http://blog.beliefnet.com/...&utm_term=hotmail.com

Here ya go, this is something that could be anoutrageos event. How much further will our nation continue to bow to minority interests to the detriment of the people as a whole?

WTFO? I'm beginning to think a whole lot more of "drinkingwithBob"'s rants on YouTube.

I dont really see any reason why they take two seperate photos..

It makes no sense at all. We need to stop being politically correct and just be right.

Are you so bigoted that you disapprove of taking two mug shots? If that's what the person will be wearing in public, doesn't it make sense to know what that individual looks like in a hiqab? To me it's good police work, not culutural sensitivity.

There is no such thing as "right". It's completely a matter of perspective. We need to stop infering values on decisions and judge them by their value to society. This makes it harder for Muslim repeat offenders to hide behind the veil of anonymity.

That is mildly retarded. By that same logic, they should also take a picture with no light...you know..so we can see what they look like in the dark..

it took me like a minute to sound out an outrageous (a-nut-rag-us was my favourite)

oh man, i haven't even started drinking yet.

i'm a racist, so you needn't attack me for this, but with the cloth covering the distinguishing features, what one looks like in a hiqab another is going to look exactly like. almost like they had this planned, or something.

we don't mugshot bank robbers in their ski masks, and yet if they're robbing a bank you'd think it would be nice to know what they'd look like?

if i ever get booked in nashville, i'm having my first mug shot taken as bugs bunny with a carot in my mouth, and then the second can be non religious mug shot. who are you, you intolerant son of a fluff, to tell me that isn't religion.

what is the number to aclu, or will they not take my case based off of me being canadian, those discriminatory fluffs!

Bank robbers don't often go for coffee in ski masks, otherwise you might have a point.

i mistook for burka, anyways (apologies :P). i wouldn't tell a jewish man he couldn't wear his kippah. i was thinking along the lines that it covered their face, then it occured to me that it didn't at all. (although if i watch baseball religiously i should get to wear my blue jays cap, ACLU!)

if they have coffee outside during the winter, they very well might.

If they are drinking coffee outside during winter where it's cold enough to need a ski mask, they aren't very sucessful bank robbers.

If they weren't taking a regular mug shot as well, I'd have an issue with this, but this is a cross-reference of what an individual looks like in and out of religious garb. If someone's walking around as Bobofet, I'd take a picture of him in the gettup as well as out.

It's not a caving to interest groups, it's suplimental information and documentation. A person is only unidentifiable if you don't know what they look like, and this second photo means we'll know what they look like in more circumstances.

BTW, you're prejudgist in this case, not racist. It's a cultural issue, not a skin tone issue.

I'm not bothered by the racial/politically correct issues involved nearly as much as I am by the wastefulness of taking a completely irrelevant picture, only to follow it up by taking the picture they'll probably actually use.

Other than that, I have no problem with making special exceptions for other religious beliefs. Quite a few things in the U.S. don't operate on Sundays or religious holidays, even though less prevalent religions could give a fluff less that it's Sunday, or Christmas, or Easter, or etc etc etc...given the founding principles of this country, we owe the same in return.

Mapleson, that is the stupidest arguemnt I've ever heard coming from you. What happened? Have you been mugged and hit over the head with something? Have you ingested any foreign substances?

I guess we should all know what we look like in disguise, eh? Perhaps we could have a whole portfolio of pictures.

1. Dressed as Santa
2. Dressed as the Easter Bunny
3. In full Batman Regalia
4. My Green Lantern Disguise
5. Posing as Richard Nixon

Come on, how far do we go? The bottom line is we should just do it the same way for everyone. Religious bullfluff be damned.

Everyone wants to scream about making sure that there are no Christmas Trees on Government property over the "holiday season", because the only people who would get offended or slighted are the "tolerant" Christians, not the "intolerant" Islamics. We're so politically correct in this fashion, we're becoming stupid.

Not disguise, everyday appearance. If you are going to commit to wearing a Santa Suit for the rest of your life, I'm going to take a mugshot of you in said suit when you commit a crime.

We go as far as common sense, and not non-existant extermes. This in the modern age, so it's not like a second mug shot costs material fees for film, it's all digital. It's 2 minutes of tax payer money that'll save thousands in prosecution charges later.

Christmas Trees are a waste of taxpayer money. Like the 10 Commandments and Creationism, it has no part in the state's function. The seperation of church and state is paramount, regardless of which church. We should look for economic efficiencies, not ideological pampering.

If you didn't have a photograph, could you pick a woman in a hijab out of a line up?

Christmas trees are a waste of taxpayer money. Nice argument there, I have no response for that one. However, I would like to point out the dichotomy of your argument about separation of church and state. Isn't a hijab a religious adornment? Isn't it? Well, if it is, it has NO place in the official business of the state, right?

Is that right?

Ps. Sure. she's the one wearing the mask. :) OK?

It's not a dichotomy as I was arguing that the duel photograph is justified under criminological purposes, not religious indulgence. If were adoption of Sharia Law, no photographs would be allowed at all. It isn't the state making women wear the hijab or the police force giving the woman a veil. I would photograph a Sikh with and without his turban on.

If you are unfamiliar with a line-up, they give you a selection of similar traited people. In this case, 5 women dressed alike, if you look no further than fabric they are wearing over a particular part of their body, you'll never recognize the individual.

I wonder if this is at all like how the women in flapper dresses disapproved of the conservative ankle-coverers.

Perhaps I'm not being clear here. Let's try this again.

Firstly, the idea of taking a mug shot of someone wearing a mask, veil, whatever is ludicrous on it's face.

If you're a criminal, you do NOT deserve to have any considerations made for your comfort, you have willingly given up your RIGHTS to any kind of consideration other than a FAIR TRIAL.

You have the right to remain silent, and it is highly recommended that you make use of it.

You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be afforded to you.

You DO NOT have the right to complain about having your picture taken for future identification purposes.

Cerb - you seem to be missing the difference between the separation of church function governing a state, and the state being under the obligation to not make rules guided by religious doctrine. Those are two very different things, but you're basing your argument on them being one in the same.

There is nothing in the theory of separation of church and state that says the state can't mandate a person be allowed to wear a haqib in a mugshot - there IS something in the theory of separation of church and state that requires a person to wear a hiqab in a mugshot.

It's not politically correct, it's constitutionally correct.

You are also incorrect about an ACCUSED criminal not having rights. Keep in mind, when you have a mugshot taken, you have generally not been convicted by a jury - and in most cases, not even formally charged with a crime. Unless you're trying to insinuate that no one has ever been falsely arrested/detained/charged, that is.

The idea that prisoners, convicted or not, don't have constitutional rights is just ludicrous - even outside the US, you'll be hard pressed to find countries that subscribe to this doctrine.

"BTW, you're prejudgist in this case, not racist. It's a cultural issue, not a skin tone issue."

mapleson, don't be fooled. i'm white, of course it's racism.

im going to go get arrested in a clown outfit, so i can demand the mugshot like that. they put mugshots in the paper here...


but seriously, if they're getting booked into jail they lose alot of rights, and getting their MUG SHOT taken with headwear that disguises their facial features shouldnt even been a question

and the 2 mugshots is a decent solution although it shouldnt be needed

you've obviously never been booked into jail then Now3
you have the right to do what they tell you, or get your ass beat.

or killed as the way they do it in Orange and LA County in SoCal

I pretty much agree with Cerberus here. I trust our trained law enforcement officers to pick up suspects with probable cause. They are trained to do this.

If any particular person fits within the rules of their training, then they will be photographed and printed. I really don't have much problem that two pictures are being taken except that it is a minor waste of time and money. What I have a problem with is that the useful picture can only be revealed by a specific command from a judge. That may not seem like much, but it fouls the ability to investigate and time is important. The greater good is served by having an efficient law enforcement system, so ideally the whole notion of cultural sensitivity should be discarded.

Believe me, when you get arrested, you don't get a heck of a lot of respect from the cops doing the job. They point guns at you. They invade your life. They trash your house. They haul you away in handcuffs. Taking your picture is pretty mild next to having a cop put on your boxers while your hands are cuffed behind your back.

Thank You, Terror for pointing out what I had been dancing around in my other posts. Yes, the taking of the mug shot is pretty mild at worst. I do tend to rely on our law enforcement people to at least have probable cause before making an arrest, or even an information stop when it comes to that.

If they don't, the case will be thrown out in court as a usual happenstance of such things, lawyers being made famous for ducking responsibility due to technicalities of the laws in question.

If you are stupid enough to get arrested wearing a shawl, veil, mask, whatever you may call it. You should be fully expecting that that will be removed from you and your sensitivities should not be considered in light of the events you were surrounded by that resulted in your arrest in the first place.

1st clue should have been...

Man, this is some stupid crap, you can be arrested for this, perhaps I should leave the area before the LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE get here and start arresting people.

Tell me that the average person is not able to recognize a situation where there will likely be arrests made. Go ahead.

3x, actually - never had any such problem.

I'm almost of the same page as Terror, but a person does not lose their right until (and in some case, even when) they are convicted.
A criminal still has the right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment, for example.

Which of these mug shots are more objectionable:
http://florida.arrests.org/...s/Ronald_Fox_5456774/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/.../Ronald_Wade_5376879/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/...leur_Mohamed_5650561/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/..._Kirkpatrick_5543023/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/.../Chase_White_5374098/?d=1

If those are all valid mug shots, why are you complaining about additional information in the form of a clean mug shot being obtainable when due cause is shown? Is the fact that due cause of suspicious is necessary that will slow the "investigation"?

Law enforcement agencies err on the side of over-emprisonment on the basis of "let the courts sort them out". Judicial oversight is just a check-and-balance built into the system to protect against overzelous police work. Yes, it's causes delays and incremental costs, but it's the price to pay to protect the innocent.

The fifth shot can't be serious. There is no way any judge wouldn't track that to an abysmal police department.

#1 appears to be unconscious? And whatever it is on his face appears to be surgical, as it looks to be stapled in. Would need some context to know if this is valid.

#2 should get a jailer fired.

#3 is valid to me as long as the scenario described above is played out.

#4 seems semi-valid as facial features (other than hair color) are easily identifiable, and the person could be recognized from this picture. A better picture would have been with the hat removed - can't say much on the mask since I don't know context of it.

#5 has to be a joke - that is just insane, and I hope someone got fired for it if it isn't.

Of course, I wouldn't ever look to the state of FL for examples of stellar police work. Last I saw, FL was ranked in the bottom of the barrel for almost all human, social, and protective services in the US.

It's America's Australia

You have special hatred for Florida. Your opinions are mostly great, but on this one you are a bit blind.

Its a criminal populace, I stand by my opinion

I Live in Florida and I'm not a criminal, legion. :) I'm not a saint either, but I'm no criminal.

The police work in Florida does seem highly suspect sometimes. I think it has more to do with the organization of it more than the administration of it.

For example, there is no true "city police department" here, there is really only the county "Sherrif" for law enforcement. It hearkens back to the good ole' days, with the good ole' boys running ths show.

Thus, what we have is a failure to police, so what we get is what we got.

That last picture should have cost some idjut his job for sure.

fdle is a state wife force? i mean, who holds fdle power in, say miami, can he go to tallahassee and have the same power as he would in miami?

Creberus, you seem to be backtracking on the quality of policemanship. Let's look at some of the pirates in Florida:

http://florida.arrests.org/...Kent_Brother_5682621/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/...illiam_Evans_5608775/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/.../Frank_Dulak_5363338/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/...wame_Johnson_5283738/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/...eryl_Agerton_5207761/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/.../Mark_Castle_1737584/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/...rt_Gutierrez_4043574/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/...l_Uptagrafft_5122990/?d=1

A few neck braces and masks not removed:
http://florida.arrests.org/.../Parker_Hunt_4659322/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/...ichael_Kelly_2772495/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/...bin_Mckinzie_5393314/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/...amuel_Stacey_5421198/?d=1
http://florida.arrests.org/.../Shawn_Smith_1718870/?d=1

If police work is not flawless, which no one is, then there will always be a margin of error in the system.

just checking my posting status. and cops aren't exempt from corruption. they belong to a union, it's guaranteed.

Mapleson..I'm a bit disturbed that you spend your waking hours perusing Florida mugshots

Many of those pics don't bother me. If a person is indeed missing an eye, they are almost certainly going to cover the open socket. I'd not allow a person with two eyeballs to wear an eye patch even if one of those eyeballs didn't function or looked a little strange.

As for the guys with the halos, you can't just take those off. They are literally screwed into their skull to support a severe neck injury. Removing the halo could leave them paralyzed or dead. We have to remember they are innocent until proven guilty and we must be careful not to harm them in any way unless and until they are convicted of a crime.