|
On May 02 2012 14:23 xrapture wrote:
god dammit there are so many lucky people in the world.
who wouldn't undergo his ordeal for a life's fortune? why does this shit never happen to me...
the article said he nearly died from kidney failure, he will likely have health issues regarding his kidneys for the rest of his life. No amount of money is worth reduced health and well being.
I think this is a pretty good example of the growing disconnect happening between the police and the public in America. Police are becoming more and more militarized and using tactics that get utilized in police state countries. There is little regard for human dignity or human welfare.
|
I think this is a pretty good example of the growing disconnect happening between the police and the public in America. Police are becoming more and more militarized and using tactics that get utilized in police state countries. There is little regard for human dignity or human welfare.
Except the part where the very first time he saw anyone in five days, they immediately called for an ambulance. It's pretty obvious that they just messed up big time and actually forgot about him. You have no evidence whatsoever to connect "more militarized" and "using... police state [tactics]" to the facts of this case. You also have no evidence to be making the emotionally overwrought claim that "there is little regard for human dignity or human welfare."
|
Couldn't he just scream constantly? It says they found him by chance by hearing strange noises... that means it couldn't be that hard to hear him.
|
Why don´t most people just read the articel properly?
"Seven suspects were brought back to county detention." One was released, but "accidentally left in one of the cells," a statement from the DEA read.
To me this reads as if he was not guilty of anything (he was just in the wrong house at the wrong time). They released him but the other 6 had to stay in custody. If the others were also released awaiting trial the sentence would have been "They were released but one was accidentally left in one of the cells". So that means the authorities held the others and detained them in a more permanent jail location as they had a case against them and released (well tried to) the person they couldn´t prove had done anything wrong.
This also implies he most likely didn´t have the meth on him himself when entering the cell. Because if he had it why would they release him?
Furthermore for anybody wondering why he didn´t scream until somebody would come: "Sources say a worker at the DEA discovered the man by chance about five days later after hearing strange noises coming from the holding cells"
This reads to me (although obvious speculation as I don´t know the details of the complex) as if it was a cleaner or something like that who found him. It is very well possible that nobody would enter the area of the holding cells when they were empty. And why would they? Also I think these sort of holding cells are in most cases pretty soundproof so the drunks and whatever can rage without disturbing anybody else. This diminishes the accidental discovery of him in an area believed to be empty even more.
So on the face of the post in the OP and knowing no additional details this story could be true imo.
|
On May 03 2012 00:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I think this is a pretty good example of the growing disconnect happening between the police and the public in America. Police are becoming more and more militarized and using tactics that get utilized in police state countries. There is little regard for human dignity or human welfare. Except the part where the very first time he saw anyone in five days, they immediately called for an ambulance. It's pretty obvious that they just messed up big time and actually forgot about him. You have no evidence whatsoever to connect "more militarized" and "using... police state [tactics]" to the facts of this case. You also have no evidence to be making the emotionally overwrought claim that "there is little regard for human dignity or human welfare."
you are correct about my comments of the police being more "militarized" using "police state tactics" in regards to this specific case which so far is the DEA forgetting about an inmate. My comment is about how the role of police in general is changing. Human dignity and human welfare i just have to point you at the TSA or the fact that riot police are released on any gathering it seems today. yesterdays Occupy movement ended up pretty violent, numerous video's of protestors being beaten bloody.
this event is just another occurance in a downward trend. At best this case is pure neglect brought about by lack of due diligence with regard people that fully depend on you for survival.
|
On May 02 2012 14:13 goswser wrote:
I don't think its right to give millions of dollars to some kid who was just arrested for drug possession and carrying illegal weapons. I mean sure it sucks that he got left in there for a week, but the administration who messed up should be punished - if he wins the lawsuit it will be taxpayer dollars going to a criminal.
Those were found in the house, not on the detainee.
|
On May 03 2012 00:24 Dryzt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 00:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:I think this is a pretty good example of the growing disconnect happening between the police and the public in America. Police are becoming more and more militarized and using tactics that get utilized in police state countries. There is little regard for human dignity or human welfare. Except the part where the very first time he saw anyone in five days, they immediately called for an ambulance. It's pretty obvious that they just messed up big time and actually forgot about him. You have no evidence whatsoever to connect "more militarized" and "using... police state [tactics]" to the facts of this case. You also have no evidence to be making the emotionally overwrought claim that "there is little regard for human dignity or human welfare." you are correct about my comments of the police being more "militarized" using "police state tactics" in regards to this specific case which so far is the DEA forgetting about an inmate. My comment is about how the role of police in general is changing. Human dignity and human welfare i just have to point you at the TSA or the fact that riot police are released on any gathering it seems today. yesterdays Occupy movement ended up pretty violent, numerous video's of protestors being beaten bloody. this event is just another occurance in a downward trend. At best this case is pure neglect brought about by lack of due diligence with regard people that fully depend on you for survival.
