Crime NY City o pay $17.5M for forcing Muslim women to remove hijabs...

[Islam Imamate]

Taking a mugshot of an uncovered face, holding a criminal in a cell, etc. are part of the criminal processing procedure.

Did you read the article? From the piece

The New York Police Department changed its policy in 2020 to allow people to leave on religious head coverings for arrest photographs if they are not obstructing their faces.

The headscarf does not cover the face

 

[fungi]

Did you read the article? From the piece

The headscarf does not cover the face

Dude, give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

That's how that shit starts. The law has always been "uncovered face and head" mugshots. All over the world. For clear identification purposes. Always. Since photography had been invented. Hair color is part of identification. It's even written on one's DL.

Some criminals decide to obstruct the law as much as they can, so they come up with some religious excuse and shout "RACISM!!! ISLAMOPHOBIA!!! WE FELT LIKE THEY 'LITERALLY' RAPED US!!!"
And they sue. Oh, how they love to sue.

BOOM!!! NYPD updates their policy.
Such bs leads to all kinds of legal abuse by criminals. Especially by "religious" ones.

YOU BREAK THE LAW, YOU FORFEIT YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS, until after you served your punishment. End of story. STOP THE CRIMINAL ENABLING.

 

[DragRacer]

Same here. If they make me take my Dodgers cap off for a mugshot or govt. ID photo, everyone else should take their hats off too. Even the Pope should take that giant dildo hat off if he gets arrested here in the states. Fucker could be smuggling a small arsenal into jail with that hat.

Religious head coverings? It seems so. Frankly I don't give a shit either way. I have no love for fundamentalists of any religion. But whippy is just a dumbass who can't even get the details of his own rage bait thread right.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Dude, give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

That's how that shit starts. The law has always been "uncovered face and head" mugshots. All over the world. For clear identification purposes. Hair color is part of identification. It's even written on one's DL.
It was always. Since photography had been invented.

No that's not how it works, hence the policy. I also think its itneresting to ntoe how quickly you moved the goalposts from "uncovered face" to "uncovered face and hair" once I cited the relevant part of the article.

YOU BREAK THE LAW, YOU FORFEIT YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS, until after you served your punishment. End of story. STOP THE CRIMINAL ENABLING.

That's never how its worked, you still have civil rights like the right to a speedy trial, the 5th amendment, a public defender, and to be spared from cruel and unusual punishment. And yes even if convicted you still have 1st amendment rights which includes reasonable accommodations for religious practices. I understand that you might disagree with those constitutional rights but that would be your opinion, not the law.

 

[avenue94]

They aren’t denied to practice their religion but I’m sure you’re good with the 17M. Heck I bet you did a victory dance when JT paid that terrorist all those millions too

If the NYPD is dumb enough to violate civil rights in a very clear cut case, I'm not particularly sad they're on the hook for 17 million. I do wish it came from their overtime budget, not taxpayers and insurance, but oh well.

And I don't know how you are doing the mental gymnastics to claim they weren't allowed to practice their religion when the court's opinion is clear that the 1A was violated here.

Uniform processing of arrested persons means to identify their face via photography. AKA, 'taking a mugshot.'

I typically wear a hat, and if I'm arrested its guaranteed that hat is being taken off regardless of any claims of religious affiliation.

And before you say 'They still have to show their face.' Yes, and so would I. So why do they get to keep their head-coverings on while I have to take off my head covering off?

Because of the First Amendment. If you don't like it, you're free to petition the government to do away with that part of the First Amendment. Or, if you really are that much a fan of hats, you can create your own religion where hat wearing is a fundamental cornerstone of it.

Exercise of religion is not applicable to processing of criminals.

Yes it is.

Once you commit a crime, you forfeit certain rights, for example, freedom of movement.
Taking a mugshot of an uncovered face, holding a criminal in a cell, etc. are part of the criminal processing procedure.

Where in the Constitution or US body of law does it say those detained by the police are not allowed the freedom to worship?

P.s. Imagine, I'm black and I invent a religion and claim that being in handcuffs is a sin in my religion, as it reminds blacks of slavery.

If a cop arrests me and cuffs me, BOOM!!!

1. You'd have to create a religion and get it recognized.
2. The state has a compelling interest in criminals being handcuffed, so the courts would laugh your 1A claim out of the room.

 

[fungi]

That's not what happened here though, these women were found not to have had the law which requires reasonable exemptions to have been offered to them. Hence their winning the court case.

I think your issue here is actually the opposite, you're upset that an out-group was given equal protection under the law.

No, dude.
It's just standard bs woke anti-islamophobia/"defund the police" procedure.
Giving them $17 mil is not a WINNING case for civilized society. It's one of the many steps towards utter chaos.

P.s. you do understand what anti-islamophobia means, do you?

 

[oldshadow]

The First Amendment does not deter anyone from thinking anything. A Christian is equally free to think that certain tribes of Israel should be murdered on sight. What it regulates on this topic is what actions are exempt from U.S. laws and regulations. I have no idea why you're going on a tangent about domestic violence, other than I imagine you aren't here to discuss in good faith.

What a legendary dicktuck instead of just admitting you were wrong. One does not need to have been convicted of a crime in order to have been asked to improperly remove a head covering. Not to mention there are plenty of Muslim women who are not immigrants. Embarrassing logic you got there.

You are the one that pulled some dumbass number out of your ass.

Depending on the state 12 to 20.

"There must be at least 12 people who have been hurt the same way before most courts recognize a class action lawsuit."

