There was much furor this past week about a case in which police officers became suspicious that a man they’d stopped had stuffed drugs up his rectum. So, they got a warrant which led to a medical search that began with a cavity search and progressed to X-ray, multiple enemas, and finally a colonoscopy (all in a hospital environment). Turned out he didn’t have any drugs after all. Across the country, cries of jack-booted thuggery were excreted, and the involved officers (and medicos) became the butt of many inflamed and flatulent complaints. Many wanted to see the officers jammed up.
I don’t want to get all anal about this, but it was pretty crappy for everyone to dump on the cops before hearing their side. It turns out that the officers in question had reason to believe their suspect had done this before: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/07/new-details-emerge-about-new-mexico-man-at-center-of-police-departments-anal-probing-controversy/
If we can get serious for a minute, it’s well known in law enforcement that drug mules often hide their contraband in their rectums, just as some will swallow the baggie or condom full of cocaine when police approach. There are numerous cases where these things have ruptured inside one or the other end of the alimentary canal, resulting in the untimely death of the suspect. The cops are responsible for the person in their custody, even if that “custody” merely takes the form of investigative detention. Thus, in all seriousness, they had a duty to, uh, probe the matter more deeply.
I hope this little tour through the bowels of legal responsibilities serves as a reminder to always get the other guy’s side of the story before trying to stuff a complaint up his nether regions. I will now clench this blog entry tightly shut, in hopes that, in hind-sight, we’ve gotten to the bottom of things.
Mas is a respected firearms expert. He is also was a cop and makes a healthy living as an expert witness in defending cops in court, particularly in cases of excessive force. Just something to keep in mind.
John Little, please tell us all where you think “the cops lied.”
Dave, since this involves medical procedures and not use of force, please tell us all what your comment has to do with the discussion now underway.
@Dave said, “Mas is a respected … Just something to keep in mind.”
I have kept that in mind – that’s why Mas’ continued defense of what happened in New Mexico is so distressing to me and many who had high regard for him.
Mas this one turn out to be a shitty article for you. I took it as the cops were concerned about him dying and it would have come back on them. After the crap storm is over don’t worry about the clean up, most of us know you were no where near when the SHTF.
Mas: “this involves medical procedures and not use of force”
“Not the use of force”? Are you now saying that the victim cooperated / consented to the repeated anal rape?
Frank Ch. Eigler, you’re new here. Contrary opinions are welcome, but confusing an involuntary life-saving medical procedure by physicians with anal rape? If they thought the guy had swallowed a baggie of cocaine and they pumped his stomach at the hospital, would you consider that oral rape? Might want to rethink your comment…
“but confusing an involuntary life-saving medical procedure by physicians with anal rape”
Where did you get the idea that either the police or the cooperating doctors ever represented “life saving” as a motivation for this action?
See also: http://www.popehat.com/2013/11/07/what-is-the-quantum-of-proof-necessary-for-police-to-rape-and-torture-you-in-new-mexico/
“If they thought the guy had swallowed a baggie of cocaine and they pumped his stomach at the hospital, would you consider that oral rape?”
I might not use those terms. But yes, it is far from clear-cut that a government official may violate the bodily integrity of another conscious & uncooperative person in order to save them, even if they had clear-cut evidence defensible in court. In this case, of course they did not have such evidence, just a guess.
Mas— I’m beginning to see a repeat of Martin/Zimmerman mentality. Lines are drawn based on initial reports, attorneys representing one side of the story, and individual pre-incident biases.
As Martin/Zimmerman unfolded, some changed their mind based on facts as they trickled out, some dug their trenches deeper. Those that have a basic distrust of law enforcement will refuse to see any action of police as having anything but an evil intent on their part. Many believed the police didn’t act soon enough, others thought they acted too quickly. Many ascribed evil intent on the part of Zimmerman and sainthood on Martin. Many reversed these roles. Some, myself included, felt that the jury in this particular case got it right, and the prosecution, not the police, did in fact have evil , self-serving intent. I never conferred saint hood on Zimmerman as I had very little knowledge of him outside this incident. Many did, only to have this faith dashed by some of his later actions.
