|
tl;dr - DEA in San Diego is incompetent, puts a student in a holding cell and forgets about him for 5 days. By virtue of forgetting about him, said student doesn't get food or water and is forced to drink his own urine and eat meth left in the cell by a previous occupant.
Given San Diego's proximity to the Mexican border, the staggering incompetence of the local DEA office is more than a little troubling. One can hope that the agents working on preventing cross border drug trafficking aren't the ones going out and busting college student parties. This incident is tangentally related to the larger drug war (if marijuana and ecstacy weren't illegal he wouldn't have been detained) but its seems to me its more about how amazingly bad some people are at their jobs.
A San Diego college student detained for several days in a county detention facility cell is seeking an attorney and may be considering filing a civil lawsuit sources tell NBCSanDiego.
The 24-year old UCSD engineering student was left in the cell for five days without food or water, seemingly forgotten by the federal authorities who detained him.
He was one of seven people detained after a Drug Enforcement Administration ecstasy raid in University City on April 21, according to a DEA statement.
"The individual was at the house by his own admission," the DEA confirmed Monday.
During the raid, authorities confiscated ecstasy, marijuana, prescription medication, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and a white powdery substance that was described as a synthetic hallucinogen. They also seized numerous weapons including a Russian rifle, handguns and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
"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.
The defendants were brought back to the DEA office after the raid and processed. The suspects were moved around the five cells at the detention facility during the proceeding. None were strip or body cavity searched, the DEA stated.
A law enforcement source told NBC 7 that the student was handcuffed and held in a room no larger than the average bathroom.
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.
When authorities with the DEA discovered that the student was still in the cell, they immediately called emergency medical services.
In the cell, the detainee told authorities he found a white powdery substance, which he took, the statement said.
Later testing revealed the substance was methamphetamine.
Sources close to the student say he nearly died of kidney failure in Sharp hospital due to the dehydration he experienced. He was treated for several days and released.
He is not currently under arrest, authorities with the DEA said.
San Diego defense attorney Gretchen Von Helms says the victim could get millions if he files a lawsuit.
"In all my years of practice I've never heard of the DEA or any Federal government employee simply forgetting about someone that they have in their care," she said.
"There has to be repercussions if people do not follow the safety and the care when they have a human being in their custody."
Former federal prosecutor John Kirby said he’s familiar with the holding cells at the DEA office. He told NBC 7 San Diego that the rooms have no bathrooms and the suspect likely went without food or water.
Given his familiarity with the DEA, Kirby said this incident is “inconceivable” because every detainee is processed, and it would be hard to get lost in the shuffle.
“You talk about whether they might have done it intentionally, No way because somebody's career is done over this,” added Kirby.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/DEA-Detainee-Found-White-Powdery-Substance-in-Cell-149596435.html
|
Well seeing how its USA, he'll probably sue them and get a few million dollars OLOLOLOL
|
that would piss me off for sure.
on a relevant note, i think this kid is going to be suing the pants off the state fairly soon. 10 mil at least, is my guess. i would definitely be willing to drink my own urine for 5 days for that kind of return.
|
Welp, on the bright side that student is probably going to be insanely rich.
|
What the fuck? Honestly, how do you just forget about someone you are detaining? That is like taking your cat and putting in a room to punish it for shitting on the carpet, only to not take it out for like a week while not giving it anything it needs.
It is also kinda crazy how much shit this guy had on him: ecstasy, marijuana, meds, shrooms, other hallucinogens, multiple guns, and ammunition? What was he planning on doing with that much stuff?
|
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.
|
Wow this is absolutely sickening. I can't believe that you can just 'forget about' locking a guy up.
|
Sigh. Depressing how incompetent people can be. And even worse that this is the DEA... I personally abhor the war on drugs so if this becomes a way to discredit the agency, I won't mind at all.
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Zahir wrote:
that would piss me off for sure.
on a relevant note, i think this kid is going to be suing the pants off the state fairly soon. 10 mil at least, is my guess. i would definitely be willing to drink my own urine for 5 days for that kind of return.
Are you kidding? Drinking nothing but your own urine, stuck in a bathroom sized cell, handcuffed. forced to literally eat meth off the floor? Then nearly experience serious kidney failure and die.
Also this should require a full review of the incident, and a huge amount of compensation to be awarded.
|
I'd drink my urine AND take meth for 10mil. DEA, please lock me up! Make sure to forget about me for 5 days as well.
|
The weapons most likely weren't illegal, at least by themselves. Throwing prohibited drugs into the mix, howerver, probably would have made them illegal if only because of some subsection of a subsection of the penal code that makes it ~more illegal~ to have drugs and guns instead of just drugs (its standard for the police to seize weapons in a drug raid whether or not said weapons were otherwise legally owned).
|
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.
So u think criminals (btw... text said that he was actually released, just forgotten) dont have the same rights as other ppl? yeay, Americans <3
User was warned for this post
|
Innocent until proven guilty is something mentioned a lot in the US justice system.
Doesn't mean anyone actually follows it.
|
Next Bear Grylls in the making...
|
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.
Didn't say he was arrested for drug possession or illegal weapons; only said that he was in a house where such things were occurring when a raid occurred. Quite the conclusion the jump to from that.
Seems to me like he deserves millions. For all we know he did nothing wrong. Even if he did, that's a completely unacceptable way to treat anyone, criminal or not. Do you think he deserves nothing from it?
|
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...
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Noruxas wrote:
Well seeing how its USA, he'll probably sue them and get a few million dollars OLOLOLOL
? I dont see how this is funny. If that's not a legitimate reason to sue, then I dunno what is.
|
If he doesnt win, there is no justice.
|
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.
did you even take the effort to read the op? He was released because he wasn't a criminal.
|
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..."
|
A few million isn't going to help you with early retirement but still ^^
|
he wasnt guaranteed to live, so i dont get why everybodys going "millions of dollars for this plx", he couldve died. sure maybe he doesnt deserve millions of dollars but he should get compensation
DEA got lucky here. if he died they would be in deep, deep shit. that said, they should be in deep shit anyway, stuff like this shouldnt happen at all even to lawbreaking detainees, thats just messed
|
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.
Probably should be arresting the people who left him there to starve, they're criminals here too. At least they'll probably lose their jobs.
Maybe not though, sheriff joe has cost arizona millions of dollars and hasn't lost his job yet
|
"Student "Forgotten" in DEA Custody Mulls Civil Suit"
I bet he didn't mull it over that long...
|
This may be the fact that I'm only replying based on the TL;DR, but what? He ate meth? He saw meth crystals lying about and was all, "I'm hungry" and just swallowed that shit? What was he thinking!?
|
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..."
Yes, dying of dehydration is clearly an equally valid course of action here.
On May 02 2012 14:35 UmiNotsuki wrote:
This may be the fact that I'm only replying based on the TL;DR, but what? He ate meth? He saw meth crystals lying about and was all, "I'm hungry" and just swallowed that shit? What was he thinking!?
I doubt he was thinking very well a couple days into his detention.
|
On May 02 2012 14:35 UmiNotsuki wrote:
This may be the fact that I'm only replying based on the TL;DR, but what? He ate meth? He saw meth crystals lying about and was all, "I'm hungry" and just swallowed that shit? What was he thinking!?
I'm going to die anyways? Why wouldnt you if no one was giving you food? He didn't exactly have a ham sandwich in his pocket.
|
On May 02 2012 14:37 General Nuke Em wrote:Show nested quote +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..." Yes, dying of dehydration is clearly an equally valid course of action here.
I thought they were making him drink his own pee by literal force.
Like, "Drink piss or we'll shoot!"
|
|
|
As opposed to drink piss or you'll die because you were unlawfully placed in solitary confinement without food or water for 5 days?
|
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 wasn't forced to, I guess. He could've chosen the only other option of slowly dying of dehydration.
|
Wait wait, where does anything ever say he drank urine?
Edit: ahh ok in another source the kid claims he did.
|
Do you think he had a cup or do you think... uh... he used "other" means? Maybe it was the meth. 
|
On May 02 2012 14:39 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 14:37 General Nuke Em 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..." Yes, dying of dehydration is clearly an equally valid course of action here. I thought they were making him drink his own pee by literal force. Like, "Drink piss or we'll shoot!"
Doesn't matter. He had to drink or else he would have died. The misinterpretation is on your end. Discussing the title of the thread any further only derails this conversation.
|
On May 02 2012 14:35 UmiNotsuki wrote:
This may be the fact that I'm only replying based on the TL;DR, but what? He ate meth? He saw meth crystals lying about and was all, "I'm hungry" and just swallowed that shit? What was he thinking!?
Perhaps instead of simply padding your post count, you could make it through the first 3 lines of a post without snapping your wrist to the reply button and openly stating that you a) put virtually no thought into your post and b) did not actually read the post you're responding to. And afterward, spend at least 5-10 minutes on your post in an effort to minimize any grammatical or spelling errors, maximize the fleshing out of ideas, and make sure that the thought you are trying to convey can be clearly discerned from what you've written. I've currently spent about 3 minutes on this post alone.
In fact, the whole of team liquid could probably do with that advice.
In regards to the situation with this student, he should probably sue them. Whomever is in charge will no doubt be fired.
It seems odd to me that, for five days, no one bothered to walk around the office once. I don't know how no one heard him sooner, unless perhaps he purposely stayed there as long as he could--I feel like someone would have heard him way before 5 days, in fact they probably would have heard him about 9 hours into the first day after he realized that no one has come to check on him.
|
Will prob never go to court, they'll compensate him for a large amount to avoid proceedings
|
Title leads me to believe that he was sentenced to drink urine. Then I imagined a guy doing a keg stand, but with urine. For 5 days straight.
|
@goswser
"The individual was at the house by his own admission," the DEA confirmed Monday.
nowhere does it say that the drugs and guns were his. or that the house was his.
|
Story seems kind of iffy to me...\
To be honest, it almost seems like he was fishing for a lawsuit by hiding quietly in the cell or something...And he's likely lying about the meth, my guess is he brought it with him + other substances (given no strip search).
Actually, he probably was brought in, took drugs, blacked out, then the guards didn't see him when checking the cell, and there ya go...
Whole thing still reeks of a planned civil suit, but he'll win anyhow via settlement. Good plan.
|
On May 02 2012 14:57 PassionFruit wrote:
Story seems kind of iffy to me...\
To be honest, it almost seems like he was fishing for a lawsuit by hiding quietly in the cell or something...And he's likely lying about the meth, my guess is he brought it with him + other substances (given no strip search).
Actually, he probably was brought in, took drugs, blacked out, then the guards didn't see him when checking the cell, and there ya go...
Whole thing still reeks of a planned civil suit, but he'll win anyhow via settlement. Good plan.
uhhhh what. He wasn't hiding in like a mansion and it isnt his job to tell everyone he's there.
|
On May 02 2012 15:02 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 14:57 PassionFruit wrote:
Story seems kind of iffy to me...\
To be honest, it almost seems like he was fishing for a lawsuit by hiding quietly in the cell or something...And he's likely lying about the meth, my guess is he brought it with him + other substances (given no strip search).
Actually, he probably was brought in, took drugs, blacked out, then the guards didn't see him when checking the cell, and there ya go...
Whole thing still reeks of a planned civil suit, but he'll win anyhow via settlement. Good plan. uhhhh what. He wasn't hiding in like a mansion and it isnt his job to tell everyone he's there.
Someone would have come if he yelled. His story plainly stinks imo.
But given what we know from "his side of the story," he'll probably get a settlement anyway because, like you said, you can't just leave people in the cell. Doesn't change the point that he's probably lying about a lot in his statement though.
|
On May 02 2012 14:57 PassionFruit wrote:
Story seems kind of iffy to me...\
To be honest, it almost seems like he was fishing for a lawsuit by hiding quietly in the cell or something...And he's likely lying about the meth, my guess is he brought it with him + other substances (given no strip search).
Actually, he probably was brought in, took drugs, blacked out, then the guards didn't see him when checking the cell, and there ya go...
Whole thing still reeks of a planned civil suit, but he'll win anyhow via settlement. Good plan.
OK first off he didn't say that he had eaten meth, the hospital found it in his system. Second of all, even if it was his plan to "hide quietly in a cell" the DEA should know he's there. He very easily could have died from this and deserves a lot of money.
|
On May 02 2012 15:05 PassionFruit wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 15:02 Serpico wrote:On May 02 2012 14:57 PassionFruit wrote:
Story seems kind of iffy to me...\
To be honest, it almost seems like he was fishing for a lawsuit by hiding quietly in the cell or something...And he's likely lying about the meth, my guess is he brought it with him + other substances (given no strip search).
Actually, he probably was brought in, took drugs, blacked out, then the guards didn't see him when checking the cell, and there ya go...
Whole thing still reeks of a planned civil suit, but he'll win anyhow via settlement. Good plan. uhhhh what. He wasn't hiding in like a mansion and it isnt his job to tell everyone he's there. Someone would have come if he yelled. His story plainly stinks imo. But given what we know from "his side of the story," he'll probably get a settlement anyway because, like you said, you can't just leave people in the cell. Doesn't change the point that he's probably lying about a lot in his statement though.
It doesn't change the fact forgetting someone that's stuck in a tiny cell is always the fault of the authorities. What he did or didn't do inside it becomes irrelevant.
|
On May 02 2012 14:16 SirMilford wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 14:12 Zahir wrote:
that would piss me off for sure.
on a relevant note, i think this kid is going to be suing the pants off the state fairly soon. 10 mil at least, is my guess. i would definitely be willing to drink my own urine for 5 days for that kind of return. Are you kidding? Drinking nothing but your own urine, stuck in a bathroom sized cell, handcuffed. forced to literally eat meth off the floor? Then nearly experience serious kidney failure and die. Also this should require a full review of the incident, and a huge amount of compensation to be awarded.
I think im just relieved that this is ALL that happened. Worse things happen in prison constantly. He could've been gang raped and shanked, for instance. Instead he gets a cool icebreaker to tell at parties and an even cooler settlement deal. Justice is served; god bless America. Theres bound to be hiccips in any system, some are real tragedies but this is more of a close call.
lThis thread isnt really news.
|
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/daniel-chong-ucsd-san-diego-dea-149758275.html
According to this source, the person wasn't even supposed to be detained. Apparently they let him go and even offered him a ride home. Somehow, he ended up in that cell, where he almost died of dehydration. Regardless of how drugged this kid might have been/ how illegal the stuff he actually did, nearly dying in a cell is not justified by any means.
Although russian rifles and thousands of rounds 0.o. Interesting lol.
|
well hes going to be a millionare lol
|
I just want the gaping hole between
"offered ride to go home"
then
"ends up in jail cell"
to be explained.
|
He will be millionaire in no time.
|
NBC peice:
After days of being ignored, Chong said he tried to take his own life by breaking the glass from his spectacles with his teeth and then carving “Sorry mom,” on his wrists. He said nurses also found pieces of glass in his throat, which led him to believe he ingested the pieces purposefully.
Source: DEA Ignored All My Cries: Student | NBC San Diego
|
On May 02 2012 15:08 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 15:05 PassionFruit wrote:On May 02 2012 15:02 Serpico wrote:On May 02 2012 14:57 PassionFruit wrote:
Story seems kind of iffy to me...\
To be honest, it almost seems like he was fishing for a lawsuit by hiding quietly in the cell or something...And he's likely lying about the meth, my guess is he brought it with him + other substances (given no strip search).
Actually, he probably was brought in, took drugs, blacked out, then the guards didn't see him when checking the cell, and there ya go...
Whole thing still reeks of a planned civil suit, but he'll win anyhow via settlement. Good plan. uhhhh what. He wasn't hiding in like a mansion and it isnt his job to tell everyone he's there. Someone would have come if he yelled. His story plainly stinks imo. But given what we know from "his side of the story," he'll probably get a settlement anyway because, like you said, you can't just leave people in the cell. Doesn't change the point that he's probably lying about a lot in his statement though. It doesn't change the fact forgetting someone that's stuck in a tiny cell is always the fault of the authorities. What he did or didn't do inside it becomes irrelevant.
Legally you're right.
But from a moral standpoint, it seems like he's just trying to bilk the State for money. That's taxpayer money btw. Everything about his take on the situation sounds like a fabrication. They ignored his cries? Of course he was innocent in the raid. He ate meth off of the floor?. He was "insane" on the third day? He tried to cut himself because he was hopeless? He's not going to go back to school because of his new "life perspective?" (all from the NBC story posted above)
I'm not so naive to be ignorant of the value of sensational media publicity prior to suing the State, but I still think he fished for the civil suit. If you've ever seen a detention cell, you can make a lot of noise by banging on the door. My guess is he hid + self-inflicted injuries. I might be wrong, but it takes more than a story like that to persuade me.
Officers might get an unreasonably bad rep over the internet, but you'll be hard pressed to actually find one that will ignore someone in a holding cell for 5 days. But like I said before, good fishing. The guy is totally going to bilk the State for grievances he could have reasonably prevented.
|
United States7483 Posts
The man is deserving of a few million $ methinks.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.qkme.me/Don.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Noruxas wrote:
Well seeing how its USA, he'll probably sue them and get a few million dollars OLOLOLOL
np
he'll be able to spend the few millions on his newly acquired drug addiction in no time, ending up as a criminal/homeless youth.
Sad story.
|
On May 02 2012 14:39 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 14:35 UmiNotsuki wrote:
This may be the fact that I'm only replying based on the TL;DR, but what? He ate meth? He saw meth crystals lying about and was all, "I'm hungry" and just swallowed that shit? What was he thinking!? I'm going to die anyways? Why wouldnt you if no one was giving you food? He didn't exactly have a ham sandwich in his pocket.
I'm going to die of thirst? Fuck yeah, let me eat something to speed up the process, its not like I can eat my clothes if 2 weeks pass.
|
Haha this guy goes to my school
|
Hell, I would stay in a cell for 5 days without food and water but potentially getting 1+ mil dollars in return.
I would even do it for 100k.
|
Yeah i dont know what some people are thinking here. If you get detained and then you are treated horribly and in inhumane ways how should this be ok? Very confused because his rights were clearly violated and they definitely didn't follow procedure here.
Pretty crazy that the DEA broke into an apartment. I agree the whole story seems a little fishy. Must have been reported drug dealers or some shit.
|
AWww dude, I was waiting for a Bear Grylls joke. Anyways, I'd eat meth if I was gunna die, I'd even do it to speed up the process of dying, screw sitting in a cell for 5 days just waiting to die.. I would do it for money though  PROBS
|
On May 02 2012 15:51 phosphorylation wrote:
Hell, I would stay in a cell for 5 days without food and water but potentially getting 1+ mil dollars in return.