This is kind of off topic, but from what I read on CNN regarding yesterday's occupy movement
"Though police waited on surrounding streets with busses, police dogs and motor scooters, the protest continued to be peaceful as of midnight." (http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-784282?hpt=hp_bn1) - last line
Sorry to be verging into off topic discussion, but you basically admitted that your comments about a more militarized police force in the U.S. have nothing really to do with this story, so I feel its only fair to provide an equally off topic counter argument.
|
They'll probably say that he was under the influence of illegal narcotics, and his testimony is not dependable at any point. Without alternative eye witnesses and a crime scene well under the DEA's control, he's not going to have much of a case proving that he didn't just refuse food and liquid for days on straight with plans to be litigious.
|
It's beyond all reason why drugs are illigal in the first place. Sure they shouldn't be sold to people below a certain age (18 europe, 21 USA) but this restriction can be implemented (like for guns and alkohol).
Especially in the USA who are so proud on their Freedom and Liberality I don't understand why drugs, which to consume is only a personal choice, much like owning a weapon, or drinking alcohol, or smoking, which all can potentially cause harm, is illigal for mature persons, and mature persons is what the liberal state expects you to be, is illigal.
|
On May 03 2012 00:55 Wrath 2.1 wrote:
I don't understand why drugs, which to consume is only a personal choice, much like owning a weapon, or drinking alcohol, or smoking, which all can potentially cause harm, is illigal for mature persons, and mature persons is what the liberal state expects you to be, is illigal.
It's an accident of history around which huge bureaucracies have developed that keep hundreds of thousands of people employed. One reason anyway.
|
We should call the dea's sponsors and totally rage at them.
I wonder how it would of worked out if he had died, i think better for the DEA if the inmate died and isn't that a wierd turn.
|
On May 03 2012 00:43 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
They'll probably say that he was under the influence of illegal narcotics, and his testimony is not dependable at any point. Without alternative eye witnesses and a crime scene well under the DEA's control, he's not going to have much of a case proving that he didn't just refuse food and liquid for days on straight with plans to be litigious.
they have already admitted to sticking him in the cell for 5 days and not giving him food.
hell he wasnt even suppose to be there. Lets see the paper work they did for processing. Oh wait he was suppose to be released 5 days ago
If you people dont know how the jail/court systems work then dont post stupid shit. Its not ok for anyone to do this kind of thing no matter what
EDIT: and for those people saying he obviously didnt scream loud enough, have you ever been to jail? they dont give a fuck if your making noise, they will either tell you to shut the fuck up or possibly detain you even more if your becoming a threat
so most likely they heard him and just thought "just another kid going to be sentenced" why would they check on him when someone else is suppose to be
|
On May 02 2012 23:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:52 -_-Quails wrote:On May 02 2012 22:43 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 02 2012 22:41 Acritter wrote:On May 02 2012 21:16 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 02 2012 21:14 ddinoboy wrote:
now, imagine if he had died. we would have never known. Really? How do you figure that? Imagine. You are a guard at that jail. You find a FUCKING CORPSE in your cell, that appears to have died of dehydration. What do you do? Do you 'fess up? "Hey, guys, sorry, but we let this guy die." Hell no. You dispose of the body, and fuss with the records so that it looks like he just "disappeared". So then eventually someone calls. "Where's my son". Eventually people ask. Eventually they discover he was detained by the DEA. And then the DEA eventually not only has a negligent death on their hands, but also active effort to cover it up, undermining the legitimacy of the entire organization and the US gov't image. I don't think so They had already done the paperwork saying he was released. All the DEA would need to do is stand by the paperwork and it would appear he went missing after release. Sorry but that still seems like paranoid conspiracy to me. Just because it could happen does not mean it would likely happen. Why would they take that risk? Investigation into his disappearance would quickly reveal that no one ever saw him after the DEA "released him". Follow up questioning into his "release" -- which no one ever actually confirmed -- reveals inconsistency in accounts of what happened, and maybe someone slips up, stating that although they signed forms, they never actually say anyone released. And so on. Eventually it caves in and then there is a huge mess. You may be the type of risky individual that thinks the DEA should've gone for the lie in order to save face. It's good that they don't operate in your high risk way, and instead prefer transparency, because otherwise they'd find themselves in a lot of trouble very quickly.
