DEA apologizes to student who says he drank his urine to survive

Discussion in 'Civil Rights & Privacy' started by Lisa Simeone, May 2, 2012.

  1. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    But hey, they apologized, so that makes it okay.

    DEA apologizes to student who says he drank his urine to survive
     
  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Note the usual B.S. about "high standards". Federal law enforcement & wannabes have no standards worth mentioning.
     
  3. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    Yes, that does sound familiar...hmm...gee...where have I heard that line before??? :rolleyes:
     
  4. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

  5. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

  6. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    yeah, baby!!! Make it hurt. Sue the bastards individually and impoverish them as well. There cannot possibly be ANY immunity at play here.

    realistically, how much pain can they extract for this near fatal event? Looks like kidnapping, false arrest, false imprisonment, gross negligence, any number of civil rights violations (heck, you're the lawyer, you tell me..)

    Mr. Chong, don't you dare settle. Extract the full pound of flesh, man, the full pound.
     
    TravelnMedic likes this.
  7. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Of course I want him to win, but as you all know, it's expensive to go to court. A case can drag on for years. Most people can't afford it. If he can settle, I wouldn't blame him.
     
  8. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    When I was younger there were rare occasions when some of my friends had room-mates who were into drugs. I remember on incident when I was sitting downstairs talking with some friends at their home, when it became apparent later in the evening that their room mate had been smoking dope upstairs. God knows how much of what kind of illicit drugs this idiot of a room-mate had. (She was a total dolt and a thief to boot. She took out lines of credit with the identity of the young sailor she roomed with and ran him into debt. He was unable to prove it wasn't his debt and ended up paying it off over the 7 years that followed.)

    Those of us talking downstairs were all in the military. We never had anything to do with drugs. We all had plans for our lives, and popping positive on a drug screening or having a drug arrest would have done us serious harm. What would have happened to us if someone outside the apartment had smelled smoke from the ditsy room-mate's dope wafting from the second story window? I don't know and I don't like to imagine.

    This college kid went through (expletive deleted). Hopefully he learned to have absolutely nothing to do with dope or people who do dope - ever! The police who prosecute these criminals are just like the dopers. They're dishonest, careless and indifferent to the suffering they cause. If you have anything to do with illegal drugs or someone who does illegal drugs, sooner or later you're going to incur serious harm.

    If I were him I'd take whatever modest settlement that might come from a civil suit and never take a similar risk with my personal security - ever again. He'd have a lot better case if he hadn't been picked up in the company of dopers.

    Even while I'm in favor of ending the war on drugs, I believe that one of the best self-defense strategies going is to stay as far away as possible from dopers. I've never known one who wasn't a destructive force in the lives of the people who were foolish enough to get close, even accidentally.
     
    nachtnebel likes this.
  9. RB

    RB Founding Member

    And taxpayers will foot the bill for the governments case and likely pay any monies if awarded.
     
  10. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Well, unfortunately, this is always the case, as we know. I'm sure insurance companies cover it, but we, of course, are also paying the insurance premiums. Basically we're footing the bill for abuse. It's a vicious cycle.
     
  11. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I have a big problem with that part of the equation. Yes, "we the people" are culpable here. It's our fault the "War on Drugs" is being waged ineffectively. Criminalizing possession of drugs and employing scum and immoral tactics to prosecute drug users is wrong. We deserve to pay part of the cost for our foolishness in accepting the current approach to reducing drug abuse. That being said, shouldn't the person or person's who neglected the detainee be charged with criminal negligence?

    If I were the victim I would be satisfied the local government had done all it could if they prosecuted the parties responsible. I'd sue the local government for failure to prosecute the perpetrator/s, not the error itself.

    as an aside:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...mexican-president-calls-drug-war-useless.html

    My thoughts exactly.
     
  12. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I think any government employee should be held accountable for their individual actions. I do not favor limited immunity which I believe is partially the reasons that police and others push the boundaries and at times engage in clearly illegal acts when supposedly enforcing the law.