I would even do it for 100k.
u know u'd prolly die.
|
On May 02 2012 15:58 albis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 15:51 phosphorylation wrote:
Hell, I would stay in a cell for 5 days without food and water but potentially getting 1+ mil dollars in return.
I would even do it for 100k. u know u'd prolly die.
ummm no. unless i was trapped in a very hot environment or forced to exercise/do labor.
|
On May 02 2012 15:46 Wyk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 14:39 Serpico wrote:On May 02 2012 14:35 UmiNotsuki wrote:
This may be the fact that I'm only replying based on the TL;DR, but what? He ate meth? He saw meth crystals lying about and was all, "I'm hungry" and just swallowed that shit? What was he thinking!? I'm going to die anyways? Why wouldnt you if no one was giving you food? He didn't exactly have a ham sandwich in his pocket. I'm going to die of thirst? Fuck yeah, let me eat something to speed up the process, its not like I can eat my clothes if 2 weeks pass.
I'd probably do the same thing. You'll be suffering in that cell anyway. Imagine on day 3/4. Havn't had food nor water so you'll be dead in another 4-5 days at most. I'm assuming theres a wndow so you'll atleast know how long it's been and there isn't much you can do. Why not take it and enjoy some time while your high.
I do agree with a previous post in which he could have tried screaming. Then again, maybe he did for a while and then gave up since no one answered. Perhaps he didn't want to piss off the guards and wasn't sure what exactly to do. I imagine he was scared shitless to begin with anyway. After not getting food or water for a day or 2 one would get suspicious and try to say something though, no?
odd how it all ended up happenning. Seeing how he almost lost his life and anything wrong besides being at the wrong place at the wrong time, I think he deserves a nice lump sum of cash for his troubles and atleast 1 person should lose their job. It's a pretty big fuck-up
|
WTF, can someone explain to me how this is a civil lawsuit and not a criminal lawsuit? Isn't the only possiblility from a civil suit monetary compensation in this situation? Seems much more logical to take away the DEA agents' jobs and maybe give them some jail-time. I don't get this at all.....
|
On May 02 2012 14:17 havox_ wrote:Show nested quote +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. So u think criminals (btw... text said that he was actually released, just forgotten) dont have the same rights as other ppl? yeay, Americans <3
Personally if you break the law, you should forfeit your equal rights.
However thats probably a controversial view
edit, added 'should'... makes more sense.
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Noruxas wrote:
Well seeing how its USA, he'll probably sue them and get a few million dollars OLOLOLOL
and actually be justified in this case..
this is just wtf on so many levels. another case of american drug authorities / policies causing more damage than preventing, but they really went above and beyond here
|
On May 02 2012 15:10 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 14:16 SirMilford wrote:On May 02 2012 14:12 Zahir wrote:
that would piss me off for sure.
on a relevant note, i think this kid is going to be suing the pants off the state fairly soon. 10 mil at least, is my guess. i would definitely be willing to drink my own urine for 5 days for that kind of return. Are you kidding? Drinking nothing but your own urine, stuck in a bathroom sized cell, handcuffed. forced to literally eat meth off the floor? Then nearly experience serious kidney failure and die. Also this should require a full review of the incident, and a huge amount of compensation to be awarded. I think im just relieved that this is ALL that happened. Worse things happen in prison constantly. He could've been gang raped and shanked, for instance. Instead he gets a cool icebreaker to tell at parties and an even cooler settlement deal. Justice is served; god bless America. Theres bound to be hiccips in any system, some are real tragedies but this is more of a close call. lThis thread isnt really news.
Uhh.... that's in like prisons with huge sentences. They don't mix small crimes with those. There's a difference. There was no chance that would happen. lol.
|
Sensationalist title. Saying he was forced implies a person forced him to drink it rather than what actually happened and that was horrible enough. Why do people feel the need to bend the truth just to make things more revolting?
"Detained and was forgotten for 5 day, had to drink his own urine." come on peps.
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 02 2012 16:05 Nekovivie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 14:17 havox_ wrote: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. So u think criminals (btw... text said that he was actually released, just forgotten) dont have the same rights as other ppl? yeay, Americans <3 Personally if you break the law, you should forfeit your equal rights. However thats probably a controversial view edit, added 'should'... makes more sense.
And what about people who are innocent but imprisoned falsely or accidentally?
We have an appeal process because people are convicted falsely all the time.
|
Some people in this thread are severely underestimating the effects of dehydration...seriously most people can take 3 days without fresh water before dying. The fact this guy lasted 5 days is actually pretty amazing.
|
On May 02 2012 14:24 Rice wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 14:12 Noruxas wrote:
Well seeing how its USA, he'll probably sue them and get a few million dollars OLOLOLOL
? I dont see how this is funny. If that's not a legitimate reason to sue, then I dunno what is.
I agree, I probably have seen more legitimate reasons, but I cant remember any right now.
|
On May 02 2012 14:13 Antimatterz wrote:
What the fuck? Honestly, how do you just forget about someone you are detaining? That is like taking your cat and putting in a room to punish it for shitting on the carpet, only to not take it out for like a week while not giving it anything it needs.
It is also kinda crazy how much shit this guy had on him: ecstasy, marijuana, meds, shrooms, other hallucinogens, multiple guns, and ammunition? What was he planning on doing with that much stuff?
Most likely transporting for resale
|
On May 02 2012 16:18 Rasmudd wrote:
Sensationalist title. Saying he was forced implies a person forced him to drink it rather than what actually happened and that was horrible enough. Why do people feel the need to bend the truth just to make things more revolting?
"Detained and was forgotten for 5 day, had to drink his own urine." come on peps.
He was forced by circumstances, either that or death by dehydration.
Yes, the wording is strong, but it *is* technically correct.
|
On May 02 2012 16:24 fuzzy_panda wrote:
Some people in this thread are severely underestimating the effects of dehydration...seriously most people can take 3 days without fresh water before dying. The fact this guy lasted 5 days is actually pretty amazing.
In a cell out of direct sunlight with limited activity a person can go about 10days without any water
|
Perhaps one of our legal eagles could chime in, but I'm kinda thinking you can't sue the U.S. Government except under specific circumstances, and I think a "mistake" isn't one of them. Someone who knows for sure is welcome to correct me / explicate in more detail.
|
Why do Americans keep bringing up these random B.S. articles that are only going to incite unnecessary, thoughtless hate against America. Stupid things happen in every country for God's sake; I don't see what you're accomplishing by bringing this crap to TL.
|
Stupid thing for the authorities to do this especially that people are suing left and right for the most little things.
|
On May 02 2012 16:43 Areon wrote:
Why do Americans keep bringing up these random B.S. articles that are only going to incite unnecessary, thoughtless hate against America. Stupid things happen in every country for God's sake; I don't see what you're accomplishing by bringing this crap to TL.
What do you suggest? Hide the truth so people will think better of us? Your strategy is pretty in line with North Korea.
"Official: Kim Jong Il, 5000 of our peasants died today from starvation, should we report the news? KJI: Why do you keep bringing up these random B.S. articles that are only going to incite unnecessary, thoughtless hate against North Korea? Stupid things happen in every country for My sake, I don't see what you're accomplishing by bringing this crap to the world."
Yep, totally see it.
|
He wasn't "forced" to drink urine, he chose to. And "eating" meth certainly didnt help his dehydration.
|
On May 02 2012 16:43 Areon wrote:
Why do Americans keep bringing up these random B.S. articles that are only going to incite unnecessary, thoughtless hate against America. Stupid things happen in every country for God's sake; I don't see what you're accomplishing by bringing this crap to TL.
People that thoughtlessly hate the United States will do so whether or not our country's flaws are posted on the internet or not. Thoughtless hate is by definition thoughtless, and no amount of whitewashing of the truth will change that.
On May 02 2012 17:33 j0ker wrote:
He wasn't "forced" to drink urine, he chose to. And "eating" meth certainly didnt help his dehydration.
You honestly believe that a choice between drinking your own urine and dying of dehydration is not a forced choice? What sort of ethical code do you subscribe to?
|
On May 02 2012 17:33 j0ker wrote:
He wasn't "forced" to drink urine, he chose to. And "eating" meth certainly didnt help his dehydration.
Yes he was forced to drink his own urine he had no other choice, but him eating the meth just shows his desperation for something in his system.
If that woman got 3 million from nutella this man better get 3 billion.
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Zahir wrote:
that would piss me off for sure.
on a relevant note, i think this kid is going to be suing the pants off the state fairly soon. 10 mil at least, is my guess. i would definitely be willing to drink my own urine for 5 days for that kind of return.
You mean drink your own urine not to die.
This is one of the rare cases where suing is actually the right answer. Hope he gets compensation or else shit's really fucked up.
|
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..."
To be honest I don't think it's worse. Forced to drink because you need to survive versus forced by others by abusement.
|
Yeah I thought a bunch of guys pissed in his mouth for 5 days : o
Still pretty sick story though
|
i like how everyone is more concerned with drinking piss then that he broke his eyeglasses with his teeth and tried to kill himself. im gonna say suicide is worse then piss.
|
On May 02 2012 16:18 Rasmudd wrote:
Sensationalist title. Saying he was forced implies a person forced him to drink it rather than what actually happened and that was horrible enough. Why do people feel the need to bend the truth just to make things more revolting?
"Detained and was forgotten for 5 day, had to drink his own urine." come on peps.
that's nitpicking at best. your average national media are far more misleading than this.
in actuality, i find the truth more horrible than the other interpretation. presumably he thought that he was going to die, slowly, alone, with nobody even aware of his plight. that's scary as fuck, especially considering that it was the result of a minor crime. suggests serious issues with the system itself, i'd be interested to know how many people were lacking in their responsibility to some extent. personally way more unsettling to me than the idea of some sicko making a person drink their own urine.
|
I would drug test the DEA officer tbh. He was probably so messed up on the drugs they seized from the kid that he forgot about him.
|
heh, I know everyone is "wooohoooo free money" but the repercussions of this to the kids health is insane. 5 days no water and only methamphetamines? kiss goodbye to your kidneys...
|
So this does need to be asked, is this even true? This whole story read as "Chong said". This kid is a durgie. Out of habit I tend to not take what they say at face value. Not to say law enforcement wouldn't abuse/forget about a drugie, in face I find it more likely that they would.
It doesn't change the fact that one shouldn't blindly believe everything this kids says.
EDIT: Found a link that backs up this kids story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120430/us-suspect-forgotten/
|
Eat meth left in the cell by a previous occupant? There is no nutritional value in meth, and he wasnt forced to do anything...
Sad story indeed but this title is even more ridiculous than the article that originally reports it.
|
isn't it worse to drink pure urine than not drink at all
|
Any "settlements" are a ridiculous side factor. Yes he may deserve compensation, but not ludicrous amounts of money. That's just a joke. The more important thing is to make sure things like this don't happen, in both policy and department efficiency. Forgetting about apprehended offenders? Too concerned with rip and runs and house raids of dealers at the bottom end of the chain.
This happened because of an arrest over marijuana and ecstasy.
|
On May 02 2012 14:08 General Nuke Em wrote:tl;dr - DEA in San Diego is incompetent, puts a student in a holding cell and forgets about him for 5 days. By virtue of forgetting about him, said student doesn't get food or water and is forced to drink his own urine and eat meth left in the cell by a previous occupant. Given San Diego's proximity to the Mexican border, the staggering incompetence of the local DEA office is more than a little troubling. One can hope that the agents working on preventing cross border drug trafficking aren't the ones going out and busting college student parties. This incident is tangentally related to the larger drug war (if marijuana and ecstacy weren't illegal he wouldn't have been detained) but its seems to me its more about how amazingly bad some people are at their jobs. Show nested quote +A San Diego college student detained for several days in a county detention facility cell is seeking an attorney and may be considering filing a civil lawsuit sources tell NBCSanDiego.
The 24-year old UCSD engineering student was left in the cell for five days without food or water, seemingly forgotten by the federal authorities who detained him.
He was one of seven people detained after a Drug Enforcement Administration ecstasy raid in University City on April 21, according to a DEA statement.
"The individual was at the house by his own admission," the DEA confirmed Monday.
During the raid, authorities confiscated ecstasy, marijuana, prescription medication, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and a white powdery substance that was described as a synthetic hallucinogen. They also seized numerous weapons including a Russian rifle, handguns and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
"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.
The defendants were brought back to the DEA office after the raid and processed. The suspects were moved around the five cells at the detention facility during the proceeding. None were strip or body cavity searched, the DEA stated.
A law enforcement source told NBC 7 that the student was handcuffed and held in a room no larger than the average bathroom.
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.
When authorities with the DEA discovered that the student was still in the cell, they immediately called emergency medical services.
In the cell, the detainee told authorities he found a white powdery substance, which he took, the statement said.
Later testing revealed the substance was methamphetamine.
Sources close to the student say he nearly died of kidney failure in Sharp hospital due to the dehydration he experienced. He was treated for several days and released.
He is not currently under arrest, authorities with the DEA said.
San Diego defense attorney Gretchen Von Helms says the victim could get millions if he files a lawsuit.
"In all my years of practice I've never heard of the DEA or any Federal government employee simply forgetting about someone that they have in their care," she said.
"There has to be repercussions if people do not follow the safety and the care when they have a human being in their custody."
Former federal prosecutor John Kirby said he’s familiar with the holding cells at the DEA office. He told NBC 7 San Diego that the rooms have no bathrooms and the suspect likely went without food or water.
Given his familiarity with the DEA, Kirby said this incident is “inconceivable” because every detainee is processed, and it would be hard to get lost in the shuffle.
“You talk about whether they might have done it intentionally, No way because somebody's career is done over this,” added Kirby. http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/DEA-Detainee-Found-White-Powdery-Substance-in-Cell-149596435.html
5 days in a bathroom sized room, with no food and water and only meth.
story of my life
|
USA USA USA !
User was warned for this post
|
Heard drinking your own urine is somewhat healthy for you! Wish I had something equally positive to say about meth.. oh well.
|
On May 02 2012 20:35 zomgE wrote:
isn't it worse to drink pure urine than not drink at all
you can drink urine to a certain point until it becomes toxic
|
On May 02 2012 14:57 PassionFruit wrote:
Story seems kind of iffy to me...\
To be honest, it almost seems like he was fishing for a lawsuit by hiding quietly in the cell or something...And he's likely lying about the meth, my guess is he brought it with him + other substances (given no strip search).
Actually, he probably was brought in, took drugs, blacked out, then the guards didn't see him when checking the cell, and there ya go...
Whole thing still reeks of a planned civil suit, but he'll win anyhow via settlement. Good plan.
I lold.
|
Horrible things people do. I wonder how this whole situation plays out in court eventually.
|
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.
If you read the story, when he was 'forgotten' it had already been decided to release him without charge. Even criminals and terrorists are entitled to compensation in the developed world if they are subjected to torture. And this was certainly torture.
|
On May 02 2012 15:47 dark_dragoon10 wrote:
Haha this guy goes to my school
Yeah "haha" thats really funny
|
now, imagine if he had died. we would have never known.
|
"Forced to eat meth"
Are you kidding me?
|
Well... he is going to get a bundle of $$$ of compensation coming his way
Anyways... amazing that a country such as USA can have something like this happen
|
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?
|
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.
I completely agree with you. While it sucks that he got screwed, he still committed a crime.
|
he went bear grylls on their ass!
|
On May 02 2012 21:28 TheLOLas wrote:Show nested quote +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. I completely agree with you. While it sucks that he got screwed, he still committed a crime.
Did you two really not read the article? Furthermore do you not know how the justice system works in modern countries? This man was not charged/arrested but DETAINED and furthermore supposed to be RELEASED. ergo he is not a criminal, has not committed a crime ... at MOST he has some questionable association with some drug dealers or whatever.
Please read the article, understand what is happening.. and THEN post a reply.
|
Slow clap, USA. Stay classy.
On a sidenote, they siezed THIS from college students?!?
"During the raid, authorities confiscated ecstasy, marijuana, prescription medication, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and a white powdery substance that was described as a synthetic hallucinogen. They also seized numerous weapons including a Russian rifle, handguns and thousands of rounds of ammunition."
The. Fuck.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 02 2012 21:28 TheLOLas wrote:Show nested quote +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. I completely agree with you. While it sucks that he got screwed, he still committed a crime.
And by that logic we can conclude that you believe someone who commits a crime has no rights, human or legal. Great, I look forward to your vote in the upcoming presidential election, I think Satan might be a good candidate for you!
|
On May 02 2012 21:40 Dr_Jones wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 21:28 TheLOLas wrote: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. I completely agree with you. While it sucks that he got screwed, he still committed a crime. And by that logic we can conclude that you believe someone who commits a crime has no rights, human or legal. Great, I look forward to your vote in the upcoming presidential election, I think Satan might be a good candidate for you!
Read his past posts/blogs. He's still a minor and therefore can't vote.
Thank God?
|
100 million. It will never happen again if they have to cough up 100 million all at once.
|
I read this as they made him drink his urine .... :D
|
Shocking story if true to this extent.
Oh and some of the answers in this thread are equally shocking. They reflect no understanding of basic moral codes or totally play down the horror of nearly dying in a cell while being completely helpless.
|
Man, that's a pretty extreme level of incompetence. I hope the people involved get fired, and their system for maintaining prisoners gets reviewed.
|
Holy shit. For those that think it's not forced... wtf. 5 days guys. After 10hours I already feel my stomach most of the time.
|
On May 02 2012 21:38 Dr_Jones wrote:Slow clap, USA. Stay classy. On a sidenote, they siezed THIS from college students?!? Show nested quote +"During the raid, authorities confiscated ecstasy, marijuana, prescription medication, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and a white powdery substance that was described as a synthetic hallucinogen. They also seized numerous weapons including a Russian rifle, handguns and thousands of rounds of ammunition." The. Fuck.
because obviously, as a citizen of the USA I am personally responsible. I will try to "stay classy" regardless though.
|
The nation-bashing going on in this thread is typical but still disappointing... when have you heard of this happening before? Weird bad shit happens sometime and he will definitely be compensated for it. Save your manufactured self-righteous indignation for a country that does stuff like this is as a matter of policy. But honestly the people nation-bashing the US probably don't care about other countries, they just care about establishing their cred by bashing the US specifically.
|
This is one of the more legitimate reasons to sue I've ever seen. Criminal or no.
|
On May 02 2012 21:16 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +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".
|
What if it had been six days? Would he have died? I think so given his near fatal reaction after 5 days. That's pretty scary. I would sue the shit out of everybody. It doesn't even matter that he could've been selling drugs. Selling drugs does not justify near-fatal dehydration. That's torture
|
On May 02 2012 22:41 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
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)?
|
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.
|
On May 02 2012 22:43 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
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)?