We all need to use caution before casting guilt or innocence without having all the facts, realize we all have biases, and everything is not black and white, normally their are shades of gray.
Those looking for a tree and a rope for these officers, rest assured that as we discuss this, these officers are going through a thorough investigation and will be dealt with severely if the allegations prove correct and unwarranted.
Try to put biases aside and attempt to see the facts from both perspectives. Remember first press stories tend to give a perspective intended to stir up emotions, wait for all the facts.
Mr. Eigler, you need to read the things you cite to support your argument. The definition of rape you yourself cited clearly makes the following exception:
“B. Criminal sexual penetration does not include medically indicated procedures.”
Sir, are you seriously unable to distinguish intelligence shared by a brother police officer from an anonymous tip? Seriously?
And do you really believe a physician would risk his career performing these extraordinary procedures if he DIDN’T believe the patient was in danger?
Dennis, thank you for your incisive comments. As in the Martin/Zimmerman case, many have invested their ego in their outrage after hearing only one side of things.
“Medically indicated”
“indicated”? That makes it sound like the process was something the doctor ordered based upon a medical evaluation of some complaint. No, it was indicated by a search warrant.
“Sir, are you seriously unable to distinguish intelligence shared by a brother police officer from an anonymous tip? Seriously?”
Even taken at face value, intelligence about a long-ago former act of the person is not a tip about the then-present situation. Even commission of a crime in the past does not entitle police to assume commission in the present to the extent of probable cause. (Does it matter to you that in the various police documentation so far released, there is no evidence for the correctness of the tip?)
“And do you really believe a physician would risk his career performing these extraordinary procedures if he DIDN’T believe the patient was in danger?”
I’d like not to believe it. Yet there is evidence that the same doctor has worked this way at other times.
“hearing only one side of things.”
The search warrants and original officer/doctor reports have also been posted. None of them even hint at being worried for the life of the victim. Does that bother you?
Mas,
It was bad enough this happened to one person. Now we see that it has happened again:
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3210356.shtml#.Un_X4cu9KK1
How many more times must this occur before you finally admit that you are totally off base in this particular instance. Have the courtesy to apologize to your readers instead of continuing to try and defend the indefensible. As a long time reader, I’ve been very disappointed in how you’ve played this one.
The suggestion the cops did this because of concern for the victim is laughable. It is ridiculous. If this were the case they would have been completely covered with one “exam”. This was a form of extra judicial punishment.
I am very surprised some drugs were not “found”.
You folks are all missing the forest for the trees, however-
Here is the real problem-
How did we get to a place where a largely conservative, law abiding group so distrusts the police? Traditionally, this group is the largest, most solid base of support for the police, yet we are acquiring the same view of police as the average ghetto dweller- they are unpredictable, dangerous, and to be avoided because they are not there to “serve”or to “keep the peace”,, but to find you doing something wrong and arrest you. Or shoot you.
Mas, the only way this is going to end well is if the good cops break that “blue line” and get rid of the bad ones- all too often it is the other way around- I have heard many stories of good cops quitting because they could not take the abuses in the force.
“observer,” if you think police officers “concern for the victim is laughable,” I’m afraid it’s you understanding of the responsibility of public safety officials and emergency personnel that’s laughable.
Mas,
I’ve sought out and followed your expert advice for years on firearms despite your obvious bias to the blue line. Now however, you have totally crossed the line and doubled down in an egregious and heinous violation of public trust. The relevant details of this case are known as it is nearly a year old.
Everyone involved in the acquisition and execution of the search warrant against the person of Mr. Eckert is at least negligent if not criminally culpable. Officer Chavez submitted a detailed request for an evidence search. Everything named and labeled except the “Hidalgo County K-9 Officer” who is only list by that generic title and provided no specific evidence of a crime or probable cause. That sir, regardless of being your brother, is an anonymous tip and requires corroboration. And, yes, the doctors committed first degree criminal sexual penetration with the officers providing the threat of force and coercion. A court ordered search, administered under the color of law, is NOT a medically indicated procedure and is likely why the first hospital refused to comply. The second hospital took the money and ran under the cover of “good faith.” I hope for Mr. Eckert that the Nuremburg defense is just as successful for the defendants listed in his suit.