I'm saying that it wouldn't be as easy to pin blame on the DEA as was suggested if he had died and they had gone for a cover up. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the operation of the DEA in US territory to comment on the likelihood of such a situation, though I hope that it is very low.
__________________________________________________
Given the human propensity to unknowingly create false memories, it is also possible that the officers supposed to release him may even have a 'memory' of one of them releasing him. As that kind of release would be routine for them, their minds would already have a detailed template to base such a memory off. This could explain how he was forgotten - if they were sidetracked between completing the paperwork and releasing him, they might have assumed that they had finished up when they saw the completed paperwork on their desk when they got back to it.
On May 02 2012 23:50 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 23:41 TALegion wrote:On May 02 2012 14:30 Sinensis wrote:
This is horrible and I wish him the best, but I came into this thread expecting waaaaay worse because of how the title is worded.
"FORCED to drink urine..." Well, he would've died otherwise. No person forced him, but I guess it's fair to say he was forced by the circumstances. And this is tricky to me. Isolation for 5 days (he had to be to be forgotten, correct?), drinking your own piss, and eating meth off a floor for a few millions. Tricky, but I'd say it's prolly worth it. A person of average health can generally survive ~10days without water, sure you could argue he didn't know if he would ever get out but he could have gone the 5 days without drinking his piss. Altho doing the meth probably didn't do anything to clear his judgement
As he was on the brink of kidney failure by the fifth day, it would appear that he may not have been of average health and would have struggled to survive to even the sixth day, let alone the tenth.
|
On May 02 2012 23:50 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 23:41 TALegion wrote:On May 02 2012 14:30 Sinensis wrote:
This is horrible and I wish him the best, but I came into this thread expecting waaaaay worse because of how the title is worded.
"FORCED to drink urine..." Well, he would've died otherwise. No person forced him, but I guess it's fair to say he was forced by the circumstances. And this is tricky to me. Isolation for 5 days (he had to be to be forgotten, correct?), drinking your own piss, and eating meth off a floor for a few millions. Tricky, but I'd say it's prolly worth it. A person of average health can generally survive ~10days without water, sure you could argue he didn't know if he would ever get out but he could have gone the 5 days without drinking his piss. Altho doing the meth probably didn't do anything to clear his judgement
You cannot survive 10 days without water. you will die. In fact, 3 days is generally considered to be the time when people start dropping dead from dehydration.
In survival situations, people in the desert have been found dead less than 24 hours from the time they got lost.
This guy is really lucky he isn't dead. He was probably already a bit dehydrated when they picked him up, considering the circumstances.
|
On May 03 2012 02:26 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 23:50 NotSorry wrote:On May 02 2012 23:41 TALegion wrote:On May 02 2012 14:30 Sinensis wrote:
This is horrible and I wish him the best, but I came into this thread expecting waaaaay worse because of how the title is worded.
"FORCED to drink urine..." Well, he would've died otherwise. No person forced him, but I guess it's fair to say he was forced by the circumstances. And this is tricky to me. Isolation for 5 days (he had to be to be forgotten, correct?), drinking your own piss, and eating meth off a floor for a few millions. Tricky, but I'd say it's prolly worth it. A person of average health can generally survive ~10days without water, sure you could argue he didn't know if he would ever get out but he could have gone the 5 days without drinking his piss. Altho doing the meth probably didn't do anything to clear his judgement You cannot survive 10 days without water. you will die. In fact, 3 days is generally considered to be the time when people start dropping dead from dehydration. In survival situations, people in the desert have been found dead less than 24 hours from the time they got lost. This guy is really lucky he isn't dead. He was probably already a bit dehydrated when they picked him up, considering the circumstances. 3days out in a hot summer sun and being active yes. Sitting in shaded cell doing nothing, much closer to 10days
|
On May 02 2012 22:52 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:45 ecstatica wrote:
HAHAHAHA
So engineering student thought that meth was food? Maybe he ate his glasses for that same purpose as well?
It's horrible and all but how much of an idiot can someone be (if he was honest about it in his story)? Well it is really not meant in an insulting way, but you come across as an idiot here.. After some days without water, your brain does not work properly anymore, so labelling someone without a proper functioning brain who commits seemingly stupid desperation acts an idiot, is not the smartest move from you.
Make sure you research everything you're about to post in the future, you don't seem to be one of the people that have it easy. People can perfectly survive without water for 7-10 days on average, that's of course if they are not dehydrating themselves by drinking own urine and eating meth off the floor. If you somehow think that 5 days with no food equals clinical insanity - please don't. I'd also like to find out when he took that meth specifically, it probably happened day 1 or 2 which makes all your arguments even sillier.