Who knows what was going in his head after such a long time without water/food, maybe guy genuinly thought it was sugar or something...
|
Bear Grylls II.
On a serious note, this really sucks, he's probably going to be rich now too. :x
|
On May 02 2012 21:28 TheLOLas wrote:Show nested quote +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. I completely agree with you. While it sucks that he got screwed, he still committed a crime.
i can't believe how many people take this view and see things in black and white.
probably the majority of people on this site have downloaded music and / or movies, which is against the law. if you almost died in a horrible manner, expected to die and were left with permanent damage as a result of gross negligence, is it fair to say that you forfeit your right to any compensation because you downloaded a movie? would you excommunicate your dad if he admitted to kicking over a street sign or something when he was 18 and drunk? derp.
open your fucking eyes people, the world wasn't written in binary and it isn't separated into criminals and non-criminals. i think you'll find that most people are actually human beings.
|
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)?
People have been known to eat off their own fingers when they get hungry enough. You honestly think he was thinking clearly after 5 days without food?
edit: And more importantly, 5 days without water. Dehydration kills any notion of clear thinking.
|
Is it possible that eating the meth helped him to survive that long without water (I know it is diuretic, so it should have actually hurt him, but maybe it kept him focused and still instead of running around the cell and using up calories)? I think people usually die after 3-4 days with no H2O, but maybe that's out in the elements.
To those making light of the prisoner's situation, first consider the effects of dehydration--skin ulcers, hallucination, mouth sores, tongue cracking. Then add the mental aspect of going from thinking you will be released (or at least fed/allowed to urinate) in an hour or two, to slowly realizing/believing you have been forgotten and are going to die in, essentially, a broom closet.
I bet they didn't even give him a good book to occupy him. Eighth Amendment, sucka!
|
On May 02 2012 23:01 anycolourfloyd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 21:28 TheLOLas wrote: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. I completely agree with you. While it sucks that he got screwed, he still committed a crime. i can't believe how many people take this view and see things in black and white. probably the majority of people on this site have downloaded music and / or movies, which is against the law. if you almost died in a horrible manner, expected to die and were left with permanent damage as a result of gross negligence, is it fair to say that you forfeit your right to any compensation because you downloaded a movie? would you excommunicate your dad if he admitted to kicking over a street sign or something when he was 18 and drunk? derp. open your fucking eyes people, the world wasn't written in binary and it isn't separated into criminals and non-criminals. i think you'll find that most people are actually human beings.
This post >>>>>> 99% of other posts in this thread.
|
On May 02 2012 23:05 Excludos 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)? People have been known to eat off their own fingers when they get hungry enough. You honestly think he was thinking clearly after 5 days without food? edit: And more importantly, 5 days without water. Dehydration kills any notion of clear thinking.
Also, if you are locked in an empty room containing anything--rat shit, a jar labeled xxpoisonxx, etc., after 5 days without water, you are going to be at least considering the possibility that the rat shit is actually raisins and the poison jar is full of protein powder.
Inability to empathize with this kid is a failure of imagination. Anyone could find themselves in a similar situation. What if you ran out of gas and walked to the nearest house to use the phone, just as it was being raided by the DEA? This is why we presume innocence--or are supposed to.
|
This needs to be investigated
|
On May 02 2012 23:01 anycolourfloyd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 21:28 TheLOLas wrote: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. I completely agree with you. While it sucks that he got screwed, he still committed a crime. i can't believe how many people take this view and see things in black and white. probably the majority of people on this site have downloaded music and / or movies, which is against the law. if you almost died in a horrible manner, expected to die and were left with permanent damage as a result of gross negligence, is it fair to say that you forfeit your right to any compensation because you downloaded a movie? would you excommunicate your dad if he admitted to kicking over a street sign or something when he was 18 and drunk? derp. open your fucking eyes people, the world wasn't written in binary and it isn't separated into criminals and non-criminals. i think you'll find that most people are actually human beings.
Add to that the fact that nothing suggests that he actually committed a crime. I mean, he very well might have committed a crime, but from the article, he could have just as easily just showed up at what he thought was a legit party, and been swept up in a raid before he realized how gangster his pals were.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuance
|
I find it curious that none of you considered that the guy ingested the meth because he was locked up in a cell and had nothing better to do. This seems to be the most likely explanation by far, at least to me.
Edit: Confused meth with crack for some reason.
|
On May 02 2012 23:32 I_PROTOSSED_MY_HW wrote:
I find it curious that none of you considered that the guy ingested the crack because he was locked up in a cell and had nothing better to do. This seems to be the most likely explanation by far, at least to me.
That seems like the most unlikely explanation. Seeing as they said meth too, not crack XD. But yeah, I really doubt he "ate" meth for fun.
|
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 pretty much was forced to drink urine.
Either that, or die to dehydration.
but the near death experience is probably going to make this guy very rich.
|
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.
Erm.. am i the only one who read this and thought "wtf..."
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Noruxas wrote:
Well seeing how its USA, he'll probably sue them and get a few million dollars OLOLOLOL
Without the joking aspect... probably. I would if that happened to me.
|
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.
|
On May 02 2012 23:41 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On May 02 2012 22:52 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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)
|
I wish they'd bring back things like Electric Chair, Gas Chaimber, Guillotine etc in the U.S. I'd say this kid didn't get enough punishment. He really deserves the death sentence.
User was warned for this post
|
I like how everyone is assuming this kid will get millions of dollars. People spend decades in jail in the US for false reasons. People get raped in jail, people get beaten in jail, etc, etc. Millions of dollars are not awarded. This kid will be lucky to get a few thousand dollars. I doubt he will even get a lawyer willing to take this case.
|
On May 03 2012 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 02:32 ecstatica wrote: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.
Actually the feeling of hunger itself and food cravings subside day 3. So you've almost gotten there. Your mind is crystal clear throughout days 4 and 5, a lot of people claim never being this sharp before, seeing things in perspective etc. Read some diaries of ppl that fast, you'll find a lot of that. There's rarely any confusing at all, not even talking about doing outright insane stupid shit.
My father went 7 days with no food or water, I vividly remember that. He was obviously prepared for it and did it voluntarily, which makes a difference. But this isn't anything near impossible, you have no idea how many people tried it as a religious practice or fasting for health benefits.
|
I feel like the DEA is going to wiggle their way out of this because it's pure negligence. And a government agency shouldn't be responsible for negligence. </sarcasm> Also, did they not release/hold ANY detainees for 5 days? Sounds pretty fishy. We raid a drug-operation and lay off the police work for 5 days@
And to everyone saying "why didn't he scream?" Have you ever been in a holding cell? Ever been processed into jail? Yelling doesn't get you anywhere. And to unbeknownst officers on duty, the story "I'm innocent and waiting to go home" isn't going to fly. I'm sure he gave it his valiant effort before deciding it was pointless. I mean the kid WAS an engineering student, and obviously delved in psilocybin and amphetamines. He's not stupid. Infact, drinking his own piss kept him alive.
If everyone gets up in arms about this, I expect to start hearing more about Bradley Manning Or Julian Assange.
It's officially been over 500 days for Assange, without charge.
|
You can go for weeks without food - thats not really an issue.
lack of water, on the other hand, even in ideal circumstances (these were not) will almost certainly kill you within a week. The fact that he was experiencing kidney failure says to me that the guy was already in big trouble.
Anyway, we are just throwing numbers around now. The point is that this guy was severely mistreated, and whatever his past crimes were doesn't really matter. The fact that he was on drugs says that he already needed help.
|
On May 03 2012 02:47 Hypertension wrote:
I like how everyone is assuming this kid will get millions of dollars. People spend decades in jail in the US for false reasons. People get raped in jail, people get beaten in jail, etc, etc. Millions of dollars are not awarded. This kid will be lucky to get a few thousand dollars. I doubt he will even get a lawyer willing to take this case.
Is this like a joke post?
really?
pretty sure he already got someone. Dont know why you would think that when in reality he probably has all kind of high profile lawyers throwing themselves at him just for a huge case like this
|
He will proly sue them and get a shit load of money, enough to move in a better state or even to a more civilized country ... so i guess he wins after all, as long as he is smart enough to rent money for a lawyer.
|
On May 03 2012 02:50 TheFish7 wrote:
You can go for weeks without food - thats not really an issue.
lack of water, on the other hand, even in ideal circumstances (these were not) will almost certainly kill you within a week. The fact that he was experiencing kidney failure says to me that the guy was already in big trouble.
Anyway, we are just throwing numbers around now. The point is that this guy was severely mistreated, and whatever his past crimes were doesn't really matter. The fact that he was on drugs says that he already needed help.
Come on, people are not stupid. Having water enables you to fast for MONTHS. We were talking about no food no water specifically, and in most cases even a sick person would last a full week before going into coma. The effects of not eating/drinking proposed in this thread (going insane, eating rat's feces thinking it's candy) is pure idiocy, it is nothing like that. That's all we argue about. Who cares how long he could actually last before dieing?
By the way, if some of you have ever done drugs, esp synthetic shit like meth or ecstasy, you should know how much of a stress it puts on your body. This moron basically severely injured himself in the most moronic manner.
|
Whaddya mean "forgot" to let him out, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Sickening to say the least.
|
On May 03 2012 03:12 HaXXspetten wrote:
Whaddya mean "forgot" to let him out, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Sickening to say the least.
Most probably one guy thought another guy would do it. The other guy thought the first guy would do it. Since they both assumed it had been done, it had been done. It's not a complicated concept. It's something that should be worked in to routine to be avoided. The same thing happened with the guy who shot himself inbetween questioning by the police with a pistol he had on him the entire time. The police officers all assumed he had already been frisked by someone else, at pretty much all points in time up to him shooting himself. Both situations (this one and the guy with the gun) are of course entirely unacceptable but unless you put in to the work routine ways to avoid it, it will happen from time to time.
|
On May 03 2012 03:07 ecstatica wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 02:50 TheFish7 wrote:
You can go for weeks without food - thats not really an issue.
lack of water, on the other hand, even in ideal circumstances (these were not) will almost certainly kill you within a week. The fact that he was experiencing kidney failure says to me that the guy was already in big trouble.
Anyway, we are just throwing numbers around now. The point is that this guy was severely mistreated, and whatever his past crimes were doesn't really matter. The fact that he was on drugs says that he already needed help. Come on, people are not stupid. Having water enables you to fast for MONTHS. We were talking about no food no water specifically, and in most cases even a sick person would last a full week before going into coma. The effects of not eating/drinking proposed in this thread (going insane, eating rat's feces thinking it's candy) is pure idiocy, it is nothing like that. That's all we argue about. Who cares how long he could actually last before dieing? By the way, if some of you have ever done drugs, esp synthetic shit like meth or ecstasy, you should know how much of a stress it puts on your body. This moron basically severely injured himself in the most moronic manner.
Your knowledge of fasting, biology, medicine, chemistry combined with your refined morals are astounding.
|
Federal Tort Claims Act. This is the law that offers the ONLY opportunity for this guy to sue the government. As part of this, punitive damages ($10 million) do not fly. It looks like he can sue for actual damages, such as loss of life and property loss, neither of which apply here. I'm not sure what kind of health he's in now, but if he's fully recovered, he's not gonna get much. Whatever amount he does get, it will basically cover medical bills for whatever conditions he has developed.
Also, I'm not sure about this, because I only read it in one place, but there was a statement about only being able to sue under the FTCA for things which an ordinary, non-government citizen would be liable for. For example, if somebody slips in a post office. However, for functions not performed by ordinary citizens, the government can claim sovereign immunity and not be sued.
So, we know the FTCA is the controlling legislation as to lawsuit potential here. We know FTCA only allows suit for actual damages, if at all. So, this guy ain't gonna get rich.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html
|
On May 03 2012 03:16 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:12 HaXXspetten wrote:
Whaddya mean "forgot" to let him out, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Sickening to say the least. Most probably one guy thought another guy would do it. The other guy thought the first guy would do it. Since they both assumed it had been done, it had been done. It's not a complicated concept. It's something that should be worked in to routine to be avoided. The same thing happened with the guy who shot himself inbetween questioning by the police with a pistol he had on him the entire time. The police officers all assumed he had already been frisked by someone else, at pretty much all points in time up to him shooting himself. Both situations (this one and the guy with the gun) are of course entirely unacceptable but unless you put in to the work routine ways to avoid it, it will happen from time to time.
Yes, it is a simple concept but that's their job... they were not doing it right in both instances. A few more days and their negligence to do their routine responsibilities might have killed a student. Shitty buzz 
|
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.
I am sorry, but no the average adult cannot survive without water for seven days. Life expectancy for the average adult without drinking water lies between 3 and 5 days depending on various circumstances (temperature, humidity, metabolism etc).
In deserts you will (probably) not even make one day, people often died from dehydration within a few hours in deserts. And yes without water you start to suffer from symptoms which are also linked to clinical insanity for example hallucinations (among others).
And no you do not dehydrate via drinking your own urin, the opposite is the case (in the first days without water, before you get "dry").
|
On May 03 2012 02:42 hanlonbro wrote:
I wish they'd bring back things like Electric Chair, Gas Chaimber, Guillotine etc in the U.S. I'd say this kid didn't get enough punishment. He really deserves the death sentence.
LOLOL such amazing insight, I can tell you are all over this... But really I find it pretty hard to believe that someone can get forgotten like this. I guess there's always room for a first. Someone is going to be looking for a new job pretty soon.
|
and this is why accounting/book keeping is important. I'm honestly shocked they don't have at least some kind of database to keep track of individuals being held.
|
On May 02 2012 22:41 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +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".
This isn't an action movie bro. it doesn't work like that lol
|
It's amazingly funny to read that some people find suing for millions fit in this case.
Sure he went through a traumatic experience and might not have been directly involved in the drugs (whether he is criminal or not should not rly influence his case anyway), but still this is only 5 days + hospitalization for kidney failure afterwards. I'd be happy to walk away with 20.000 USD from that ordeal - assuming the liver failure was fixed before permanent damage (ie. transplantation or life-long dialysis treatment). 20.000 would more than cover lost work, school and other stuff. Giving million of dollars should only occur in very rare instances, where someone actually is hurt to a degree where he/she loses significant life quality and/or will accumulate large medical bills due to whatever happened.
As other people stated, it's very hard to believe someone just gets forgotten, but I suppose the guy who moved him to this (remote?) cell took a weeks leave without telling anyone about the cell transfer :O..
|
On May 03 2012 03:28 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 02:32 ecstatica wrote: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. I am sorry, but no the average adult cannot survive without water for seven days. Life expectancy for the average adult without drinking water lies between 3 and 5 days depending on various circumstances (temperature, humidity, metabolism etc). In deserts you will (probably) not even make one day, people often died from dehydration within a few hours in deserts. And yes without water you start to suffer from symptoms which are also linked to clinical insanity for example hallucinations (among others). And no you do not dehydrate via drinking your own urin, the opposite is the case (in the first days without water, before you get "dry").
Don't be sorry for being ignorant, rather do something about it.
Here's the first link off a simple google search. There's a table in it. You can guess the approximate temperature in a prison cell, shouldn't be 110F.
http://www.survivaltopics.com/how-long-can-you-survive-without-water/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_salt_water_dehydrate_you
|
On May 02 2012 23:39 BrTarolg wrote:Show nested quote +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. Erm.. am i the only one who read this and thought "wtf..."
No you aren't.... be careful though feeding trolls is dangerous.
|
On May 03 2012 03:27 Utinni wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:16 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 03 2012 03:12 HaXXspetten wrote:
Whaddya mean "forgot" to let him out, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Sickening to say the least. Most probably one guy thought another guy would do it. The other guy thought the first guy would do it. Since they both assumed it had been done, it had been done. It's not a complicated concept. It's something that should be worked in to routine to be avoided. The same thing happened with the guy who shot himself inbetween questioning by the police with a pistol he had on him the entire time. The police officers all assumed he had already been frisked by someone else, at pretty much all points in time up to him shooting himself. Both situations (this one and the guy with the gun) are of course entirely unacceptable but unless you put in to the work routine ways to avoid it, it will happen from time to time. Yes, it is a simple concept but that's their job... they were not doing it right in both instances. A few more days and their negligence to do their routine responsibilities might have killed a student. Shitty buzz
It's not a problem with the individuals (at least not usually) but with the routines which allow for the misunderstanding to happen in the first place. There are multiple ways to solve it (for example, appoint someone to be responsible for frisking anyone arriving at the police station, irregardless if it has or hasn't already been done and give this person (can rotate on shifts, etc) the reponsibility, or in the topic this thread is about, have someone be responsible for checking the holding cells, say, once a day. Have a schedule with checkboxes). It's not so much "they" as the system they operate in that almost made a fatal error.
|
On May 03 2012 03:26 Kaitlin wrote:Federal Tort Claims Act. This is the law that offers the ONLY opportunity for this guy to sue the government. As part of this, punitive damages ($10 million) do not fly. It looks like he can sue for actual damages, such as loss of life and property loss, neither of which apply here. I'm not sure what kind of health he's in now, but if he's fully recovered, he's not gonna get much. Whatever amount he does get, it will basically cover medical bills for whatever conditions he has developed. Also, I'm not sure about this, because I only read it in one place, but there was a statement about only being able to sue under the FTCA for things which an ordinary, non-government citizen would be liable for. For example, if somebody slips in a post office. However, for functions not performed by ordinary citizens, the government can claim sovereign immunity and not be sued. So, we know the FTCA is the controlling legislation as to lawsuit potential here. We know FTCA only allows suit for actual damages, if at all. So, this guy ain't gonna get rich. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html
Don't forget about the Civil Rights Act: 42 USC 1983. Good 'ol civil rights suit against the State for violation of your fundamental Constitutional rights. At first glance, I can see potential 6th, 8th, and 14th amendment violation arguments.
|
On May 03 2012 03:44 ecstatica wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:28 AngryMag wrote:On May 03 2012 02:32 ecstatica wrote: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. I am sorry, but no the average adult cannot survive without water for seven days. Life expectancy for the average adult without drinking water lies between 3 and 5 days depending on various circumstances (temperature, humidity, metabolism etc). In deserts you will (probably) not even make one day, people often died from dehydration within a few hours in deserts. And yes without water you start to suffer from symptoms which are also linked to clinical insanity for example hallucinations (among others). And no you do not dehydrate via drinking your own urin, the opposite is the case (in the first days without water, before you get "dry"). Don't be sorry for being ignorant, rather do something about it. Here's the first link off a simple google search. There's a table in it. You can guess the approximate temperature in a prison cell, shouldn't be 110F. http://www.survivaltopics.com/how-long-can-you-survive-without-water/http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_salt_water_dehydrate_you
again no, some charts do not equate scientific proof. General rule of thumb is between 3 and 5 days, like it or not. This is according to Prof.Dr. Anton Luger, head of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at AKH Wien and every other doc will tell you the same. Some guys who made it over-the-top long do not equal the average guy.