I cannot in good conscious support you or anything having to do with you barring a full, unqualified apology – something that I don’t believe will happen as you seem to genuinely believe generic safety trumps individual rights.
Backwoodshome.com has been removed from my website favorites. I will screen my future purchases to ensure you are not a contributor.
So I’m sure we’ll all be treated to dashcam videos of these heroic officers discussing in detail their concern for their prisoner? Maybe the hospital admission record indicating that emergency procedures were required do to imminent danger to the prisoner’s health? Weak, weak, weak, to try to paint an excuse for the involved parties by inventing a narrative after the fact.
Mas— Correct me if I’m wrong, but after all the animosity that has sprung up in response to your blog, did I miss the part where you made a judgement that these officers were not guilty of any offense?
The only thing I saw was your pointing out new info that had been published elsewhere, and in what was obviously intended to be humorous language, how this could be used in defense of the officers and why.
Never saw the part that said you agreed with their actions, unless you pointing out that maybe folks should hold back judgement until all the facts are known was an endorsement of their actions.
I don’t think this was your intent.
Been screwed on occasion by car repair people, insurance companies, doctors and yes, their assistants, and I could go on and on, but I never felt the need to denigrate them, their associates, or their profession. I’m more secure in who I am and what I stand for than that.
If we go through life looking for fault in others, we will certainly find plenty. If we blame everyone in a group for the actions of a few, we will certainly lead a miserable life.
I choose to go through this life treating those I encounter the way I hope they will treat me.
If this offends anyone, please accept my apology and my sympathy.
Mas,
Please. The reason this guy was a victim, was because the cops turned him into one. They were so concerned they gave the guy two anal finger probes, three enemas, a couple of x rays and a colonoscopy? What was next on the “caring” list, cutting his stomach open?
‘We’re from the Government, and we’re concerned” yeah, OK.
Mas I think if you want a chance at changing minds here, a few points of contention need to be addressed and/or verified:
1. Was the dog actually certified?
2. Did the K-9 officer’s report match the arresting officer’s testimony?
3. And most importantly…is there documented proof from a primary source that the Deming hospital refused to search based on ethical grounds? It’s documented in Eckert’s complaint PDF below (pg. 7, items 53-55), but as far as I can tell it has yet to be verified beyond that document and the fact that officers took him from Deming to the Gila Regional hospital.
4. If the above is true, that means one or more medical professionals disagreed with the officer’s assertion that Eckert’s life was in danger. Would you trust a doctor’s or a LEO’s judgment given the situation, and why?
Popehat very clearly has a bias, but it has no lack of primary sources from *both sides* in its analysis:
http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Deputy-Patrick-Green-Supp-Narrative1.pdf
http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Officer-Robert-Chavez-Statement.pdf
http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Eckert-Police-Report.pdf
http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Affadavit-for-Search-Warrant-Eckert-1-2-13.pdf
http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/EckertMSJ.pdf
http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/EckertComplaint.pdf
Perhaps Popehat missed, misinterpreted, or misrepresented something? Are the above PDFs forged or altered in some way so as to not match those presented in the updated Blaze article? Is there evidence available or pending public disclosure that could shed further light on the matter and/or support the search?
If not, then how can one ignore the case against the search procedure?
Please correct me if I’m missing something, but it seems that using personal safety concerns to defend the search isn’t helpful when the very *basis* for determining a personal safety risk is in question.
If the officers had an ironclad basis for determining that Eckert’s life was in danger, there wouldn’t be a problem. Instead there’s apparently evidence to the contrary, and to maintain a credible argument, that evidence needs to be addressed rather than ignored.
…Or at the very least, the stance of “stay calm and wait for the truth to come out in the trial” would be more suitable than defending the search.
“I’m afraid it’s you understanding of the responsibility of public safety officials and emergency personnel that’s laughable.”
Cops have zero responsibility to help you. Supreme court’s ruled on it and it’s settled law. Secondary they had no evidence that he had anything up his ass.
BTW, how can you bill someone after performing an unnecessary medical procedure against their wishes? That’s akin to charging the family the cost of the bullet used to execute the prisoner like the soviets used to.