If you don't think that people can go without food and water for 7 days - educate yourself. There's really not much to add here. Your ability to decide whether I'm an idiot or not is severely lacking since you're beyond ignorant.
|
On May 03 2012 02:26 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 23:50 NotSorry wrote:On May 02 2012 23:41 TALegion wrote:On May 02 2012 14:30 Sinensis wrote:
This is horrible and I wish him the best, but I came into this thread expecting waaaaay worse because of how the title is worded.
"FORCED to drink urine..." Well, he would've died otherwise. No person forced him, but I guess it's fair to say he was forced by the circumstances. And this is tricky to me. Isolation for 5 days (he had to be to be forgotten, correct?), drinking your own piss, and eating meth off a floor for a few millions. Tricky, but I'd say it's prolly worth it. A person of average health can generally survive ~10days without water, sure you could argue he didn't know if he would ever get out but he could have gone the 5 days without drinking his piss. Altho doing the meth probably didn't do anything to clear his judgement You cannot survive 10 days without water. you will die. In fact, 3 days is generally considered to be the time when people start dropping dead from dehydration. In survival situations, people in the desert have been found dead less than 24 hours from the time they got lost. This guy is really lucky he isn't dead. He was probably already a bit dehydrated when they picked him up, considering the circumstances.
You can. In fact I know people that did that by "fasting". Literally no food or water and it went for 11 or 14 days, can't remember exactly. Of course if you've never done it or physically unfit you will suffer possible consequences, kidney failure is only one of them.
|
On May 02 2012 22:46 treekiller wrote:
A simple mistake. These things happen.. Ive put my dog in a cage for about 5 days and forgot about him. He died though. tt.
You probably shouldn't have children.
|
On May 03 2012 02:32 ecstatica wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:52 AngryMag wrote:On May 02 2012 22:45 ecstatica wrote:
HAHAHAHA
So engineering student thought that meth was food? Maybe he ate his glasses for that same purpose as well?
It's horrible and all but how much of an idiot can someone be (if he was honest about it in his story)? Well it is really not meant in an insulting way, but you come across as an idiot here.. After some days without water, your brain does not work properly anymore, so labelling someone without a proper functioning brain who commits seemingly stupid desperation acts an idiot, is not the smartest move from you. Make sure you research everything you're about to post in the future, you don't seem to be one of the people that have it easy. People can perfectly survive without water for 7-10 days on average, that's of course if they are not dehydrating themselves by drinking own urine and eating meth off the floor. If you somehow think that 5 days with no food equals clinical insanity - please don't. I'd also like to find out when he took that meth specifically, it probably happened day 1 or 2 which makes all your arguments even sillier. If you don't think that people can go without food and water for 7 days - educate yourself. There's really not much to add here. Your ability to decide whether I'm an idiot or not is severely lacking since you're beyond ignorant.
have you ever gone a few days without food? i went about two days without eating anything once while i was living with my brother in utah, and i have to say, it was probably the worst two days of my life. i was so fucking hungry by the time i actually got some pizza that i wanted to die. i almost cried the second day.
now, i'm not some uber-tough survivorman type that can just beast through any hardship, but i'm not exactly a wimp either. five days without food or water sounds like a living hell to me. 10 days without food or water and 75% chance that your ass is dead (maybe not but who the fuck actually wants to test that and prove me wrong?) even if you aren't dead, that shit would be so fucking terrible i can't even imagine how bad that would be or what i would be doing at the end of it.
|
On May 03 2012 00:55 Wrath 2.1 wrote:
It's beyond all reason why drugs are illigal in the first place. Sure they shouldn't be sold to people below a certain age (18 europe, 21 USA) but this restriction can be implemented (like for guns and alkohol).
Especially in the USA who are so proud on their Freedom and Liberality I don't understand why drugs, which to consume is only a personal choice, much like owning a weapon, or drinking alcohol, or smoking, which all can potentially cause harm, is illigal for mature persons, and mature persons is what the liberal state expects you to be, is illigal.
This thread is not a place for this useless debate but the argument could go along the same line as socialized healthcare - some members of society are not super responsible and don't always make proper decisions for themselves, especially at a younger age. You might think 18 is mature, to me 95% of 18-year-olds are underdeveloped children who seem to still be sucking on their moms tit. Make it legal to smoke meth then have retards claim it increases cncentration and helps you cram for the exams - have 2/3rds of all students do it - great idea. RL doesn't always works the way internet does (or Ron Paul thinks it does)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