I rather trust science instead of random graphs without actual data to back them up
|
On May 03 2012 00:42 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 00:24 Dryzt wrote: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.
i would say listening to anything CNN has to say is probably were your issue lies.
http://elitedaily.com/elite/2012/occupy-wall-street-activist-suffers-seizure-beaten-police/
this article talks about a female protestor being alegedly beaten by police into a seizure. Then they mistreat her while she is convulsing by moving her off to the side by her head as commented by witnesses. The article also includes a video captured by pretestors of the whole event.
this is just one case.
|
On May 02 2012 15:13 [Agony]x90 wrote:http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/daniel-chong-ucsd-san-diego-dea-149758275.htmlAccording to this source, the person wasn't even supposed to be detained. Apparently they let him go and even offered him a ride home. Somehow, he ended up in that cell, where he almost died of dehydration. Regardless of how drugged this kid might have been/ how illegal the stuff he actually did, nearly dying in a cell is not justified by any means. Although russian rifles and thousands of rounds 0.o. Interesting lol.
This is common reaction for someone who has never owned a rifle or bullets. Anyone who's smart and shoots rifles buys the ammo in bulk from the US government. Insanely cheap and you get thousands of rounds. It's just how it works. They don't sell in small qualities. Also russian rifles (I'm assuming high-powered) are usually the cheapest kind.
|
On May 03 2012 04:16 PassionFruit wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:26 Kaitlin wrote:Federal Tort Claims Act. This is the law that offers the ONLY opportunity for this guy to sue the government. As part of this, punitive damages ($10 million) do not fly. It looks like he can sue for actual damages, such as loss of life and property loss, neither of which apply here. I'm not sure what kind of health he's in now, but if he's fully recovered, he's not gonna get much. Whatever amount he does get, it will basically cover medical bills for whatever conditions he has developed. Also, I'm not sure about this, because I only read it in one place, but there was a statement about only being able to sue under the FTCA for things which an ordinary, non-government citizen would be liable for. For example, if somebody slips in a post office. However, for functions not performed by ordinary citizens, the government can claim sovereign immunity and not be sued. So, we know the FTCA is the controlling legislation as to lawsuit potential here. We know FTCA only allows suit for actual damages, if at all. So, this guy ain't gonna get rich. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html Don't forget about the Civil Rights Act: 42 USC 1983. Good 'ol civil rights suit against the State for violation of your fundamental Constitutional rights. At first glance, I can see potential 6th, 8th, and 14th amendment violation arguments.
Take more than a first glance.
|
On May 03 2012 04:17 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:44 ecstatica wrote:On May 03 2012 03:28 AngryMag wrote:On May 03 2012 02:32 ecstatica wrote: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. I am sorry, but no the average adult cannot survive without water for seven days. Life expectancy for the average adult without drinking water lies between 3 and 5 days depending on various circumstances (temperature, humidity, metabolism etc). In deserts you will (probably) not even make one day, people often died from dehydration within a few hours in deserts. And yes without water you start to suffer from symptoms which are also linked to clinical insanity for example hallucinations (among others). And no you do not dehydrate via drinking your own urin, the opposite is the case (in the first days without water, before you get "dry"). Don't be sorry for being ignorant, rather do something about it. Here's the first link off a simple google search. There's a table in it. You can guess the approximate temperature in a prison cell, shouldn't be 110F. http://www.survivaltopics.com/how-long-can-you-survive-without-water/http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_salt_water_dehydrate_you again no, some charts do not equate scientific proof. General rule of thumb is between 3 and 5 days, like it or not. This is according to Prof.Dr. Anton Luger, head of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at AKH Wien and every other doc will tell you the same. Some guys who made it over-the-top long do not equal the average guy. I rather trust science instead of random graphs without actual data to back them up
"General rule of thumb", what the f is that? The same thing that always says 3 days? What science are you talking about, you can't string 2 sentences together and you bring "science" in. If you actually start searching beyond THE VERY FIRST LINK you will find that basically every source says the same and it's beyond 3-5 days. Stop being a clown.
|
Although this guy probably isn't the average clean law-abiding college student, simply forgetting a detainee is unacceptable. I still can't believe it happened.
|
On May 03 2012 04:17 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:44 ecstatica wrote:On May 03 2012 03:28 AngryMag wrote:On May 03 2012 02:32 ecstatica wrote: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. I am sorry, but no the average adult cannot survive without water for seven days. Life expectancy for the average adult without drinking water lies between 3 and 5 days depending on various circumstances (temperature, humidity, metabolism etc). In deserts you will (probably) not even make one day, people often died from dehydration within a few hours in deserts. And yes without water you start to suffer from symptoms which are also linked to clinical insanity for example hallucinations (among others). And no you do not dehydrate via drinking your own urin, the opposite is the case (in the first days without water, before you get "dry"). Don't be sorry for being ignorant, rather do something about it. Here's the first link off a simple google search. There's a table in it. You can guess the approximate temperature in a prison cell, shouldn't be 110F. http://www.survivaltopics.com/how-long-can-you-survive-without-water/http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_salt_water_dehydrate_you again no, some charts do not equate scientific proof. General rule of thumb is between 3 and 5 days, like it or not. This is according to Prof.Dr. Anton Luger, head of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at AKH Wien and every other doc will tell you the same. Some guys who made it over-the-top long do not equal the average guy. I rather trust science instead of random graphs without actual data to back them up
ya, but asnwers.com said....
|
On May 03 2012 04:28 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 04:16 PassionFruit wrote:On May 03 2012 03:26 Kaitlin wrote:Federal Tort Claims Act. This is the law that offers the ONLY opportunity for this guy to sue the government. As part of this, punitive damages ($10 million) do not fly. It looks like he can sue for actual damages, such as loss of life and property loss, neither of which apply here. I'm not sure what kind of health he's in now, but if he's fully recovered, he's not gonna get much. Whatever amount he does get, it will basically cover medical bills for whatever conditions he has developed. Also, I'm not sure about this, because I only read it in one place, but there was a statement about only being able to sue under the FTCA for things which an ordinary, non-government citizen would be liable for. For example, if somebody slips in a post office. However, for functions not performed by ordinary citizens, the government can claim sovereign immunity and not be sued. So, we know the FTCA is the controlling legislation as to lawsuit potential here. We know FTCA only allows suit for actual damages, if at all. So, this guy ain't gonna get rich. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html Don't forget about the Civil Rights Act: 42 USC 1983. Good 'ol civil rights suit against the State for violation of your fundamental Constitutional rights. At first glance, I can see potential 6th, 8th, and 14th amendment violation arguments. Take more than a first glance.
lmao or you can explain it yourself.
|
On May 02 2012 14:30 Disregard wrote:
A few million isn't going to help you with early retirement but still ^^
If you can't retire with a few million....
400k - house+ all furniture tv's etc.
100k - nice car
300k- investing/property tax/random bills.
200k- food/drinks/fun/
and thats just if you have 1 million...
Hell 400k for the house is only if you think you need a really nice house. I'd be fine with a 200-250k house.
I could EASILY retire right now today if I had a few million.
|
On May 03 2012 04:35 ecstatica wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 04:17 AngryMag wrote:On May 03 2012 03:44 ecstatica wrote:On May 03 2012 03:28 AngryMag wrote:On May 03 2012 02:32 ecstatica wrote: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. I am sorry, but no the average adult cannot survive without water for seven days. Life expectancy for the average adult without drinking water lies between 3 and 5 days depending on various circumstances (temperature, humidity, metabolism etc). In deserts you will (probably) not even make one day, people often died from dehydration within a few hours in deserts. And yes without water you start to suffer from symptoms which are also linked to clinical insanity for example hallucinations (among others). And no you do not dehydrate via drinking your own urin, the opposite is the case (in the first days without water, before you get "dry"). Don't be sorry for being ignorant, rather do something about it. Here's the first link off a simple google search. There's a table in it. You can guess the approximate temperature in a prison cell, shouldn't be 110F. http://www.survivaltopics.com/how-long-can-you-survive-without-water/http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_salt_water_dehydrate_you again no, some charts do not equate scientific proof. General rule of thumb is between 3 and 5 days, like it or not. This is according to Prof.Dr. Anton Luger, head of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at AKH Wien and every other doc will tell you the same. Some guys who made it over-the-top long do not equal the average guy. I rather trust science instead of random graphs without actual data to back them up "General rule of thumb", what the f is that? The same thing that always says 3 days? What science are you talking about, you can't string 2 sentences together and you bring "science" in. If you actually start searching beyond THE VERY FIRST LINK you will find that basically every source says the same and it's beyond 3-5 days. Stop being a clown.
I talk about the science in which intelligent people devote their whole lives to explore the functionality of human's metabolism. Well rule of thumb is a nice term to make clear that you cannot say "you will survive three days without water" because you have to consider various factors which come into play. But of course, you are free to keep your point of view, I guess arguing here is pointless
|
On May 03 2012 04:25 Dryzt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 00:42 Tewks44 wrote:On May 03 2012 00:24 Dryzt wrote: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. i would say listening to anything CNN has to say is probably were your issue lies. http://elitedaily.com/elite/2012/occupy-wall-street-activist-suffers-seizure-beaten-police/this article talks about a female protestor being alegedly beaten by police into a seizure. Then they mistreat her while she is convulsing by moving her off to the side by her head as commented by witnesses. The article also includes a video captured by pretestors of the whole event. this is just one case.
first of all, saying "this is just one case" does not support the idea that there were "numerous videos of protestors being beaten bloody" like you first alleged.
Second of all, reports differ. Although some people say she was beaten, others say she was handcuffed before she started seizing, and some people even say she elbowed an officer in the head and tried to run away before being subdued. Regardless, the headline was she was beaten, because this is what sounds most exciting. One thing is for sure, she went into a seizure
When she went into a seizure the accounts seem a tad more clear. It seems she was dragged onto the side of the road and was treated by a NYPD medic. The individual who uploaded the youtube video claims she was dragged by the head, although there is no video evidence, nor additional eye witnesses to support this.
Basically, from what I can gather there was some kind of altercation with a protestor and police, the protestor had a seizure, and was then treated. I am also kind of confused why you would imply the quality of CNN's journalism is lacking, and then post a sensationalist story like this that uses youtube uploader comments as a source.
|
On May 03 2012 03:07 ecstatica wrote:
By the way, if some of you have ever done drugs, esp synthetic shit like meth or ecstasy, you should know how much of a stress it puts on your body. This moron basically severely injured himself in the most moronic manner.
I'm no doctor but tell you what, when you've ingested a drug, any drug, and have no liquid with which to piss it out, it's probably gonna fuck your kidneys because "They serve the body as a natural filter of the blood, and remove wastes which are diverted to the urinary bladder." according to our lord wiki.
Taking ecstasy is going to put no more pressure on your system than an all day hike. Horse riding kills more people in the UK than ecstasy. Meth is similar but has stronger physically addictive properties.
|
Sensationalist article. Of course he'll win millions, the judicial system is shit. He wasn't FORCED to drink his piss (it's worse than drinking nothing anyway); he wasn't FORCED to eat meth off the floor.
Idiot who left him there should get fired. All medical bills, present and future (relating to the incident) should be covered. Give him a few thousand cash. He doesn't deserve fucking MILLIONS of dollars from TAXPAYERS just cause 1 man fucked up. No. Fucking. Way. This isn't suing nutella cutting into some megaconglomerate's profit margin, any money he wins in a lawsuit comes from us directly.
|
On May 03 2012 08:02 Audemed wrote:
Sensationalist article. Of course he'll win millions, the judicial system is shit. He wasn't FORCED to drink his piss (it's worse than drinking nothing anyway); he wasn't FORCED to eat meth off the floor.
Idiot who left him there should get fired. All medical bills, present and future (relating to the incident) should be covered. Give him a few thousand cash. He doesn't deserve fucking MILLIONS of dollars from TAXPAYERS just cause 1 man fucked up. No. Fucking. Way. This isn't suing nutella cutting into some megaconglomerate's profit margin, any money he wins in a lawsuit comes from us directly.
Right cause he had a choice. If no one came to assist me for five days I would do anything I can to survive.You will be surprised how different you are when you are dehydrated. Hunger isn't that big of an issue in comparison to your body lacking fluids. He obviously felt threatened to the point where he went survival mode (although I am somewhat shaky ont he whole meth part) He was neglected...for 5 fucking days. He was caught smoking marijuana (he had possession I believe). The DEAs even said they wouldn't criminally charge him and even offered him a ride home after the whole process.
I do not care what they say or do because how incompetent do you have to be to forget someone for 5 days. They caught 7 people and processed 6 people either to transfer to different facilities or releasing them...
edit: btw can anyone explain how the hell he "found" meth in a DEA prison cell...I mean...that is about mind boggling as him being neglected...
|
Wow...this is sad. There is really not much more to say than the fact that there was a MAJOR oversight almost cost the life of someone. I think that the DEA should make sure he is taken care of the rest of his life and that it about it. What else could be done at this point other than internal reviews of their actions as well to prevent this in the future.
I am sure that whoever dropped the ball on this one feels like a complete douchebag as well. Well, good luck to the victim for the future. Whatever crimes or sins he may have committed in his life, he has paid for them it sounds like. I just hope that the DEA and others involved can learn from such shitty situations.
|
I'm going to say the moral of the story is to not take drugs. Unfortunately, I'm probably he minority here on TL, as most people seem to use them. :/
|
Poor guy. What he did didn't deserve the poor fate that was brought to him. Good fucking oversight from the DEA... Way to be so unprofessional that one guy almost died...
|
How do they not regularly check their cells or have someone within hearing distance of the cell (assuming he yelled at some point..). Or even clean their cells after people are released (meth on the floor? hello?).
|
I'm pretty amazed at how some people (not all) can't even remotely put themselves in the victim's shoes or assess the situation clearly.
First off, people saying that they'd do it for a million dollars are beyond retarded. Sure, I'd do it too if I'm guaranteed to have the same results, as in I know I'm going out on the fifth day without dying. What if there's no guarantee that they'll find you on the fifth day? Sitting in a cell with nothing to think about but the fear of death would probably make anyone go crazy on the third day. It's not the same thing as knowing the results beforehand. Similarly, comparing this incident to intentional fasting is outrageous.
Second, people saying that the story seems iffy or he doesn't deserve the money are questioning something that doesn't matter at all. The fact that they forgot about him is inexcusable, the rest doesn't matter.
Third, if I was that victim and some guy on the internet told me I don't deserve a million dollars of taxpayer's money for this, I'd say fuck you. I'm certainly not ignorant about taxpayer dollars going to the wrong things, but fuck you.
|
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.
Just fyi he was cleared and not charged.
or, the media lied to me.
|
On May 03 2012 04:17 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:44 ecstatica wrote:On May 03 2012 03:28 AngryMag wrote:On May 03 2012 02:32 ecstatica wrote: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. I am sorry, but no the average adult cannot survive without water for seven days. Life expectancy for the average adult without drinking water lies between 3 and 5 days depending on various circumstances (temperature, humidity, metabolism etc). In deserts you will (probably) not even make one day, people often died from dehydration within a few hours in deserts. And yes without water you start to suffer from symptoms which are also linked to clinical insanity for example hallucinations (among others). And no you do not dehydrate via drinking your own urin, the opposite is the case (in the first days without water, before you get "dry"). Don't be sorry for being ignorant, rather do something about it. Here's the first link off a simple google search. There's a table in it. You can guess the approximate temperature in a prison cell, shouldn't be 110F. http://www.survivaltopics.com/how-long-can-you-survive-without-water/http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_salt_water_dehydrate_you again no, some charts do not equate scientific proof. General rule of thumb is between 3 and 5 days, like it or not. This is according to Prof.Dr. Anton Luger, head of the department of endocrinology and metabolism at AKH Wien and every other doc will tell you the same. Some guys who made it over-the-top long do not equal the average guy. I rather trust science instead of random graphs without actual data to back them up
What's happening, is he believes because someone once did live 7 days that everyone lives 7 days... It is very similar to food, and/or anything else... It is completely related to your own metabolism and the enviorment, your body just doesn't "naturally" say. "I got this shit brah, I heard I survive 7 days"
So yeah, 3-5 days (5 being generous) is a good call.
|
The kid deserves millions. Actually, he probably deserves more than what some people get from successful lawsuits against cigarette and alcohol companies.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him walking away with enough to support himself for life, a very nice house and car, myriad luxuries, and probably pay for his entire family's life too.
|
On May 03 2012 09:58 Release wrote:
The kid deserves millions. Actually, he probably deserves more than what some people get from successful lawsuits against cigarette and alcohol companies.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him walking away with enough to support himself for life, a very nice house and car, myriad luxuries, and probably pay for his entire family's life too.
You really don't know how small a few million dollars are do you?
|
He should get free food and water from the DEA for the rest of his life
|
And the police state further shows it's incompetence and/or corruption. yay, more fuel for other nations to attack/poke-fun of the USA. /sigh Hope the kid is alright. fucking sucks.
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Noruxas wrote:
Well seeing how its USA, he'll probably sue them and get a few million dollars OLOLOLOL
...and you wouldn't?
|
On May 03 2012 10:07 Kazeyonoma wrote:
And the police state further shows it's incompetence and/or corruption. yay, more fuel for other nations to attack/poke-fun of the USA. /sigh Hope the kid is alright. fucking sucks.
Sounds like incompetence; corruption wouldn't have anything to do with some as unimportant (I don't mean this in a mean way) as him.
|
I don't understand how some people can be so callous toward this guy's experience, even if he was (hypothetically) completely involved in the activities going on in that domicile. He's a human being and no human being deserves such treatment. Quibbling over the usage of the word "forced?" Are you kidding me? How is being held at gunpoint and told to drink urine any different from being lock in a small room for days on end without knowing that you would be ever released or even noticed any different; both put the person in a situation where he has to choose to perform said action.
But even the action of drinking urine is petty in the grand scheme of things. A governing body left this guy in a room to die. I don't care who you are or what you've done, but if the government puts you in a situation where you almost die of kidney failure or get so desperate as to try and kill yourself by eating the lens' of your glasses, you deserve some hefty compensation, even if its at taxpayers' expenses.
|
On May 03 2012 10:23 Oiseaux wrote:
I don't understand how some people can be so callous toward this guy's experience, even if he was (hypothetically) completely involved in the activities going on in that domicile. He's a human being and no human being deserves such treatment. Quibbling over the usage of the word "forced?" Are you kidding me? How is being held at gunpoint and told to drink urine any different from being lock in a small room for days on end without knowing that you would be ever released or even noticed any different; both put the person in a situation where he has to choose to perform said action.