    Limited immunity should be done away with and let each person be held accountable for their acts.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  13. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I agree that drugs are a dead end. Physically and in other ways ruinous. This kid should have never, yada yada. However, the facts are beyond dispute. That war has been long, long lost. Our jails and prisons are filled at ridiculous levels, to the point where the Supreme Court has intervened to let tens of thousands of the jailed free (in California) because the state couldn't take care of them properly. The cost in corruption of our law enforcement and jailers and others in position of authority has also been severe, either direct corruption or indirect, such as seizing property for departmental budgets. The cost in terms of liberty stolen has been extreme, with the desire to play "gotcha" motivating illegal, immoral searches everywhere, not just at airports, buses, and trains. As shown in this case where this kid was treated like a block of wood. The war has been lost.

    At the same time the secular state has kicked to the curb ONE major way to help people avoid these things, by driving out religion and religious expression from the public square. Whether one likes that area or not, it was a major influencer in getting people to live in non destructive fashion.
     
  14. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Well, I'm not going to get involved in a debate over religion. If people want religion, let them have it; it's none of my business. But please, there are just as many religious hypocrites as irreligious ones.
     
  15. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I agree with most of what you said, but there is no reason why this guy should accept a "modest" settlement.

    Kidney failure is often forever. There are 5 stages of ESRD (end-stage renal disease), and once you're on that chart it's all but impossible to get off. Unless we get a health-care system where pre-existing conditions don't matter, this kid faces a lifetime of uninsurability and/or major exceptions in his coverage.
     
    Sunny Goth likes this.
  16. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    The main problem I see with secularism with respect to the War on Drugs is "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." The "War on Drugs is dumb, dumb, dumb; it is not possible to achieve Good through doing evil. On the other hand, many of the idiots who participate in the War on Drugs are Bible thumpers. Clearly memorizing Bible verses hasn't helped them one iota.

    If the malfeasants who abuse others within the criminal justice system don't realize that wantonly tormenting other people offends God, and offending God is the most dangerous act any being can commit, then they are beyond human assistance.
     
  17. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Good point. I admit I hadn't thought of that.
     
  18. MaximumSisu

    MaximumSisu Requiescat in Pace

    1. I spoke to my friend udontknowme (who is the kind gentleman, and my former commander, who allows my remote operation) who is a physician. He's optimistic that Daniel will be alright in the short term - the long term is another thing. Without a baseline, it may be difficult to assess to what degree he has been damaged, and there are many cases of CKD (Chronic Kidney Disease, of which ESRD is Stage 5) that become manifest long after the insult of severe dehydration.

    2. I also spoke to an AUSA of my acquaintance, who is glad he doesn't have to defend this case.

    3. Any settlement will likely be out of the taxpayers' pocket. And the long term costs of Daniel's medical care will also probably be ours, as ESRD is covered, at any age, by a special Medicare program.
     
  19. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/daniel-chong-cell-four-days-survival-mode_n_1473753.html

    If he wasn't a suspect, why did they cuff him again? There is so much abuse in this story, one thing piled on top of another. How many other people has this happened to that we'll never find out about? Remember the guy who was "forgotten" in solitary confinement for 2 years?? There's a thread on that here from a few months ago.

    Frankly, with the NDAA, this kind of thing is now legal. Indefinite detention indeed. I think it's entirely possible this was deliberate. I don't know.
     
  20. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Not an argument for it, just noting a consequence of a deliberate policy, which was to remove one major source of encouragement to stay away from drugs. It wasn't to argue that it was 100% effective and didn't come with the unwanted side effects that Elizabeth pointed out.

    Putting aside my civil libertarian hat, it might have made sense in the distant past to criminalize drugs, given their bad effects and the small numbers of people who engaged in them. But for the last couple of decades, criminalizing it has been an insane approach, given the numbers of people using drugs. It is especially ludicrous when you discover that illicit drug money has been spent defeating decriminalization efforts. Gotta keep prices up.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.

Share This Page