Mas, I know you can’t admit it, but you are wrong. The facts PROVE beyond any shadow of doubt that you are wrong. NOTHING was found. Previous cases were dropped. Why, we do not know. There is no credible proof to back up the claim that he had previously done any such thing. We are a nation of laws, and our court system requires proof. All the evidence proves he had done nothing to deserve this.
1. The dog is not certified.
2. The warrant expired.
3. One hospital refused to participate. Possibly because they were the ones duped the first time.
4. This was not the first time this had happened.
This has a stink factor about it like a dead carp in the back seat. The officers in question, right down to muttly, should all be kicked out of law enforcement.
Jeremy, if you were at all familiar with my work, you’d know that I do admit when I’m wrong.
And if you had spent 40-some years in the criminal justice system, you would have learned to wait to get both sides before you judge. You would have realized that you’re operating on only one side of the story. And you would realize how little relevance the four points you raise actually have.
Judging by how many critics of cops are first-time posters here, and how many don’t grasp how things really work, I think I’ll need to do a follow-up blog post to explain.
In the meantime, JeremyR, feel free to peruse this blog for the entries from July 13, 2013 to about two months later, and see how another case turned out where folks jumped to conclusions after only hearing from the plaintiff’s side.
The wheels of the law grind slowly, but exceedingly fine. Looking forward to reading about future developments in this case, and the follow-up blog explaining how things really work.
Mas,
I’ve got to join the growing chorus that is disappointed in both your attempt at humor of someone being sexually assaulted and your attempt to justify this based upon the responsibility that LEO have to protect someone in their custody.
If they LEO had that responsibility (and it weighted so heavily upon them that they felt it was legally justified, or as you imply even required, to have this person anally probed), then please explain why no officers were help responsible when:
The DEA left a college student for 5 days in a jail cell, requiring him to drink his own urine – http://www.policymic.com/articles/57357/incompetent-brutal-dea-pays-4-1-million-to-daniel-chong-for-nearly-murdering-him
An inmate in a jail had a severe lactose intolerance. A CO lied (or more charitably relayed incorrect factual information) about the content of his food and then ignored his requests for medial attention. He died – http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/11/06/but-for-video-killer-oatmeal/
A prisoner’s cancer is ignored for a year while his penis rots off. By the time it is identified, the cancer is terminal – http://www.popehat.com/2008/12/13/i-dunno-mr-mukasey-it-looks-like-punishment-to-me/
As far as I can tell no one responsible for these deaths was every charged criminally or even punished administratively.
I’ve been reading your blog for some time and I’m not anti-cop. I do have a problem with people who abuse their authority and get away with it. Your comments about waiting to hear both sides before coming to a decision or hand wringing about how we simply can’t understand law enforcement if we haven’t done it are not persuasive.
Mas,
Your assumptions in this case are too biased. You assume the doctor would only be doing this for patient safety. I know you know that doctors are people too, and can be just as corrupt as drug dealers. But this is beyond what even a “concerned” practitioner would ever do. Even the cleanest most moral and empathetic doctors would not sedate a fully aware and conscious patient who objects to having the treatment or to having anything in his system, even if they thought he would die if they didn’t.
Did you know that the first doctor they asked to perform the search due to ethical concerns? Do you think that doctor just didn’t care about this man’s life?
I know many people who are willing to allow police more power to search or detain (i.e. patriot act) because “hey, if you have nothing to hide.” This guy had nothing to hide, so should this be OK? I can certainly envision myself objecting to anal searches due to the fact that I haven’t swallowed or supposited any drugs, does that make me a suspect? Insert yourself in this situation, or anyone you know, and tell me it’s ok because they are police and just are “concerned for the suspect’s safety.” Where does this lead? If they found drugs, it would be one thing, but they didn’t. This means that if this is allowed and acceptable, ANYONE who the police suspect (or “suspect” if you catch my drift) can be forcibly searched UNDER SEDATION, you, me, parents, wife, kids. Where can you draw the line?