But even the action of drinking urine is petty in the grand scheme of things. A governing body left this guy in a room to die. I don't care who you are or what you've done, but if the government puts you in a situation where you almost die of kidney failure or get so desperate as to try and kill yourself by eating the lens' of your glasses, you deserve some hefty compensation, even if its at taxpayers' expenses.
they are either trolling or havent graduated from middle school yet. I couldnt imagine a grown person with half of a brain thinking he deserves anything that happened to him. I mean really you think he deserves it becuase he uses drugs? lmao how retarded can someone possibly be... embarrassing to be of the same species of some of you animals.
User was warned for this post
|
People who have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned for DECADES have received less than a million in compensation. THEY deserve millions. This kid? Give him a couple hundred grand and be done with it.
|
On May 03 2012 11:23 scissorhands wrote:
People who have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned for DECADES have received less than a million in compensation. THEY deserve millions. This kid? Give him a couple hundred grand and be done with it.
you understand what death is right? he was literally dying of kidney failure
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Zahir wrote:
that would piss me off for sure.
on a relevant note, i think this kid is going to be suing the pants off the state fairly soon. 10 mil at least, is my guess. i would definitely be willing to drink my own urine for 5 days for that kind of return.
LOLOLOLLL
me too. thats for sure!!!
|
On May 03 2012 11:23 scissorhands wrote:
People who have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned for DECADES have received less than a million in compensation. THEY deserve millions. This kid? Give him a couple hundred grand and be done with it.
Well its not so much that he was wrongly imprisoned. Even if a convicted murderer/rapist/drug dealer who was on his way to death row were treated this way, there would be a shitstorm due to cruel and unusual punishment. Sure this was a big mistake (negligence), but the result was one of the most extreme. Maybe you could make a better argument saying that people in the past have been treated worse with no compensation (medieval torture and what not).
Oh and to people who claim they are willing to drink their own urine for a couple mil clearly misunderstand what the true issue was. The problem is the anxiety and belief that you are going to die of dehydration in a tiny cell due to negligence. So really what you people are saying is that you're willing to die of starvation/dehydration for a couple of million, because I'm quite certain that was the worst part of being stuck in this cell, which would be 1000 times worse than having to drink your own urine.
|
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.
Welcome to america. The land of fucked up government and fucked up authority.
Welcome to america. Home of sue happy people who sue for anything and everything.
Welcome to america.
People will sue for just about anything. And who the fuck cares if someone sues the DEA. Fuck the DEA and all their bullshit.
I hope they loose and have to pay alot of money to this guy.
/rant
|
uhm he wasnt arrested for ANYTHING. He was detained and supposed to be released that day.
|
I would drink my own urine for at lot less money than he is going to get. However, this is still absolutely terrible
|
On May 02 2012 14:08 General Nuke Em wrote:
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.
When authorities with the DEA discovered that the student was still in the cell, they immediately called emergency medical services.
In the cell, the detainee told authorities he found a white powdery substance, which he took, the statement said.
Later testing revealed the substance was methamphetamine.
Sources close to the student say he nearly died of kidney failure in Sharp hospital due to the dehydration he experienced. He was treated for several days and released.
He is not currently under arrest, authorities with the DEA said.
Ahaha, the timing of this line made me crack up. "You took methamphetamine while you were in there? You're under arrest! Again!"
But really, he'll probably be able to make some decent money in a lawsuit, so as long as he makes it out without any permanent damage in the end, not the worst deal for him. That would be a pretty shitty experience though, not knowing if everyone is ever going to remember or rescue you. That's like psychological torture.
|
On May 03 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 09:58 Release wrote:
The kid deserves millions. Actually, he probably deserves more than what some people get from successful lawsuits against cigarette and alcohol companies.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him walking away with enough to support himself for life, a very nice house and car, myriad luxuries, and probably pay for his entire family's life too. You really don't know how small a few million dollars are do you?
I don't see what saying this is meant to prove. I can live extremely comfortably by myself at like $20,000 a year because I'm single; if you were to give me say, 2 million dollars. Given a similar lifestyle, I could live comfortably for 100 years.
|
I can't believe this guy was missing for 5 days and not a single friend or family member bothered to try and find out what happened to him.
|
On May 03 2012 12:09 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On May 03 2012 09:58 Release wrote:
The kid deserves millions. Actually, he probably deserves more than what some people get from successful lawsuits against cigarette and alcohol companies.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him walking away with enough to support himself for life, a very nice house and car, myriad luxuries, and probably pay for his entire family's life too. You really don't know how small a few million dollars are do you? I don't see what saying this is meant to prove. I can live extremely comfortably by myself at like $20,000 a year because I'm single; if you were to give me say, 2 million dollars. Given a similar lifestyle, I could live comfortably for 100 years.
What about inflation? This guy deserves a shit load of money for his ordeal. Really disgusting that the DEA is that bad at their jobs
|
On May 03 2012 11:23 scissorhands wrote:
People who have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned for DECADES have received less than a million in compensation. THEY deserve millions. This kid? Give him a couple hundred grand and be done with it.
This argument is fallacious. Maybe the people who were wrongly imprisoned for decades didn't receive enough compensation.
How much he receives should be based off a number of things, but none of those things are how much compensation somebody else received.
|
I guess it's from living in America for so long, but this is the most legitimate reason to sue someone I've ever heard of. If people think drinking your own urine is so easy, go ahead and do it for 5 days in a locked room.
The internet is full of bark louder then bite types, so it's pointless to discuss it. Either they can do it and post results, or they can't and whine about other people "getting lucky" in life. Seriously?
|
taking the meth or not taking it is a pretty interesting dilemma, on one hand if you know you're gonna be in there without water for 5 days obviously you don't take it due to the dehydration risks.
however in this case im sure he thought there was no way dea employees could be possibly so incompetent as to leave him there without food or water until his kidneys failed. amphetamines are a powerful appetite suppressant and taking some meth during day 2 would probably do amazing things to help deal with the hunger.
it's really dumb to be questioning his decision to take it, if you were locked in solitary confinement for 5 days you'd be taking whatever drugs you could get your hands on too, shit i bet most of you would be all about some free meth by day 3 if your parents took your internet and video games away
|
The level of incompetence required for this to happen is so absurd that the story is actually hard to believe.
|
In what way was he forced to dink urine?
|
He was forced to drink his urine in order to avoid death. No one physically forced him to do anything.
|
On May 03 2012 10:01 oldgregg wrote:He should get free food and water from the DEA for the rest of his life
I like the idea of whoever was in charge at this detention facility delivering the kid pizzas for the rest of his life.
|
On May 02 2012 14:16 StyLeD wrote:
I'd drink my urine AND take meth for 10mil. DEA, please lock me up! Make sure to forget about me for 5 days as well.
Sure, and then, after 5 days pass, they flip a coin and possibly don't find you for another few days and you die laying in your own filth. I wish people would stop making light of these sort of things. At best, this is near criminal incompetence of one or more employees. At worst, I don't even want to think about it.
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Noruxas wrote:
Well seeing how its USA, he'll probably sue them and get a few million dollars OLOLOLOL
and I got temp banned for saying 'GOD BLESS AMERICA'. This is blatant racism. I think the mods hate New Zealand.
|
Can only imagine how many times shit like this has been wiped under the rug.
|
Everyone thinks america is a joke after such news, but atleast their media covers it. Thats why their justice system works. In most countries media is controlled and you don't see all those 'funny' things. But believe me, there are a lot of them. Maybe way more than in america, since cases aren't brought to justice too often.
|
|
|
Drinking urine doesn't work. At least that's what I learned from my training in the Marines.
|
this isn't about the money, its more about how incompetent the police are, and the fact that he could have potentially died, which is the biggest problem here.
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Noruxas wrote:
Well seeing how its USA, he'll probably sue them and get a few million dollars OLOLOLOL
This deserves to happen.
|
On May 03 2012 12:12 red4ce wrote:
I can't believe this guy was missing for 5 days and not a single friend or family member bothered to try and find out what happened to him.
They might have tried and not been able to find out anything useful. The DEA thought they had released him and would have said that if asked. Until now, they would have looked at you as though you were crazy if you asked them to double check their cells to see if they still have your missing person in them.
|
is there any update on this? i would like to hear if he suffered any damage or how much he intends to sue for, if he does go ahead with it
|
He's suing for $20 million, was in the hospital for 5 days, at least 3 of those were in intensive care. Not sure about non-emotional permanent damage.
|
20 millions is ridiculous, like many lawsuits in the US. People have gotten so used to seeing huge figures, 20 millions doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, but it's a lot of money for one person... especially in the hands of a person who apparently is involved with a variety of drugs and military weapons.
Does he deserve compensation - sure. Maybe 100k... Hell let's say 2 millions which is enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life. 20 millions though? Had a really rough 5 days over a gross mistake, doesn't mean you deserve to live in extreme luxury for the rest of your life.
Imagine him 2 years down the line with 20 millions, he'll (seriously) think it was EASILY worth the 5 days of hell.
|
On May 06 2012 02:11 Djzapz wrote:
20 millions is ridiculous, like many lawsuits in the US. People have gotten so used to huge figure, 20 millions doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, but it's a lot of money for one person... especially in the hands of a person who apparently is involved with a variety of drugs and military weapons.
Does he deserve compensation - sure. Maybe 100k... Hell let's say 2 millions which is enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life. 20 millions though? Had a really rough 5 days over a gross mistake, doesn't mean you deserve to live in extreme luxury for the rest of your life.
Imagine him 2 years down the line with 20 millions, he'll (seriously) think it was EASILY worth the 5 days of hell.
This
User was warned for this post
|
On May 06 2012 02:11 Djzapz wrote:
20 millions is ridiculous, like many lawsuits in the US. People have gotten so used to huge figure, 20 millions doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, but it's a lot of money for one person... especially in the hands of a person who apparently is involved with a variety of drugs and military weapons.
Does he deserve compensation - sure. Maybe 100k... Hell let's say 2 millions which is enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life. 20 millions though? Had a really rough 5 days over a gross mistake, doesn't mean you deserve to live in extreme luxury for the rest of your life.
Imagine him 2 years down the line with 20 millions, he'll (seriously) think it was EASILY worth the 5 days of hell.
If you think any amount of money is worth this, you're fucking sick in the head.
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Zahir wrote:
that would piss me off for sure.
Sorry, but I cannot stop laughing at this one, even though I think it was unintended haha.
|
On May 06 2012 03:52 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 02:11 Djzapz wrote:
20 millions is ridiculous, like many lawsuits in the US. People have gotten so used to huge figure, 20 millions doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, but it's a lot of money for one person... especially in the hands of a person who apparently is involved with a variety of drugs and military weapons.
Does he deserve compensation - sure. Maybe 100k... Hell let's say 2 millions which is enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life. 20 millions though? Had a really rough 5 days over a gross mistake, doesn't mean you deserve to live in extreme luxury for the rest of your life.
Imagine him 2 years down the line with 20 millions, he'll (seriously) think it was EASILY worth the 5 days of hell. If you think any amount of money is worth this, you're fucking sick in the head.
I would love to do meth and drink my own piss for 20 million dollars...for 5 days. Fuck yeah!
Seriously, you wouldn't?
|
He was over at a buddies for 4/20. Those weren't his ecstasy pills or weapons. Basic reading comprehension for the win.
I'm sure anyone would be willing to go through that for 5 days if you know you'll be reviving that much money and if you know you will live (like everyone in this thread). Thinking you are going to die there (and he came very close) is a whole different story.
Hopefully the DEA receives massive cuts after this. The war on drugs is so fucked up and useless.
|
On May 06 2012 04:04 SlowBullets wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 03:52 Candadar wrote:On May 06 2012 02:11 Djzapz wrote:
20 millions is ridiculous, like many lawsuits in the US. People have gotten so used to huge figure, 20 millions doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, but it's a lot of money for one person... especially in the hands of a person who apparently is involved with a variety of drugs and military weapons.
Does he deserve compensation - sure. Maybe 100k... Hell let's say 2 millions which is enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life. 20 millions though? Had a really rough 5 days over a gross mistake, doesn't mean you deserve to live in extreme luxury for the rest of your life.
Imagine him 2 years down the line with 20 millions, he'll (seriously) think it was EASILY worth the 5 days of hell. If you think any amount of money is worth this, you're fucking sick in the head. I would love to do meth and drink my own piss for 20 million dollars...for 5 days. Fuck yeah! Seriously, you wouldn't?
He almost died, and didnt know if he was going to get out or not. If someone put you in that situation I highly doubt you would "love it". Its not like he's just sitting there eating meth and drinking piss for money...the guy was going to die and did the only thing he thought would save his life. How is that worth it?
|
Everybody who is wronged in any way seems to think they deserve to live a life of luxury and never work again. American culture seems to have lost its work ethic, which is really sad and contributing, in large part, to our degradation. I really hope that Federal Tort Claims Act applies here and he only gets paid for actual injury. I think there is no doubt he suffered and should be compensated for whatever medical bills or actual injury he's suffered, but beyond that, nope.
|
On May 06 2012 02:11 Djzapz wrote:
20 millions is ridiculous, like many lawsuits in the US. People have gotten so used to huge figure, 20 millions doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, but it's a lot of money for one person... especially in the hands of a person who apparently is involved with a variety of drugs and military weapons.
Does he deserve compensation - sure. Maybe 100k... Hell let's say 2 millions which is enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life. 20 millions though? Had a really rough 5 days over a gross mistake, doesn't mean you deserve to live in extreme luxury for the rest of your life.
Imagine him 2 years down the line with 20 millions, he'll (seriously) think it was EASILY worth the 5 days of hell.
100 grand wont even cover his medical bills. He was in ICU for over 72 hours, with acute renal failure. Maybe your life is only worth 100k, but I would disagree. Beyond that if you would have read the articles carefully it never stated he was involved with drugs and "military weapons". He was being detained for questioning, meaning he was not their target. He could have been a friend, family member, or just in the wrong place at the right time. I think "rough day" is beyond an understatement. It's hard for us to imagine that situation because we haven't experienced what he did. He was treated way worse than being tortured.
I just dont understand all these ppl in this thread stating "he used drugs and had weapons he doesnt deserve anything " What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
edit; removing ad hominem ;()
|
On May 02 2012 15:51 phosphorylation wrote:
Hell, I would stay in a cell for 5 days without food and water but potentially getting 1+ mil dollars in return.
I would even do it for 100k.
Most peoople die after three days without water. As tough as you are saying this. 5 days without water but drinking your own piss is hell. After the 3rd day you feel so terrible you probably just want to die. Nobody here wants to go through an experience like this. He deserves every bit of money he gets imo.
|
On May 06 2012 04:11 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 02:11 Djzapz wrote:
20 millions is ridiculous, like many lawsuits in the US. People have gotten so used to huge figure, 20 millions doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, but it's a lot of money for one person... especially in the hands of a person who apparently is involved with a variety of drugs and military weapons.
Does he deserve compensation - sure. Maybe 100k... Hell let's say 2 millions which is enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life. 20 millions though? Had a really rough 5 days over a gross mistake, doesn't mean you deserve to live in extreme luxury for the rest of your life.
Imagine him 2 years down the line with 20 millions, he'll (seriously) think it was EASILY worth the 5 days of hell. 100 grand wont even cover his medical bills. He was in ICU for over 72 hours, with acute renal failure. Maybe your life is only worth 100k, but I would disagree. Beyond that if you would have read the articles carefully it never stated he was involved with drugs and "military weapons". He was being detained for questioning, meaning he was not their target. He could have been a friend, family member, or just in the wrong place at the right time. I think "rough day" is beyond an understatement. It's hard for us to imagine that situation because we haven't experienced what he did. He was treated way worse than being tortured. I just dont understand all these ppl in this thread stating "he used drugs and had weapons he doesnt deserve anything " What does that have to do with ANYTHING? sheltered life syndrome is in full force in this thread or something...
2 millions then, whatever - not 20 millions. I did give some serious wiggle room did I not? And we're not debating on the monetary value of "his life", the guy didn't die and if he did, he wouldn't be after money.
Also the fact that spending 3 days in the ICU costs over $100,000 is just sad.
Edit: your personal attack was fine, I have bigger problems than internets!
|
youre right im trying to figure out why so many people are saying he should be treated differently because he used drugs and weapons. (weapons werent his just making a point)
|
On May 06 2012 04:10 Kaitlin wrote:
Everybody who is wronged in any way seems to think they deserve to live a life of luxury and never work again. American culture seems to have lost its work ethic, which is really sad and contributing, in large part, to our degradation. I really hope that Federal Tort Claims Act applies here and he only gets paid for actual injury. I think there is no doubt he suffered and should be compensated for whatever medical bills or actual injury he's suffered, but beyond that, nope.
I really doubt you would be singing that tune if you were in his position. Besides he more than likely suffered mental damage you nor I are even remotely capable of measuring...
|
On May 06 2012 04:23 heliusx wrote:
youre right im trying to figure out why so many people are saying he should be treated differently because he used drugs and weapons. (weapons werent his just making a point)
I treat people differently depending on what they do, and I think that if the government is to give a shitload of taxpayer money to a person who hasn't earned any of it, it's better if that money doesn't go toward buying drugs. Either way in the end, you're the ones who pay for the mistakes of the DEA. If the bad stuff wasn't his, then good.
|
Just to clarify for anyone confused, he didn't have the drugs and illegal weapons on him, he was in a house that had the stuff there. He said he had gone there to do ex and stayed the night when the raid happened.
|
Why are people bitching about 20 million?
a) No amount is justifiable putting a person through that kind of torture. No form of torture is justifiable. Let's not get into the semantics. Torture is torture, legally or illegally, whether or not it was on purpose. Yes, I know it happens everyday, but please don't argue that fact.
b) He was innocent. The drugs and weapons did NOT belong to him. What article are you guys reading, here? He was detained to be questioned, promised to be released, even to be driven home by a DEA agent. And I'm sitting here reading pages of people arguing whether the weapons were military grade or some shit, or how ecstasy is not like weed?? What the hell?
c) People are obviously ignorant to how the American justice system works, so their comments don't really warrant a long reply, but rather a quick clarification on the subject - most lawsuits give unusually large (often ridiculous) amounts, it's common practice. The amount gradually reduces through bargains and appeals, and whatever amount the defense wants to pick off. The lawyer gets a large margin, and he's the one sitting through them, and he's the one who usually decides the number. Then there's the judge who can change the value after any ruling. Then there's the matter of settlement after the case. Then there's tax. Let's say this kid wins on all counts, gets a good judge who likes him and wants to send a message out, AND has a lawyer who somehow decided his cut doesn't increase after winning (good luck with that - any lawyer winning a state case, especially this one where it's all over the news, gets final say on his cut), he will probably get no more than 1 million.
|
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Are people really complaining about how much he's suing for? Come on. What would you do in his shoes? Sue for the morally appropriate amount? lol
|
I like the argument that "what happened to him sucks just enough that he can sue for any amount". Good thing the money doesn't come from the pockets of the people who actually made the mistake!
|
On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant.
