watching the sexual assault also. The entire situation is a disturbing.

Okay, good point...

Okay, good point. Then why did you include "woman in front of children". That is my point, you are using gender to sensationalize.

I think you are missing your own point.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin