Family Announces Intent to Sue Over Police Forcing Accused Child Killer to Remove Her Scarf for Mugshot

nour-s-hadidIllinois police have been accused of violating religious sensitivities by forcing Nour Hadid, a 26-year-old woman accused of beating her 2-year-old niece Bhia Hadid to death over four days. She demanded to be photographed wearing her veil covering her face and her husband Alaeddin Hadid has announced an intention to sue the police for the “insult against our religion.”

It is hard to see the validity of the demand for a mugshot with a concealed face or hair. The police has a valid need to be able to have a full picture of the face of an arrested person.

However, I am a bit curious why the mugshot showed her bare shoulders when that is not necessary and would add to the problem. She appears virtually undressed and I fail to see why the police could not have place a jacket or cover over her shoulders given her religious beliefs.

Nour Hadid is accused of a pretty offensive act in any religion. The child was found with 55 separate bruises and was beaten “from head to toe.”

Nevertheless, the husband has promised that police are “really going to be in big trouble” for the mugshot.

For the full story, click here.

23 thoughts on “Family Announces Intent to Sue Over Police Forcing Accused Child Killer to Remove Her Scarf for Mugshot”

  1. The infamous tank top that is apparently more important than the life of Bhia, belonged to Ms. Hadid. She had worn a hijab that was connected to the top and not removeable. People are processed with the clothes they came in with, as the chief said no more and no less. Her top is more outerwear than a shirt, so can I be photographed in my jacket? No. Perhaps, she should have worn the seperate hijab and a shirt, then she could have kept her shirt on over the tank.

  2. Billy—

    You might want to brush up on your American history.

    If it weren’t for the French, we might be singing “God Save the Queen.” There were almost as many French troops at Yorktown as Americans, and it was French ships just offshore that kept the British Navy from reinforcing Cornwallis.

    WWII history as well: We fought hard, we fought well, and were the deciding factor in the ETO, but that said, it’s still kind of obnoxious for Americans to claim ALL all the credit for knocking out the Nazis, when the Brits were pretty much alone in the fight for over two years, and more people died on the Russian front than in all other theaters–combined.

    They couldn’t have done it without us, but we couldn’t have done it without them.

    And since you hate the French so much, does it follow that you disagree with their policy of standing up to Islamic extremists who think they should be bound only by Sharia law, even when they are living in Western democracies?

  3. “And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die”

    Doncha know, that word “stones” was a mis-transliteration from hebrew (nobody really understands that stuff and hebrews are notorious for dropping their “r’s”) and it really meant “stone him with *stone(r)s*–like marijauna and other such stoners.

    “that he die” was a mis-translation of *that he sigh*, as in ‘ah, man this is good junk and a real groovy trip, man’…because certainly the good bible would not say such mean-spirited things as a son’s own beloved mother and father allowing the killing a family member of their own flesh and blood, now would it?

    Sing along now, all-to-gether-now 1-2-3….

    the b-i-b-l-e, yes that’s the book for me…..
    everybody must get stoned
    they stone you when you…

Comments are closed.