As if that ever worked. Do you seriously mean to suggest that if people are just fined enough for any wrongdoing that all wrongdoing will go away? No, what will happen is that you will drain either the public treasury or ruin individual people's lives (as is sometimes the case in the US from what I understand). 100k is probably too small of a sum, especially concidering that he has medical bills that are already at that amount from what I understand, but 20 million is over the top instead. And for whoever suggested that it was wrong to ask him for a morally justifiable amount to sue for, I don't see why? He's entitled to compensation, sure, but there are limits.
|
On May 06 2012 05:27 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. As if that ever worked. Do you seriously mean to suggest that if people are just fined enough for any wrongdoing that all wrongdoing will go away? No, what will happen is that you will drain either the public treasury or ruin individual people's lives (as is sometimes the case in the US from what I understand). 100k is probably too small of a sum, especially concidering that he has medical bills that are already at that amount from what I understand, but 20 million is over the top instead. And for whoever suggested that it was wrong to ask him for a morally justifiable amount to sue for, I don't see why? He's entitled to compensation, sure, but there are limits.
I can agree with that because it will not send a statement, even though it really should. As long as we are in agreement that he should be compensated beyondr his medical bills. Mainly because he was abused mentally in one of the worst possible way. We don't even do this to our enemies.
|
On May 06 2012 05:36 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 05:27 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. As if that ever worked. Do you seriously mean to suggest that if people are just fined enough for any wrongdoing that all wrongdoing will go away? No, what will happen is that you will drain either the public treasury or ruin individual people's lives (as is sometimes the case in the US from what I understand). 100k is probably too small of a sum, especially concidering that he has medical bills that are already at that amount from what I understand, but 20 million is over the top instead. And for whoever suggested that it was wrong to ask him for a morally justifiable amount to sue for, I don't see why? He's entitled to compensation, sure, but there are limits. I can agree with that because it will not send a statement, even though it really should. As long as we are in agreement that he should be compensated beyondr his medical bills. Mainly because he was abused mentally in one of the worst possible way. We don't even do this to our enemies.
Woa now, let's not forget Omar Khadr. The US does do this to their enemies, even when they're underage Canadians who may or may not have committed "war crimes".
|
On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant.
I agree completely. I can't imagine what this guy went through, and the individual(s) who messed up all should lose their jobs as well. 20 million after taxes, to me at least, seems appropriate for what happened to the poor guy. Will he think it was all worth it 2-5 years from now? Sure. But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't.
It's all about perspective, and fortunately none of us here have ever gone through something like this...so we don't really know what this poor guy is feeling right now.
|
If it really played out the way it looks like it did.... throw this kid as much money as he wants.
|
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev.
|
On May 06 2012 06:10 Perseverance wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. I agree completely. I can't imagine what this guy went through, and the individual(s) who messed up all should lose their jobs as well. 20 million after taxes, to me at least, seems appropriate for what happened to the poor guy. Will he think it was all worth it 2-5 years from now? Sure. But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't. It's all about perspective, and fortunately none of us here have ever gone through something like this...so we don't really know what this poor guy is feeling right now.
I fail to see how he feels right now should have any bearing on what kind of compensation is deemed appropriate. If someone screams that a DUI driver should be killed for killing one of their family, then they should be entitled to that aswell? I mean it's just a nonsense argument. Shit happens, that doesn't mean you're entitled to outrageous amounts of money, nor should it.
|
On May 06 2012 06:55 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 06:10 Perseverance wrote:On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. I agree completely. I can't imagine what this guy went through, and the individual(s) who messed up all should lose their jobs as well. 20 million after taxes, to me at least, seems appropriate for what happened to the poor guy. Will he think it was all worth it 2-5 years from now? Sure. But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't. It's all about perspective, and fortunately none of us here have ever gone through something like this...so we don't really know what this poor guy is feeling right now. I fail to see how he feels right now should have any bearing on what kind of compensation is deemed appropriate. If someone screams that a DUI driver should be killed for killing one of their family, then they should be entitled to that aswell? I mean it's just a nonsense argument. Shit happens, that doesn't mean you're entitled to outrageous amounts of money, nor should it.
Some people think government business should be handled according to their gut feeling!
|
But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't.
Which is why I think he should not demand money, at all, other than to pay for treatment.
Because money doesn`t change any of what a person went through, but situation is used to press money of state, using others people empathy to fill pockets of himself and of course his lawyer who will get a hefty cut of compensation, and probably is the reason why so much money was demanded in the first place.
|
Financially independent in exchange for the 5 worst days of ur life.
I think I would also take that deal >.>
|
On May 06 2012 07:36 Jakkerr wrote:
Financially independent in exchange for the 5 worst days of ur life.
I think I would also take that deal >.>
you would risk very high odds of dying for some cash? it's a really bad bet that you would likely lose.
|
On May 06 2012 05:27 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. As if that ever worked. Do you seriously mean to suggest that if people are just fined enough for any wrongdoing that all wrongdoing will go away? No, what will happen is that you will drain either the public treasury or ruin individual people's lives (as is sometimes the case in the US from what I understand). 100k is probably too small of a sum, especially concidering that he has medical bills that are already at that amount from what I understand, but 20 million is over the top instead. And for whoever suggested that it was wrong to ask him for a morally justifiable amount to sue for, I don't see why? He's entitled to compensation, sure, but there are limits.
Your all or nothing views are startlingly naive. Never did I say that you could sue the problem into extinction. Does any amount of policing completely get rid of crime? No, of course not. But it sure as hell reduces it. Are there limits? Of course there is, there is definitely a middle ground between punishing an institution to a destructive point and ineffectual punishment. 20 million is enough to force the department to change its policies without driving it into the ground with debt. Until i see data that shows otherwise, 20 million seems like a perfectly legitimate sum.
|
On May 06 2012 07:39 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 07:36 Jakkerr wrote:
Financially independent in exchange for the 5 worst days of ur life.
I think I would also take that deal >.> you would risk very high odds of dying for some cash? it's a really bad bet that you would likely lose.
That's not really the point tho.
This dude would probably have sued for the same amount if they found him after 3 days.
And yeh... I don't have to give you the examples of the tons of idiotic lawsuits that happened in America over the last 10 years where people became financially independent for being unlucky (or lucky).
This guy went through hell I'm sure, but should he get a ton of money for that? hell no
Everything that's needed to get his life back on track should be paid and maybe a small 'we're sorry sum'.
But you can't give me a single logical argument why any1 would deserve such amounts of money for being unlucky (or lucky).Not only for this case, but pretty much all the sue cases in the USA.
|
On May 06 2012 06:55 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 06:10 Perseverance wrote:On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. I agree completely. I can't imagine what this guy went through, and the individual(s) who messed up all should lose their jobs as well. 20 million after taxes, to me at least, seems appropriate for what happened to the poor guy. Will he think it was all worth it 2-5 years from now? Sure. But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't. It's all about perspective, and fortunately none of us here have ever gone through something like this...so we don't really know what this poor guy is feeling right now. I fail to see how he feels right now should have any bearing on what kind of compensation is deemed appropriate. If someone screams that a DUI driver should be killed for killing one of their family, then they should be entitled to that aswell? I mean it's just a nonsense argument. Shit happens, that doesn't mean you're entitled to outrageous amounts of money, nor should it.
..So then what? The DEA does an internal investigation to find their officers acted in accordance, or one irrelevant officer is suspended/fired, and nothing changes. A large sum of money, i.e. a fine, is one way to send a message, and it just so happens this victim will be the recipient of it.
Theres a difference between a DUI driver and a law enforcement agency. One of them is responsible for upholding the law, not breaking it -- and it's certainly not the DUI driver.
|
On May 06 2012 05:04 Telcontar wrote:
Are people really complaining about how much he's suing for? Come on. What would you do in his shoes? Sue for the morally appropriate amount? lol
Are people really complain about politician tacking kickbacks? Come on. What would you do in his shoes? Say no to to a pile of easy money? Lol!
|
On May 06 2012 07:42 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 05:27 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. As if that ever worked. Do you seriously mean to suggest that if people are just fined enough for any wrongdoing that all wrongdoing will go away? No, what will happen is that you will drain either the public treasury or ruin individual people's lives (as is sometimes the case in the US from what I understand). 100k is probably too small of a sum, especially concidering that he has medical bills that are already at that amount from what I understand, but 20 million is over the top instead. And for whoever suggested that it was wrong to ask him for a morally justifiable amount to sue for, I don't see why? He's entitled to compensation, sure, but there are limits. Your all or nothing views are startlingly naive. Never did I say that you could sue the problem into extinction. Does any amount of policing completely get rid of crime? No, of course not. But it sure as hell reduces it. Are there limits? Of course there is, there is definitely a middle ground between punishing an institution to a destructive point and ineffectual punishment. 20 million is enough to force the department to change its policies without driving it into the ground with debt. Until i see data that shows otherwise, 20 million seems like a perfectly legitimate sum.
Look, throwing money at the problem, or robbing them of it, wont change anything. I've stated previously in this thread + Show Spoiler +On May 03 2012 03:16 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:12 HaXXspetten wrote:
Whaddya mean "forgot" to let him out, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Sickening to say the least. Most probably one guy thought another guy would do it. The other guy thought the first guy would do it. Since they both assumed it had been done, it had been done. It's not a complicated concept. It's something that should be worked in to routine to be avoided. The same thing happened with the guy who shot himself inbetween questioning by the police with a pistol he had on him the entire time. The police officers all assumed he had already been frisked by someone else, at pretty much all points in time up to him shooting himself. Both situations (this one and the guy with the gun) are of course entirely unacceptable but unless you put in to the work routine ways to avoid it, it will happen from time to time. On May 03 2012 04:09 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:27 Utinni wrote:On May 03 2012 03:16 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 03 2012 03:12 HaXXspetten wrote:
Whaddya mean "forgot" to let him out, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Sickening to say the least. Most probably one guy thought another guy would do it. The other guy thought the first guy would do it. Since they both assumed it had been done, it had been done. It's not a complicated concept. It's something that should be worked in to routine to be avoided. The same thing happened with the guy who shot himself inbetween questioning by the police with a pistol he had on him the entire time. The police officers all assumed he had already been frisked by someone else, at pretty much all points in time up to him shooting himself. Both situations (this one and the guy with the gun) are of course entirely unacceptable but unless you put in to the work routine ways to avoid it, it will happen from time to time. Yes, it is a simple concept but that's their job... they were not doing it right in both instances. A few more days and their negligence to do their routine responsibilities might have killed a student. Shitty buzz It's not a problem with the individuals (at least not usually) but with the routines which allow for the misunderstanding to happen in the first place. There are multiple ways to solve it (for example, appoint someone to be responsible for frisking anyone arriving at the police station, irregardless if it has or hasn't already been done and give this person (can rotate on shifts, etc) the reponsibility, or in the topic this thread is about, have someone be responsible for checking the holding cells, say, once a day. Have a schedule with checkboxes). It's not so much "they" as the system they operate in that almost made a fatal error.
On May 06 2012 07:48 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 06:55 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 06 2012 06:10 Perseverance wrote:On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. I agree completely. I can't imagine what this guy went through, and the individual(s) who messed up all should lose their jobs as well. 20 million after taxes, to me at least, seems appropriate for what happened to the poor guy. Will he think it was all worth it 2-5 years from now? Sure. But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't. It's all about perspective, and fortunately none of us here have ever gone through something like this...so we don't really know what this poor guy is feeling right now. I fail to see how he feels right now should have any bearing on what kind of compensation is deemed appropriate. If someone screams that a DUI driver should be killed for killing one of their family, then they should be entitled to that aswell? I mean it's just a nonsense argument. Shit happens, that doesn't mean you're entitled to outrageous amounts of money, nor should it. ..So then what? The DEA does an internal investigation to find their officers acted in accordance, or one irrelevant officer is suspended/fired, and nothing changes. A large sum of money, i.e. a fine, is one way to send a message, and it just so happens this victim will be the recipient of it. Theres a difference between a DUI driver and a law enforcement agency. One of them is responsible for upholding the law, not breaking it -- and it's certainly not the DUI driver.
They most probably did act accordingly, or made a very slight error. The solution is to put in place routines to avoid it happening again. That it happened once is bad enough, but we (and well functioning instutions) learn from our mistakes and try to make sure that they wont happen again. Naturally they might say that they did nothing wrong, and that it was a freak occurance, and that might be right. If you still have a problem with it after that, then you take it up with the politicians.
+ Show Spoiler [and again] +On May 03 2012 04:09 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:27 Utinni wrote:On May 03 2012 03:16 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 03 2012 03:12 HaXXspetten wrote:
Whaddya mean "forgot" to let him out, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Sickening to say the least. Most probably one guy thought another guy would do it. The other guy thought the first guy would do it. Since they both assumed it had been done, it had been done. It's not a complicated concept. It's something that should be worked in to routine to be avoided. The same thing happened with the guy who shot himself inbetween questioning by the police with a pistol he had on him the entire time. The police officers all assumed he had already been frisked by someone else, at pretty much all points in time up to him shooting himself. Both situations (this one and the guy with the gun) are of course entirely unacceptable but unless you put in to the work routine ways to avoid it, it will happen from time to time. Yes, it is a simple concept but that's their job... they were not doing it right in both instances. A few more days and their negligence to do their routine responsibilities might have killed a student. Shitty buzz It's not a problem with the individuals (at least not usually) but with the routines which allow for the misunderstanding to happen in the first place. There are multiple ways to solve it (for example, appoint someone to be responsible for frisking anyone arriving at the police station, irregardless if it has or hasn't already been done and give this person (can rotate on shifts, etc) the reponsibility, or in the topic this thread is about, have someone be responsible for checking the holding cells, say, once a day. Have a schedule with checkboxes). It's not so much "they" as the system they operate in that almost made a fatal error.
|
On May 06 2012 07:48 Tyrant0 wrote:
..So then what? The DEA does an internal investigation to find their officers acted in accordance, or one irrelevant officer is suspended/fired, and nothing changes. A large sum of money, i.e. a fine, is one way to send a message, and it just so happens this victim will be the recipient of it.
Theres a difference between a DUI driver and a law enforcement agency. One of them is responsible for upholding the law, not breaking it -- and it's certainly not the DUI driver.
How does granting a "victim" a pile of money DEA didn`t earn, has anything to do with DEA repeating same situation?
To make DEA more responsible, one need to fine/imprison the directly responsible for that, fine/ deny any "premiums" to their boses, ex, ex ,i.e. Punish the persons directly&indirectly responsible, will send a good message to DEA personel.
Punishment is the component that insures that crime will have less probability to happen again.
"A large sum of money" will only sent the message: Hey, taxpayers, we screwed up, but you will foot the punishment.
|
Doesn't urine cause poisoning and further dehydration because of the salt content?
I can't remember my high school biology.
|
On May 06 2012 08:05 RogerX wrote:
Doesn't urine cause poisoning and further dehydration because of the salt content?
I can't remember my high school biology.
How so?
You have same content within your body before you piss, and after you drink.
Generally speaking dehydratation is only caused by skin evaporation and breath when you do not eat and drink.
You also do not need to piss at all if you don`t drink/eat, which kinda means the story is borderline close to BS since imprisoned would only piss once anyway.
|
On May 06 2012 08:12 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 08:05 RogerX wrote:
Doesn't urine cause poisoning and further dehydration because of the salt content?
I can't remember my high school biology. How so? You have same content within your body before you piss, and after you drink. Generally speaking dehydratation is only caused by skin evaporation and breath when you do not eat and drink. You also do not need to piss at all if you don`t drink/eat, which kinda means the story is borderline close to BS since imprisoned would only piss once anyway.
for the love of god please tell me you are not being serious.
|
On May 06 2012 08:27 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 08:12 naastyOne wrote:On May 06 2012 08:05 RogerX wrote:
Doesn't urine cause poisoning and further dehydration because of the salt content?
I can't remember my high school biology. How so? You have same content within your body before you piss, and after you drink. Generally speaking dehydratation is only caused by skin evaporation and breath when you do not eat and drink. You also do not need to piss at all if you don`t drink/eat, which kinda means the story is borderline close to BS since imprisoned would only piss once anyway. for the love of god please tell me you are not being serious.
I am 100%. I know, learning Biology is hard, but, i think it is worth it.
If you do not know, urine is filtered directly from blood, so other than (i guess) unplesant taste it doesn`t hurt you anyhow.
Not to mention that in hot places, like border of Mexico, human sweats way more water in one day than the "grand total" of ~0.7liter you will be able to piss, which means it is irrelevant if you drink it or not.
And Human can live without water more than a week, ultimately depending on your body, your activity, and room temperature.
Again, something a person with school education is supposed to know, at least in my country.
|
On May 02 2012 14:12 Noruxas wrote:
Well seeing how its USA, he'll probably sue them and get a few million dollars OLOLOLOL
Is this for real?
Come on man, why do you have to hate on the U.S.
|
Well to be fair the US is pretty shitty by most standards.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 06 2012 09:27 NotAPro wrote:
Well to be fair the US is pretty shitty by most standards.
*facepalm*
It begins...
|
On May 06 2012 09:27 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 09:27 NotAPro wrote:
Well to be fair the US is pretty shitty by most standards. *facepalm* It begins...
Use those report privileges for douchebags like him.
|
On May 06 2012 06:51 naastyOne wrote:
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev.
The mistake that you are making is that you think the money is coming from other tax payers. It is not, atleast not directly. It is coming from the government which is the one who made this boy suffer. Suffering deserves compensation and the compensation should come from the perpetrator. Since we can't put the government in jail the best known method of punishing the government is to fine it huge amounts.
The amount has to be huge because the government's coffers are huge. A small fine will not have any deterrence impact on a rich government. Even if that means the city/state has to increase taxes and/or goes bankrupt the fine should still be imposed.