I read that you will do a follow-up post, which I look forward to reading, but let me just recommend you need to wait on ALL the facts for this one. I respect your opinion on matters like this, but the case does not look like one so far that backs up your assumptions.
cancelling magazine subscription – this is just so over-the-top…that anyone could think it’s okay is unbelievable. Had respect for Massad, not any more. This had NOTHING to do with saving anyone’s life, obviously. And it is not the first time it has happened. These sick cops obviously get off on raping and torturing people and you are okay with it? Done. It is time that we as a society – the people who PAY THESE COPS salaries – no longer put up with this and no longer support anyone who condones it. Well I’m withdrawing my support of Backwoods Home. You sir, are a disgrace.
The cops and medical personel have had plenty of time to tell their side of the story in more detail, but so far have not done so. How long are you willing to wait for them to do so?
How many times can they probe a unwilliing person’s anus to look for drugs before it can be considered too many times?
Massad won’t admit he is wrong regarding this case. I think he would have done the same as the cops in Deming did, if he was in the same situation.
Mas,
I love your work, and I really appreciated your respectful handling of the Zimmerman case. You waited until the verdict had been reached, and then you laid out a clear, step by step, well-though-out debrief of the case. I didn’t see that same level of respect for Mr. Eckert in your post. It was flippant and DISrespectful of the seriousness of the topic. As you can see from the comments here, there are MANY people concerned about the perceived rise in police brutality. Brushing off those concerns as if they are completely unfounded does a disservice both to your readers and your reputation. Please consider re-writing your original posting to give a more objective view of the case. I think it will help alleviate some of the anger here.
Nick42, the three cases you cite support my point that the LE/corrections community is responsible for the safety of those in their custody. If the guy in the current case had died from the drugs the cops had reason to believe he’d put inside him, those cops would be another entry in the blogs you cited, accused of having allowed him to die.
Mas,
My dictionary defines responsible as “Answerable for an act performed or for its consequences; accountable; amenable, especially legally or politically. ”
The lack of any consequences tells me that, at least de facto, those officers were not responsible for the prisoners in their care.
If there are no consequences for allowing someone to die in your care, it’s hard for me to credit that same legal responsibility as a justification for what would be in any other context, repeated sexual assault.
Mas,
If I may attempt to be the voice of reason here, there are two issues at play in this thread. The first is the humorous tone by which you make light of the events in question. By any reasonable standard, there was nothing funny about what happened that day. Scatological references aside, a man was subjected to repeated violations in one of the most personal and vulnerable ways possible. The thought of being pulled from our car at a traffic stop and probed for hours on the basis of what comes down to a hunch is frankly terrifying to those of us who don’t carry a badge. Waiting for facts or not, your tone makes it seem as if you’re attempting to minimize the gravity of the situation and the potential abuse. The outrage that most of us appear to feel regarding these circumstances is magnified when we hear a respected law enforcement officer addressing the subject with anything less than an objective serious tone. Your article was well intentioned, but your tone was ill-considered given your probable audience.
Second, this is in no way comparable to the George Zimmerman case. In that situation, people jumped to conclusions based on political and ethnic lines without the benefit of any evidence or testimony. Zimmerman had the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here we have a quantity of evidence, including the reports from the involved officers. It’s possible that the officers had good cause to believe that the subject had ingested a potentially life threatening substance. It’s possible that their conviction was so strong that they truly feared for this man’s life and took action—I wasn’t there and won’t judge. What we do know is that these actions took place in a legal gray area based on an expired search warrant, an uncertified dog, and the best guess of a police officer. Regardless of the intentions of those involved, the justification for the subsequent actions appears to have been built on a very shaky foundation. To the laymen, anything past the second enema looks not just excessive but vindictive. Putting the suspect under general anesthesia for a major procedure on the basis of an expired warrant I hope would require a very—very high bar to be met legally and ethically. I would welcome your explanation as to how that bar might be met. That said, based on the official record, including the report of the responding officers, I can’t conclude that extraordinary circumstances were at play. I am making that judgment fully ready to accept new input—I’m not predisposed to take the word of a convicted felon over the police. But the Burdon of proof is on the state and they have not come anywhere close to meeting their obligations. I would appreciate someone explaining to me how, given the documents in evidence; the state can justify its actions.