The amount is bullshit even if I understand the act that was a violation of their rights and agree with the decision.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Because of the First Amendment. If you don't like it, you're free to petition the government to do away with that part of the First Amendment. Or, if you really are that much a fan of hats, you can create your own religion where hat wearing is a fundamental cornerstone of it.

Thank you for reminding everyone why nobody has ever taken you seriously.

 

[Poon Goon]

That's how that shit starts. The law has always been "uncovered face and head" mugshots. All over the world. For clear identification purposes. Always. Since photography had been invented.

 

[fungi]

No that's not how it works, hence the policy. I also think its itneresting to ntoe how quickly you moved the goalposts from "uncovered face" to "uncovered face and hair" once I cited the relevant part of the article.

That's never how its worked, you still have civil rights like the right to a speedy trial, the 5th amendment, a public defender, and to be spared from cruel and unusual punishment. And yes even if convicted you still have 1st amendment rights which includes reasonable accommodations for religious practices. I understand that you might disagree with those constitutional rights but that would be your opinion, not the law.

I'm not moving the goal post. I'm clarifying for narrow-minded religious folks who do not understand that in a civilized society the law is applied equally to all.

P.s. Of course a criminal keeps certain basic rights, even when arrested/convicted. I'm not calling for stoning of women with uncovered heads/faces. Some muslims do though...

P.p.s.s. So when convenient you suddenly recall the 5th amendment/a right to a public defender/etc., and in other cases you are an ardent follower of islam, eh?))

Make up your mind, imamito, you either a citizen or a "believer"...

 

[fungi]

So what, some lazy ass photographer didn't follow the rules...

It's human nature to slack off. The rules exist to prevent the fall of society.

 

[Poon Goon]

So what, some lazy ass photographer didn't follow the rules...

You claimed that it was ALWAYS uncovered heads since the day cameras were invented. It appears that this was not true.

 

[fungi]

If the NYPD is dumb enough to violate civil rights in a very clear cut case, I'm not particularly sad they're on the hook for 17 million. I do wish it came from their overtime budget, not taxpayers and insurance, but oh well.

And I don't know how you are doing the mental gymnastics to claim they weren't allowed to practice their religion when the court's opinion is clear that the 1A was violated here.

Because of the First Amendment. If you don't like it, you're free to petition the government to do away with that part of the First Amendment. Or, if you really are that much a fan of hats, you can create your own religion where hat wearing is a fundamental cornerstone of it.

Yes it is.

Where in the Constitution or US body of law does it say those detained by the police are not allowed the freedom to worship?

1. You'd have to create a religion and get it recognized.
2. The state has a compelling interest in criminals being handcuffed, so the courts would laugh your 1A claim out of the room.

Excuses, excuses...

 

[USA!USA!]

While very dumb, its also very dumb that the cops could have had women employees do it for them - they could have saved a lot of taxpayer money.

Dumb lawsuit, dumb cops. Why is everyone so dumb these days?

 

[fungi]

You claimed that it was ALWAYS uncovered heads since the day cameras were invented. It appears that this was not true.

An exception does not disprove the rule.

 

[Poon Goon]

An exception does not disprove the rule.

Sorry, I see a bunch of different people wearing hats in their mugshots. Doesn't look like a one off. Also, it seems like they are still easily identifiable in those pictures.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm not moving the goal post. I'm clarifying for narrow-minded religious folks who do not understand that in a civilized society the law is applied equally to all.

That's not what happened here though, these women were deprived of their equal right for a reasonable accommodation and thus were compensated.

P.s. Of course a criminal keeps certain basic rights, even when arrested/convicted. I'm not calling for stoning of women with uncovered heads/faces. Some muslims do though...

P.p.s.s. So when convenient you suddenly recall the 5th amendment/a right to a public defender/etc., and in other cases you are an ardent follower of islam, eh?))

Make up your mind, imamito, you either a citizen or a "believer"...

I can be a citizen and a believer, in fact that is also a right granted to us under the 1st amendment that is equally applied if you didn't know. But this is important because it gets to your true concern here which is that out-groups like Muslims are able to invoke the same rights you can and this bothers you. You would much prefer they were subjected to an unequal application of the law so as to make the free exercise of their religion onerous in order to encourage them to leave.

 

[avenue94]

You are the one that pulled some dumbass number out of your ass.

Depending on the state 12 to 20.

"There must be at least 12 people who have been hurt the same way before most courts recognize a class action lawsuit."

The amount is bullshit even if I understand the act that was a violation of their rights and agree with the decision.

It's literally from the article you still have not read.

Damages from the settlement, which total just over $13 million once administrative costs and lawyers’ fees are deducted, will be split among the thousands of people who are expected to file claims on similar grounds.

Thank you for reminding everyone why nobody has ever taken you seriously.

I'm still waiting to hear this compelling state interest that you can't elaborate on.

Excuses, excuses...

As in you're giving excuses because your position is hollow and unsupported by American history? Yes, yes indeed.

 

[Islam Imamate]

P.s. you do understand what anti-islamophobia means, do you?

Sure and I'm guessing you're against it?

 

[fungi]

Sure and I'm guessing you're against it?

"Anti-islamophobia" = preferential treatment for muslims.

I am against it. I am against any preferential treatment for anybody, except children, people with real disabilities, etc. The law is the same for all.

P.s. being a muslim is not a disability, it's a choice. Your choice = your responsibility. The society should not bear any inconveniences because of your choice/responsibility.