Once again its not tax payer money. Its government funds. He was tortured by the government he deserves appropriate compensation.
|
On May 06 2012 09:42 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 06:51 naastyOne wrote:
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev. The mistake that you are making is that you think the money is coming from other tax payers. It is not, atleast not directly. It is coming from the government which is the one who made this boy suffer. Suffering deserves compensation and the compensation should come from the perpetrator. Since we can't put the government in jail the best known method of punishing the government is to fine it huge amounts. The amount has to be huge because the government's coffers are huge. A small fine will not have any deterrence impact on a rich government. Even if that means the city/state has to increase taxes and/or goes bankrupt the fine should still be imposed. Once again its not tax payer money. Its government funds. He was tortured by the government he deserves appropriate compensation.
Government funds is public funds, however they were aquired. And no, a big fine does nothing.
Edit: Firing people who have not done their job does something. Or people above them deemed responsible. That's how you attack the problem. If no wrongdoing can be found in relation to current routine then the routines should be looked over. If deemed sufficient at that point but you still have issues then you turn to the politicians. I don't understand how you believe a big fine will do anything at all to rectify the problem. It's not their money anyway, so why should they care?
|
On May 06 2012 09:42 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 06:51 naastyOne wrote:
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev. The mistake that you are making is that you think the money is coming from other tax payers. It is not, atleast not directly. It is coming from the government which is the one who made this boy suffer. Suffering deserves compensation and the compensation should come from the perpetrator. Since we can't put the government in jail the best known method of punishing the government is to fine it huge amounts. The amount has to be huge because the government's coffers are huge. A small fine will not have any deterrence impact on a rich government. Even if that means the city/state has to increase taxes and/or goes bankrupt the fine should still be imposed. Once again its not tax payer money. Its government funds. He was tortured by the government he deserves appropriate compensation.
I do not know, in what country you live, but in US the government is financed trough paying taxes, so no mistakes on my side.
Suffering "deserves" nothing. There is no price tag or hourly wage for suffering.
Then, by your logic, if a forieghner(for the sake of argument) commits a crime, the general train of thoughts (by your logic) is:
-He is a part of country X, so we must punish the entire country X, not the individual committing the crime.
-The country X is huge, so the punishment has to be huge, small punishment will not affect large country.
-Even if the punishment will make the population of the country X suffer, and way more, than needed it is fine anyway.
-So, next time a journalist gets robbed/murdered his country should just nuke the country where the crime happened.
Punishing individuals directly responsible for crime is for pussies.
lol.
Here is a simple example. Rape. If you just make it so that each victim gets "adequately" compensated, and that is it, it changes nothing, at all, maybe except turning every individual into publicly paid prostitute.
(because rapist doesn`t give @$ about "compensation", as long as it is not paid from his pocket)
Now directly punishing the person committing rape would make him, and others think twice if they want to commit the crime.
And last, but not least, the adequate compensation is something that just put you back on track, not allows you to live without working for the rest of your life.
|
On May 06 2012 09:42 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 06:51 naastyOne wrote:
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev. The mistake that you are making is that you think the money is coming from other tax payers. It is not, atleast not directly. It is coming from the government which is the one who made this boy suffer. Suffering deserves compensation and the compensation should come from the perpetrator. Since we can't put the government in jail the best known method of punishing the government is to fine it huge amounts. The amount has to be huge because the government's coffers are huge. A small fine will not have any deterrence impact on a rich government. Even if that means the city/state has to increase taxes and/or goes bankrupt the fine should still be imposed. Once again its not tax payer money. Its government funds. He was tortured by the government he deserves appropriate compensation.
That's absurd. Public funds are public! The individuals who work at the government won't lose a second of sleep over this, because in the end they ALL get exactly the same salary. The only difference is that it puts a hole in the budget that needs to be filled somehow.
And how are such holes filled, you may ask? They'll increase the taxes, or they'll cut in services, or they'll borrow money for which you'll pay interests. So, who pays for all this? The tax payers - a few of them are government, most of them aren't and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the DEA... and a negligible part of the taxpayers are actually the offenders.
"The government" doesn't give a shit about losing money. It's their fault but it doesn't really affect them all that much, and probably not at all. Don't feel too bad for the government, they'll take the exact same amount of money home.
|
On May 06 2012 10:16 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 09:42 redviper wrote:On May 06 2012 06:51 naastyOne wrote:
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev. The mistake that you are making is that you think the money is coming from other tax payers. It is not, atleast not directly. It is coming from the government which is the one who made this boy suffer. Suffering deserves compensation and the compensation should come from the perpetrator. Since we can't put the government in jail the best known method of punishing the government is to fine it huge amounts. The amount has to be huge because the government's coffers are huge. A small fine will not have any deterrence impact on a rich government. Even if that means the city/state has to increase taxes and/or goes bankrupt the fine should still be imposed. Once again its not tax payer money. Its government funds. He was tortured by the government he deserves appropriate compensation. That's absurd. Public funds are public! The individuals who work at the government won't lose a second of sleep over this, because in the end they ALL get exactly the same salary. The only difference is that it puts a hole in the budget that needs to be filled somehow. And how are such holes filled, you may ask? They'll increase the taxes, or they'll cut in services, or they'll borrow money for which you'll pay interests. So, who pays for all this? The tax payers - a few of them are government, most of them aren't and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the DEA... and a negligible part of the taxpayers are actually the offenders. "The government" doesn't give a shit about losing money. It's their fault but it doesn't really affect them all that much, and probably not at all. Don't feel too bad for the government, they'll take the exact same amount of money home.
I dont understand how it is relevant at all that its taxpayer money. Fines HAVE to hurt those financing the establishment because they are the ones that can force change. Saying the individuals at the branch wont feel it is silly. And even if it were true, the point of the fine isnt to seek revenge on those responsible, its to make sure everything possible that can be done to prevent it is done and to take care of the victim. You better believe that the higher ups will take notice of the 20 million dollar gap in their budget and any discomfort they suffer in having to raise the amount will be passed down in the form of regulation and restructuring (which is the point). 20 million seems like a perfectly reasonable sum to force a move in this direction.
|
On May 06 2012 10:38 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 10:16 Djzapz wrote:On May 06 2012 09:42 redviper wrote:On May 06 2012 06:51 naastyOne wrote:
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev. The mistake that you are making is that you think the money is coming from other tax payers. It is not, atleast not directly. It is coming from the government which is the one who made this boy suffer. Suffering deserves compensation and the compensation should come from the perpetrator. Since we can't put the government in jail the best known method of punishing the government is to fine it huge amounts. The amount has to be huge because the government's coffers are huge. A small fine will not have any deterrence impact on a rich government. Even if that means the city/state has to increase taxes and/or goes bankrupt the fine should still be imposed. Once again its not tax payer money. Its government funds. He was tortured by the government he deserves appropriate compensation. That's absurd. Public funds are public! The individuals who work at the government won't lose a second of sleep over this, because in the end they ALL get exactly the same salary. The only difference is that it puts a hole in the budget that needs to be filled somehow. And how are such holes filled, you may ask? They'll increase the taxes, or they'll cut in services, or they'll borrow money for which you'll pay interests. So, who pays for all this? The tax payers - a few of them are government, most of them aren't and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the DEA... and a negligible part of the taxpayers are actually the offenders. "The government" doesn't give a shit about losing money. It's their fault but it doesn't really affect them all that much, and probably not at all. Don't feel too bad for the government, they'll take the exact same amount of money home. I dont understand how it is relevant at all that its taxpayer money. Fines HAVE to hurt those financing the establishment because they are the ones that can force change. Saying the individuals at the branch wont feel it is silly. And even if it were true, the point of the fine isnt to seek revenge on those responsible, its to make sure everything possible that can be done to prevent it is done and to take care of the victim. You better believe that the higher ups will take notice of the 20 million dollar gap in their budget and any discomfort they suffer in having to raise the amount will be passed down in the form of regulation and restructuring (which is the point). 20 million seems like a perfectly reasonable sum to force a move in this direction.
Which all leads back to what I said about Americans being too used to seeing large figures, so much so that you don't really know what they represent. You say that 20 millions "seems like a perfectly reasonable sum...", do you have any conception of the words "perfectly reasonable"? 20 millions of dollars is a perfectly reasonable sum of money to hire 750 people for a year --- or it can go toward handing out something symbolic to someone who was treated poorly, giving them a disproportionate amount of financial aid, large enough to fund a gross, materialistic life for decades. 2 millions would allow for the guy to live his entire life in relative luxury while still having a good sum leftover to pass on to his children, all on the tax payers dime. And the other 18 millions could actually go toward Doing Things. It's a HUGE amount of money, capable of having an extremely significant impact on society as a whole.
Furthermore, if you yank 20 millions from the DEA, it's going to be replaced with another 20 millions from the fed, or at the very least a VAST majority of the 20 millions, in which case the DEA will be under-budgeted. And so, while any "discipline" will help prevent other such mistakes, its lower budget will render the DEA less effective [not that I think the DEA should exist anyway] and by having a lower budget, will perhaps fail at doing its purpose as effectively or will be more prone to different mistakes due to lower staff or lower resources.
The higher ups would have a lot on their hands, because they'll have to do all the budget cuts and perhaps they'll have to fire people, and lower other people's salaries even though it wasn't their fault in the slightest.
|
On May 06 2012 11:59 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 10:38 Velocirapture wrote:On May 06 2012 10:16 Djzapz wrote:On May 06 2012 09:42 redviper wrote:On May 06 2012 06:51 naastyOne wrote:
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev. The mistake that you are making is that you think the money is coming from other tax payers. It is not, atleast not directly. It is coming from the government which is the one who made this boy suffer. Suffering deserves compensation and the compensation should come from the perpetrator. Since we can't put the government in jail the best known method of punishing the government is to fine it huge amounts. The amount has to be huge because the government's coffers are huge. A small fine will not have any deterrence impact on a rich government. Even if that means the city/state has to increase taxes and/or goes bankrupt the fine should still be imposed. Once again its not tax payer money. Its government funds. He was tortured by the government he deserves appropriate compensation. That's absurd. Public funds are public! The individuals who work at the government won't lose a second of sleep over this, because in the end they ALL get exactly the same salary. The only difference is that it puts a hole in the budget that needs to be filled somehow. And how are such holes filled, you may ask? They'll increase the taxes, or they'll cut in services, or they'll borrow money for which you'll pay interests. So, who pays for all this? The tax payers - a few of them are government, most of them aren't and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the DEA... and a negligible part of the taxpayers are actually the offenders. "The government" doesn't give a shit about losing money. It's their fault but it doesn't really affect them all that much, and probably not at all. Don't feel too bad for the government, they'll take the exact same amount of money home. I dont understand how it is relevant at all that its taxpayer money. Fines HAVE to hurt those financing the establishment because they are the ones that can force change. Saying the individuals at the branch wont feel it is silly. And even if it were true, the point of the fine isnt to seek revenge on those responsible, its to make sure everything possible that can be done to prevent it is done and to take care of the victim. You better believe that the higher ups will take notice of the 20 million dollar gap in their budget and any discomfort they suffer in having to raise the amount will be passed down in the form of regulation and restructuring (which is the point). 20 million seems like a perfectly reasonable sum to force a move in this direction. Which all leads back to what I said about Americans being too used to seeing large figures, so much so that you don't really know what they represent. You say that 20 millions "seems like a perfectly reasonable sum...", do you have any conception of the words "perfectly reasonable"? 20 millions of dollars is a perfectly reasonable sum of money to hire 750 people for a year --- or it can go toward handing out something symbolic to someone who was treated poorly, giving them a disproportionate amount of financial aid, large enough to fund a gross, materialistic life for decades. 2 millions would allow for the guy to live his entire life in relative luxury while still having a good sum leftover to pass on to his children, all on the tax payers dime. And the other 18 millions could actually go toward Doing Things. It's a HUGE amount of money, capable of having an extremely significant impact on society as a whole. Furthermore, if you yank 20 millions from the DEA, it's going to be replaced with another 20 millions from the fed, or at the very least a VAST majority of the 20 millions, in which case the DEA will be under-budgeted. And so, while any "discipline" will help prevent other such mistakes, its lower budget will render the DEA less effective [not that I think the DEA should exist anyway] and by having a lower budget, will perhaps fail at doing its purpose as effectively or will be more prone to different mistakes due to lower staff or lower resources. The higher ups would have a lot on their hands, because they'll have to do all the budget cuts and perhaps they'll have to fire people, and lower other people's salaries even though it wasn't their fault in the slightest.
The element of fairness you are appealing to is not present in ANY business in the world. When a company makes a bad investment and loses money, is it the janitorial staff's fault? No but they will still pay the price. Also, the whole notion of "if you take money from something it will be less effective" can be made for ANY amount of money. Believe it or not, these sums are carefully calculated. Damages are claimed based on the financial status of the institution. If they just paid for the medical bills it would be the same as telling them, "you can do this all you want for a minor fee" the same way oil companies laugh at the fines levied by the EPA.
In the end, people need to get hurt to cause change. Does it suck? Absolutely, but its better than things like this becoming standard practice.
|
On May 06 2012 12:52 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 11:59 Djzapz wrote:On May 06 2012 10:38 Velocirapture wrote:On May 06 2012 10:16 Djzapz wrote:On May 06 2012 09:42 redviper wrote:On May 06 2012 06:51 naastyOne wrote:
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev. The mistake that you are making is that you think the money is coming from other tax payers. It is not, atleast not directly. It is coming from the government which is the one who made this boy suffer. Suffering deserves compensation and the compensation should come from the perpetrator. Since we can't put the government in jail the best known method of punishing the government is to fine it huge amounts. The amount has to be huge because the government's coffers are huge. A small fine will not have any deterrence impact on a rich government. Even if that means the city/state has to increase taxes and/or goes bankrupt the fine should still be imposed. Once again its not tax payer money. Its government funds. He was tortured by the government he deserves appropriate compensation. That's absurd. Public funds are public! The individuals who work at the government won't lose a second of sleep over this, because in the end they ALL get exactly the same salary. The only difference is that it puts a hole in the budget that needs to be filled somehow. And how are such holes filled, you may ask? They'll increase the taxes, or they'll cut in services, or they'll borrow money for which you'll pay interests. So, who pays for all this? The tax payers - a few of them are government, most of them aren't and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the DEA... and a negligible part of the taxpayers are actually the offenders. "The government" doesn't give a shit about losing money. It's their fault but it doesn't really affect them all that much, and probably not at all. Don't feel too bad for the government, they'll take the exact same amount of money home. I dont understand how it is relevant at all that its taxpayer money. Fines HAVE to hurt those financing the establishment because they are the ones that can force change. Saying the individuals at the branch wont feel it is silly. And even if it were true, the point of the fine isnt to seek revenge on those responsible, its to make sure everything possible that can be done to prevent it is done and to take care of the victim. You better believe that the higher ups will take notice of the 20 million dollar gap in their budget and any discomfort they suffer in having to raise the amount will be passed down in the form of regulation and restructuring (which is the point). 20 million seems like a perfectly reasonable sum to force a move in this direction. Which all leads back to what I said about Americans being too used to seeing large figures, so much so that you don't really know what they represent. You say that 20 millions "seems like a perfectly reasonable sum...", do you have any conception of the words "perfectly reasonable"? 20 millions of dollars is a perfectly reasonable sum of money to hire 750 people for a year --- or it can go toward handing out something symbolic to someone who was treated poorly, giving them a disproportionate amount of financial aid, large enough to fund a gross, materialistic life for decades. 2 millions would allow for the guy to live his entire life in relative luxury while still having a good sum leftover to pass on to his children, all on the tax payers dime. And the other 18 millions could actually go toward Doing Things. It's a HUGE amount of money, capable of having an extremely significant impact on society as a whole. Furthermore, if you yank 20 millions from the DEA, it's going to be replaced with another 20 millions from the fed, or at the very least a VAST majority of the 20 millions, in which case the DEA will be under-budgeted. And so, while any "discipline" will help prevent other such mistakes, its lower budget will render the DEA less effective [not that I think the DEA should exist anyway] and by having a lower budget, will perhaps fail at doing its purpose as effectively or will be more prone to different mistakes due to lower staff or lower resources. The higher ups would have a lot on their hands, because they'll have to do all the budget cuts and perhaps they'll have to fire people, and lower other people's salaries even though it wasn't their fault in the slightest. The element of fairness you are appealing to is not present in ANY business in the world. When a company makes a bad investment and loses money, is it the janitorial staff's fault? No but they will still pay the price. Also, the whole notion of "if you take money from something it will be less effective" can be made for ANY amount of money. Believe it or not, these sums are carefully calculated. Damages are claimed based on the financial status of the institution. If they just paid for the medical bills it would be the same as telling them, "you can do this all you want for a minor fee" the same way oil companies laugh at the fines levied by the EPA. In the end, people need to get hurt to cause change. Does it suck? Absolutely, but its better than things like this becoming standard practice.
Yes in "any business", if something bad happen, employees will pay the price. It's fine though because private businesses are replaceable for the most part and so when a company fails, another enterprise gets that business.