“If the guy in the current case had died from the drugs the cops had reason to believe he’d put inside him, those cops would be another entry in the blogs you cited, accused of having allowed him to die.”
No, definitely not. One thing you may note from those other posts is the person PLEADING for help/treatment/attention. In other words, they IGNORED or missed the pleas for help. This man didn’t ask for “help,” as somehow you have construed it. He steadfastly refused help, knowing that there was no reason for those procedures. I can understand taking away knives, sharp objects from a suicidal person. But this was not the case. I don’t know how you could see it that way. I can guarantee you that anyone who died from a drug pouch exploding in their intestines, after having their anal cavity searched, and having had x-rays, and refusing further treatment, would not fall on the cops involved. They should have stopped.
The tack you are taking is not even one that the involved police officers, nor anyone else, has even suggested. Not even the warrants or the court documents ever mention concern for the suspect’s safety. Even if there WERE evidence to suggest that was their motive, I find the level of search completely unwarranted (in fact, it may be legally without a warrant, as the warrant had expired, and was not valid for the location where the procedure was performed http://info.sfcriminallawspecialist.com/bid/87822/Lawsuit-Cops-forced-man-to-undergo-enemas-colonoscopy-on-invalid-warrant).
Mas, I don’t have forty years of “expertise” as a LEO. I served only eight, and quit due to the lack of ethical standards which were placing my own life at risk. Cops won’t back up a guy who won’t lie on the stand to cover them. I’m not anti cop, I just don’t like bad ones.
As a municipal judge, I made USA today for dismissing two months worth of tickets for a small town after the officer admitted on the stand that he could not remember any of the defendants in the court room that day. It was a small town, we had court once a month. Arraignments first, followed by the trials from the previous months arraignments. In sworn testimony, the officer stated his inability to recognize the defendant, then added, that he did not recognize any one who was there.
After that statement, the city attorney asked for a brief recess, exited the building with the officer and stepped around back to talk. They chose for that location a point directly beneath the open window adjacent to my chair. The lawyer told the officer, “If you can’t remember, then lie”.
When they reentered the court room, I tossed all the cases, then admonished the liar about what I had heard. I got fired for that. Small towns want kangaroo courts. I don’t jump.
BTW, I spent most of the night reading up on this case, and am fully convinced the cops were absolutely wrong. I set high standards for law enforcement. As a Military Police sergeant, I would not tolerate misconduct. Nor as an undercover, nor as a town mayor, and certainly not as a municipal judge. There has been sufficient time for both sides to come out. This is not poker. No surprises here. This case has seen enough daylight since it began in January that all the mold is dead.
The travesty I see here is that the city of Deming’s residents will pay the price for this instead of the perpetrators, the feral officers who are not of the law. If bad policing resulted in a personal penalty for those involved, the Police would choose a higher standard.
If a swat team who kicked down the wrong door and shot dead an innocent citizen were made to face the death penalty, they would not be as apt to make those kind of life and death mistakes. Heck, if they were forced to pay a few million of personal damage claims, they might wake up and fly right.
As for the Zimmerman case, I do believe most of your readers had viewed both sides. I know I certainly had. I read about Zimmerman and martin less then a week after it happened. I for one was not fooled by the hue and cry raised by his parental failures. I’ve been reading your blog for nearly a year.
As for me, prior to 9-11-01, several of my weapons rode with local deputies as a matter of routine. Small counties in Kansas could not afford all the geegaw that now gets handed out, and they needed top gear which I happen to own.
MD Matt says it a lot better than I can. This is not funny or amusing. The puns are not appropriate in this case.
Incredible. Subjugation of criminals has its place for the common good, but something stinks about this incident.
I have no further comment about the case until the last gavel has dropped, and both sides had their day(s) in court.
I will comment on what appears to be a pattern of abuse by what I hope is a very narrow segment of law enforcement; the truth is out there.
LEOs have to deal with human effluent regularly. I don’t know how they deal with this psychologically, but in some cases, the jack boot thug thing is never far below the surface. This is worrisome.
A new breed of young, warrior cop is appearing on the radar, Mas, and I don’t like what I see.