The DEA is not a business like any other, it doesn't run at a profit. The DEA is a part of government and, in theory, it's funded just enough to function efficiently enough for the task it needs to accomplish - no more, no less. The drug-related "crimes" won't slow down. Also don't forget that the DEA runs with a deficit ALL the time, and the government pays for that. Reducing the size of that particular task force would be either admitting that its previous budget was too high, which may or may not be valid, or just the outright acceptance that the DEA will slow down and nobody will pick up the pace for them because they're a monopoly in their business.
|
Most people are so ungrateful to be alive, but not him, not any more.
|
Saying that the governments money is your money is like saying your money is your employers money, and that McDonalds has a right to complain about the ten liters of absinthe and the fleshlight you spent your wage on.
|
On May 06 2012 13:09 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 12:52 Velocirapture wrote:On May 06 2012 11:59 Djzapz wrote:On May 06 2012 10:38 Velocirapture wrote:On May 06 2012 10:16 Djzapz wrote:On May 06 2012 09:42 redviper wrote:On May 06 2012 06:51 naastyOne wrote:
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev. The mistake that you are making is that you think the money is coming from other tax payers. It is not, atleast not directly. It is coming from the government which is the one who made this boy suffer. Suffering deserves compensation and the compensation should come from the perpetrator. Since we can't put the government in jail the best known method of punishing the government is to fine it huge amounts. The amount has to be huge because the government's coffers are huge. A small fine will not have any deterrence impact on a rich government. Even if that means the city/state has to increase taxes and/or goes bankrupt the fine should still be imposed. Once again its not tax payer money. Its government funds. He was tortured by the government he deserves appropriate compensation. That's absurd. Public funds are public! The individuals who work at the government won't lose a second of sleep over this, because in the end they ALL get exactly the same salary. The only difference is that it puts a hole in the budget that needs to be filled somehow. And how are such holes filled, you may ask? They'll increase the taxes, or they'll cut in services, or they'll borrow money for which you'll pay interests. So, who pays for all this? The tax payers - a few of them are government, most of them aren't and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the DEA... and a negligible part of the taxpayers are actually the offenders. "The government" doesn't give a shit about losing money. It's their fault but it doesn't really affect them all that much, and probably not at all. Don't feel too bad for the government, they'll take the exact same amount of money home. I dont understand how it is relevant at all that its taxpayer money. Fines HAVE to hurt those financing the establishment because they are the ones that can force change. Saying the individuals at the branch wont feel it is silly. And even if it were true, the point of the fine isnt to seek revenge on those responsible, its to make sure everything possible that can be done to prevent it is done and to take care of the victim. You better believe that the higher ups will take notice of the 20 million dollar gap in their budget and any discomfort they suffer in having to raise the amount will be passed down in the form of regulation and restructuring (which is the point). 20 million seems like a perfectly reasonable sum to force a move in this direction. Which all leads back to what I said about Americans being too used to seeing large figures, so much so that you don't really know what they represent. You say that 20 millions "seems like a perfectly reasonable sum...", do you have any conception of the words "perfectly reasonable"? 20 millions of dollars is a perfectly reasonable sum of money to hire 750 people for a year --- or it can go toward handing out something symbolic to someone who was treated poorly, giving them a disproportionate amount of financial aid, large enough to fund a gross, materialistic life for decades. 2 millions would allow for the guy to live his entire life in relative luxury while still having a good sum leftover to pass on to his children, all on the tax payers dime. And the other 18 millions could actually go toward Doing Things. It's a HUGE amount of money, capable of having an extremely significant impact on society as a whole. Furthermore, if you yank 20 millions from the DEA, it's going to be replaced with another 20 millions from the fed, or at the very least a VAST majority of the 20 millions, in which case the DEA will be under-budgeted. And so, while any "discipline" will help prevent other such mistakes, its lower budget will render the DEA less effective [not that I think the DEA should exist anyway] and by having a lower budget, will perhaps fail at doing its purpose as effectively or will be more prone to different mistakes due to lower staff or lower resources. The higher ups would have a lot on their hands, because they'll have to do all the budget cuts and perhaps they'll have to fire people, and lower other people's salaries even though it wasn't their fault in the slightest. The element of fairness you are appealing to is not present in ANY business in the world. When a company makes a bad investment and loses money, is it the janitorial staff's fault? No but they will still pay the price. Also, the whole notion of "if you take money from something it will be less effective" can be made for ANY amount of money. Believe it or not, these sums are carefully calculated. Damages are claimed based on the financial status of the institution. If they just paid for the medical bills it would be the same as telling them, "you can do this all you want for a minor fee" the same way oil companies laugh at the fines levied by the EPA. In the end, people need to get hurt to cause change. Does it suck? Absolutely, but its better than things like this becoming standard practice. Yes in "any business", if something bad happen, employees will pay the price. It's fine though because private businesses are replaceable for the most part and so when a company fails, another enterprise gets that business. The DEA is not a business like any other, it doesn't run at a profit. The DEA is a part of government and, in theory, it's funded just enough to function efficiently enough for the task it needs to accomplish - no more, no less. The drug-related "crimes" won't slow down. Also don't forget that the DEA runs with a deficit ALL the time, and the government pays for that. Reducing the size of that particular task force would be either admitting that its previous budget was too high, which may or may not be valid, or just the outright acceptance that the DEA will slow down and nobody will pick up the pace for them because they're a monopoly in their business.
Again, the statement that government agencies are budgeted such that every task, at maximum efficiency, is accomplished on budget is simply not representative of the real world. Just like any government agency, the DEA lobbies for as much funding as possible with varying success based on the political climate. Also, the notion that the government will allow the DEA to be crippled is countered in your own post when you say the government will have to compensate for the deficit, as they always have.
This will not destroy the DEA. The DEA will not lose significant efficacy. The debt will be passed on to taxpayers who will in turn demand steps be taken to prevent this from happening again. This is exactly how it should be.
|
Hmmm kidney damage for 20 million dollars.. Hmmm. Whats his CrCl now? Hmmm.. Hard choice.
|
On May 06 2012 13:31 Velocirapture wrote:
Also, the notion that the government will allow the DEA to be crippled is countered in your own post when you say the government will have to compensate for the deficit, as they always have.
I was clear enough in my explanation. Either the deficit is covered completely or partially. If it's only covered partially, then the DEA would be crippled.
This will not destroy the DEA. The DEA will not lose significant efficacy. The debt will be passed on to taxpayers who will in turn demand steps be taken to prevent this from happening again. This is exactly how it should be.
Sure, but then it's a question of quantity. I think 2 millions is a much more reasonable amount of money. Whereas 20 millions is actually a fairly relevant and crippling amount of public funds, 2 millions is big, but doesn't have a major negative impact on everyone else. And yet, 2 millions, PLUS the media attention and the fact that a guy nearly died is definitely enough to force important changes within the DEA.
Plus, the figure is not outright excessive for one person's normal use. 2 millions pretty much guarantee a good life, financially.
I don't know that I'm much of an utilitarian, but I think handing out 20 millions of public dollars to one guy would have to be done at the detriment of any sort of "greater good".
|
On May 06 2012 13:53 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 13:31 Velocirapture wrote:
Also, the notion that the government will allow the DEA to be crippled is countered in your own post when you say the government will have to compensate for the deficit, as they always have. I was clear enough in my explanation. Either the deficit is covered completely or partially. If it's only covered partially, then the DEA would be crippled. Show nested quote +This will not destroy the DEA. The DEA will not lose significant efficacy. The debt will be passed on to taxpayers who will in turn demand steps be taken to prevent this from happening again. This is exactly how it should be. Sure, but then it's a question of quantity. I think 2 millions is a much more reasonable amount of money. Whereas 20 millions is actually a fairly relevant and crippling amount of public funds, 2 millions is big, but doesn't have a major negative impact on everyone else. And yet, 2 millions, PLUS the media attention and the fact that a guy nearly died is definitely enough to force important changes within the DEA. Plus, the figure is not outright excessive for one person's normal use. 2 millions pretty much guarantee a good life, financially. I don't know that I'm much of an utilitarian, but I think handing out 20 millions of public dollars to one guy would have to be done at the detriment of any sort of "greater good".
So you think that the guy should only get the equivalent of around 0.083% of the DEA's annual budget, as opposed to 0.83%? Must be a crisis in a world where governments are funded by debt-based currency. You're right though. That guy is costing us hardworking taxpayers our money! Every god damned citizen is going to be paying him ~ $0.07! Or, if it's only Californians paying, they're each going to have to shell out $0.41!
But in all seriousness the DEA(a subsidiary of Pfizer and Merck) is a very useful part of our society. It provides us with a war to fight within our own country on the off chance that our military expansionism ever slows down.
TL;DR
Satire. You're worried about $20,000,000 vs $2,000,000 of ghost currency instead of $2,400,000,000 vs $0.00. The DEA, from a government perspective, is nothing more than a specialized marketing tool. It doesn't do much other than breathing life into the "Drugs are bad*" propaganda machine started by Nixon.
*Unless they can be patented and sold for a reasonable profit margin by restricting access through medical practitioners who are given marginal benefits to promote said product.
|
I feel like resentment for law enforcement is growing each day. And not just from people who get in trouble with the law. Ordinary law abiding productive citizens are hearing all these stories about colossal errors and complete lack of accountability for the offenders. Soon all this tension will be too high to suppress.
Oh and
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 06 2012 14:53 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 13:53 Djzapz wrote:On May 06 2012 13:31 Velocirapture wrote:
Also, the notion that the government will allow the DEA to be crippled is countered in your own post when you say the government will have to compensate for the deficit, as they always have. I was clear enough in my explanation. Either the deficit is covered completely or partially. If it's only covered partially, then the DEA would be crippled. This will not destroy the DEA. The DEA will not lose significant efficacy. The debt will be passed on to taxpayers who will in turn demand steps be taken to prevent this from happening again. This is exactly how it should be. Sure, but then it's a question of quantity. I think 2 millions is a much more reasonable amount of money. Whereas 20 millions is actually a fairly relevant and crippling amount of public funds, 2 millions is big, but doesn't have a major negative impact on everyone else. And yet, 2 millions, PLUS the media attention and the fact that a guy nearly died is definitely enough to force important changes within the DEA. Plus, the figure is not outright excessive for one person's normal use. 2 millions pretty much guarantee a good life, financially. I don't know that I'm much of an utilitarian, but I think handing out 20 millions of public dollars to one guy would have to be done at the detriment of any sort of "greater good". So you think that the guy should only get the equivalent of around 0.083% of the DEA's annual budget, as opposed to 0.83%? Must be a crisis in a world where governments are funded by debt-based currency. You're right though. That guy is costing us hardworking taxpayers our money! Every god damned citizen is going to be paying him ~ $0.07! Or, if it's only Californians paying, they're each going to have to shell out $0.41! But in all seriousness the DEA(a subsidiary of Pfizer and Merck) is a very useful part of our society. It provides us with a war to fight within our own country on the off chance that our military expansionism ever slows down. TL;DR Satire. You're worried about $20,000,000 vs $2,000,000 of ghost currency instead of $2,400,000,000 vs $0.00. The DEA, from a government perspective, is nothing more than a specialized marketing tool. It doesn't do much other than breathing life into the "Drugs are bad*" propaganda machine started by Nixon. *Unless they can be patented and sold for a reasonable profit margin by restricting access through medical practitioners who are given marginal benefits to promote said product.
My God you're ridiculous. The art of downplaying a situation to make it seem like less than it is. Just because the wallet is big does not make 20 millions of dollars irrelevant. The percentage of which budget it is is irrelevant, because it's going to come from the same pocket, and that's not the DEA's.
I think it's funny when people break down prices like that. This phone plan costs you only $1 a day! You can finance this TV and it's only 80 cents a day! It's only 7 pennies per citizen! So the fuck what, that's a marketing gimmick that they use to make your TV seem cheap, and it works! There's over 300 millions of you!! It's still big money that can make a big difference. I'm not disputing that the DEA is bullshit - it really is, but if this goes through, it won't take money out of a bullshit organisation, it'll siphon it right down from the fed.
7 pennies from 300 millions of people makes a huge pile of pennies. Let's make it a dollar - pretty much everyone can spare a dollar...
Come on.
|
Holy shit. Thats disgusting and I do hope he wins any lawsuit should he go for one.
|
He nearly died of kidney problems just because the authorities "forgot" about him, really....
|
Northern Ireland24977 Posts
For once I'm all for a pretty hefty payout. 20 million seems over the top, just intuitively but really the guy deserves whatever a non-senile Judge sees fit to award him.
Also what is with these tales I'm seeing of incompetence from police and other law enforcement agencies in the States recently? In the UK the police and security services aren't without their bad apples, but I am hearing a lot more stories of this ilk emanating from the States lately. Any pet theories Tlers?
|
On May 09 2012 13:14 Wombat_NI wrote:
For once I'm all for a pretty hefty payout. 20 million seems over the top, just intuitively but really the guy deserves whatever a non-senile Judge sees fit to award him.
Also what is with these tales I'm seeing of incompetence from police and other law enforcement agencies in the States recently? In the UK the police and security services aren't without their bad apples, but I am hearing a lot more stories of this ilk emanating from the States lately. Any pet theories Tlers?
intl media has been fixated on the usa for some time now. I'm sure per capita its just as bad elsewhere.
|
On May 06 2012 11:59 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 10:38 Velocirapture wrote:On May 06 2012 10:16 Djzapz wrote:On May 06 2012 09:42 redviper wrote:On May 06 2012 06:51 naastyOne wrote:
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev. The mistake that you are making is that you think the money is coming from other tax payers. It is not, atleast not directly. It is coming from the government which is the one who made this boy suffer. Suffering deserves compensation and the compensation should come from the perpetrator. Since we can't put the government in jail the best known method of punishing the government is to fine it huge amounts. The amount has to be huge because the government's coffers are huge. A small fine will not have any deterrence impact on a rich government. Even if that means the city/state has to increase taxes and/or goes bankrupt the fine should still be imposed. Once again its not tax payer money. Its government funds. He was tortured by the government he deserves appropriate compensation. That's absurd. Public funds are public! The individuals who work at the government won't lose a second of sleep over this, because in the end they ALL get exactly the same salary. The only difference is that it puts a hole in the budget that needs to be filled somehow. And how are such holes filled, you may ask? They'll increase the taxes, or they'll cut in services, or they'll borrow money for which you'll pay interests. So, who pays for all this? The tax payers - a few of them are government, most of them aren't and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the DEA... and a negligible part of the taxpayers are actually the offenders. "The government" doesn't give a shit about losing money. It's their fault but it doesn't really affect them all that much, and probably not at all. Don't feel too bad for the government, they'll take the exact same amount of money home. I dont understand how it is relevant at all that its taxpayer money. Fines HAVE to hurt those financing the establishment because they are the ones that can force change. Saying the individuals at the branch wont feel it is silly. And even if it were true, the point of the fine isnt to seek revenge on those responsible, its to make sure everything possible that can be done to prevent it is done and to take care of the victim. You better believe that the higher ups will take notice of the 20 million dollar gap in their budget and any discomfort they suffer in having to raise the amount will be passed down in the form of regulation and restructuring (which is the point). 20 million seems like a perfectly reasonable sum to force a move in this direction. Which all leads back to what I said about Americans being too used to seeing large figures, so much so that you don't really know what they represent. You say that 20 millions "seems like a perfectly reasonable sum...", do you have any conception of the words "perfectly reasonable"? 20 millions of dollars is a perfectly reasonable sum of money to hire 750 people for a year --- or it can go toward handing out something symbolic to someone who was treated poorly, giving them a disproportionate amount of financial aid, large enough to fund a gross, materialistic life for decades. 2 millions would allow for the guy to live his entire life in relative luxury while still having a good sum leftover to pass on to his children, all on the tax payers dime. And the other 18 millions could actually go toward Doing Things. It's a HUGE amount of money, capable of having an extremely significant impact on society as a whole. Furthermore, if you yank 20 millions from the DEA, it's going to be replaced with another 20 millions from the fed, or at the very least a VAST majority of the 20 millions, in which case the DEA will be under-budgeted. And so, while any "discipline" will help prevent other such mistakes, its lower budget will render the DEA less effective [not that I think the DEA should exist anyway] and by having a lower budget, will perhaps fail at doing its purpose as effectively or will be more prone to different mistakes due to lower staff or lower resources. The higher ups would have a lot on their hands, because they'll have to do all the budget cuts and perhaps they'll have to fire people, and lower other people's salaries even though it wasn't their fault in the slightest.
Honestly I think a big part of the BIG MONEY LAWSUITS in America has to do with the lack of a social safety net. If people get hurt and can't support themselves, society sure isn't going to, so either they have to sue and win big enough to take care of themselves for life, or just suffer forever if they don't die prematurely. While that might not be as applicable in this case, on the other hand the fact that almost any monetarty punishment will be essentially a slap on the wrist for nearly torturing a man to death would be a factor.
|
Northern Ireland24977 Posts
On May 09 2012 13:34 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 13:14 Wombat_NI wrote:
For once I'm all for a pretty hefty payout. 20 million seems over the top, just intuitively but really the guy deserves whatever a non-senile Judge sees fit to award him.
Also what is with these tales I'm seeing of incompetence from police and other law enforcement agencies in the States recently? In the UK the police and security services aren't without their bad apples, but I am hearing a lot more stories of this ilk emanating from the States lately. Any pet theories Tlers? intl media has been fixated on the usa for some time now. I'm sure per capita its just as bad elsewhere.
While I'm usually the first to trot out such a line, in this case I'd considered it and still think it seems to be disproportionately prevalent in the States. This isn't a bash at the US by any means, perhaps our police are less liable to do these kinds of things because they're busy colluding with media outlets in stalking celebrities?
|
On May 02 2012 14:13 Antimatterz wrote:
What the fuck? Honestly, how do you just forget about someone you are detaining? That is like taking your cat and putting in a room to punish it for shitting on the carpet, only to not take it out for like a week while not giving it anything it needs.
Yeah x.x This is just plain terrifying. I don't even understand how this is possible.
|
On May 09 2012 14:11 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 13:34 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2012 13:14 Wombat_NI wrote:
For once I'm all for a pretty hefty payout. 20 million seems over the top, just intuitively but really the guy deserves whatever a non-senile Judge sees fit to award him.
Also what is with these tales I'm seeing of incompetence from police and other law enforcement agencies in the States recently? In the UK the police and security services aren't without their bad apples, but I am hearing a lot more stories of this ilk emanating from the States lately. Any pet theories Tlers? intl media has been fixated on the usa for some time now. I'm sure per capita its just as bad elsewhere. While I'm usually the first to trot out such a line, in this case I'd considered it and still think it seems to be disproportionately prevalent in the States. This isn't a bash at the US by any means, perhaps our police are less liable to do these kinds of things because they're busy colluding with media outlets in stalking celebrities?
Don't forget also... you'll never hear news of this in Russia, China, etc., etc., because their press doesn't exactly work like ours.
|
Northern Ireland24977 Posts
On May 09 2012 14:31 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 14:11 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 09 2012 13:34 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2012 13:14 Wombat_NI wrote:
For once I'm all for a pretty hefty payout. 20 million seems over the top, just intuitively but really the guy deserves whatever a non-senile Judge sees fit to award him.
Also what is with these tales I'm seeing of incompetence from police and other law enforcement agencies in the States recently? In the UK the police and security services aren't without their bad apples, but I am hearing a lot more stories of this ilk emanating from the States lately. Any pet theories Tlers? intl media has been fixated on the usa for some time now. I'm sure per capita its just as bad elsewhere. While I'm usually the first to trot out such a line, in this case I'd considered it and still think it seems to be disproportionately prevalent in the States. This isn't a bash at the US by any means, perhaps our police are less liable to do these kinds of things because they're busy colluding with media outlets in stalking celebrities? Don't forget also... you'll never hear news of this in Russia, China, etc., etc., because their press doesn't exactly work like ours.
Well of course, but anybody here who doesn't already know of the rampant corruption in those countries.... well I don't know what to say to those people.
|
Maybe in compensation for this he can go off free for all the drugs he had in possession?
|
On May 09 2012 15:06 justindab0mb wrote:
Maybe in compensation for this he can go off free for all the drugs he had in possession?
He was already legally free while he was being illegally detained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