Mas said:
“Frank Ch. Eigler, you’re new here. Contrary opinions are welcome, but confusing an involuntary life-saving medical procedure by physicians with anal rape? If they thought the guy had swallowed a baggie of cocaine and they pumped his stomach at the hospital, would you consider that oral rape? Might want to rethink your comment…”
Uhhh, stomachs aren’t pumped anymore. In fact for even the most vile ingestions, “induced vomiting”isn’t recommended anymore (due to complications arising from aspiration)
Standard ER practice: Patients usually ingest activated charcoal (with or without bowel evacuation – depends on the suspected ingredients ingested and the need to use an additional substance – usually Sorbitol) or in desperate situations, an NG tube is forced in and activated charcoal is administered.
Assuming that someone had ingested/swallowed/rectally-inserted a dangerous amount of Cocaine/Heroin/LSD/whatever – the PRIORITY wouldn’t be to “perform multiple enemas and colonoscopy” – the PRIORITY would be to insert large bore IVs, draw blood and collect urine for analysis and watch for cardiac events (tachycardia and arrythmia, along with neuro function tests) to begin with, admit the patient to Telemetry/ICU with psych and intensivist consults (as required) to watch over the patient.
There are similar protocols and methods in place for ANYone who presents to the ER with suspected drug overdose/toxicity. NONE of which involve ‘enemas and colonoscopies’ with regard to “patient safety”!
Mr. Eckert was NOT violated for HIS OWN “safety” – it was done for the purposes of the State with a shamefully compliant medical staff…
– Spook, RN
ER Nurse
Massad Ayoob is a hypocritical jerk. Blind to the fact he is a Tory loyal to the new King George. Not merely comfortable with the banality of evil. He goes so far as to find the humor of evil.
If I lived in Grantham NH, I would do what I could to get him fired and have no further dealings with him. He’s just another lowlife apologist and tax feeding parasite of the gun grabbing police state if you ask me.
Comment left by The Old Crusader on another post, moved here for relevance:
Apologies for posting on an unrelated topic, but the original post by Mr. Ayoob was from back in December. This link is dated January 13 (yesterday as I write), and I haven’t seen it mentioned yet.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/settlement-reached-david-eckert-anal-probing-case-new-mexico-video
Looks like Eckert has settled for a 1.6 megabuck payout from the city and county.
Action against the hospital and Doctors is still pending, if this report is true.
JeremyR
Submitted on 2014/01/20 at 1:21 pm
I see that Mr Eckert and the Deming police have reached a settlement in the matter. Since the details are secret, I guess you get to remain invincibly ignorant as Old Crusader labeled you. The citizens of Deming have 1.6 million reasons to know what really happened, but are denied it because? We can rest assured it is not for Mr Eckerts benefit that the deal is sealed. Maybe when the case involving the doctors hits the bench we might learn the truth, but I’d bet that case too will eventually be settled with out evidence ever seeing the light of day.
The American people are becoming outraged by the war on drugs. I personally do not like drugs. I do not want to be around people who use them, and I have suffered loss because of druggies who are too busy looking for their next fix to hold a job, so they stole from me.
Last week I had dinner with a friend who was traveling west on a ski trip. The night prior, he stayed near St Louis, and met a couple who were east bound. They told him of being stopped by the Kansas Highway Patrol for speeding, 76 in a 75. because their vehicle fit the profile for drug runners. When the officer saw they were elderly, he changed his tune and let them go with a warning.
For the last year, I have had to travel from my home to KCK for doctor visits. on every trip I have seen vehicles stopped, and the occupants seated beside the road in cuffs as a group of KHP searched their vehicle. Seized vehicles are auctioned by Purple Wave. They sold ten in August, and another ten in October. I have seen more than that as I travel! I have also seen people attempting to fit seats, and in one case, a door liner back to in to their car.
Abuses by American service members lost them the public support in Vietnam. Its hard to fight when the enemy blends right in. That loss of support lost them the war.
Our police are losing support as well. Colorado has fallen as pot got legalized at the state level.
Eckert carries the label of a scum bag, right or wrong, but he won. How many wrong persons will it take before the outrage overflows? Here in Kansas, the drug traffickers are not harassing us. Yet.