A comment on this blog doesn’t usually turn into a blog entry, but it happens. Kinda like, as follows.
Someone who goes by “s” posted this as a comment to the last blog entry here:
Once again, Ayoob lies and creates evidence from thin air when it suits him. In his pathetic apology for the anal rape and torture of man, Ayoob conjured up a “duty of care” (to rape a man!) with zero evidence. Now he lies that members urged JPFO to die rather than accept the SAF takeover. Bullshit. I repeat: bullshit.
There were several parties who attempted to contact the JPFO board. They had alternatives and funding to back up their plans. The tiny August shortfall (roughly $1000) was easily covered; they people had 5-figure sums ready and waiting to be put to use. Ayoob dismisses these attempts at constructive engagement as “vitriol,” and any alternative to a takeover by the organization he represents as “clamored for JPFO to “die with dignity.”
Like the anal rape case, Ayoob creates a new reason that had never before been mentioned. Now his self-interested position as an SAF board member is to preserve the JPFO literature.The more likely outcome is that Gottlieb and his lackeys will suppress and attempt to shove the more strident JPFO work down the memory hole. It’s too uncompromising, too principled, too harsh.That attempt will fail. Neither Gottlieb or his lackey Ayoob can understand what has happened, and what will happen. The materials have already been preserved, by the people SAF and Ayoob love to hate. Watch for SAF attempts to suppress them via claims of copyright infringement. If there was any merit to Ayoob’s testilying, SAF would welcome all attempts to publicsize Zelman’s legacy. But since the truth is that the only prize is the JPFO mail lists, more grists for the for-profit Gottlieb mass mailing machine, that will never happen.
“s,” I will respond to your rant point by point, in order.
You started with the New Mexico case awhile back where you and others accused cops and docs of rape when police transported to a medical center a man they believed had stashed drugs up his butt. I pointed out that anyone who works a patrol car OR an emergency room knows of people who’ve died from doing that. The cops brought him in, the docs did the colonoscopy, and I said we should wait to hear from the cops and the docs themselves why they made the decisions they did. All these months later, those answers still have not come out. I won’t make a judgment until they do. You, and those like you, are perfectly ready to form a lynch mob after hearing only one side of the story. I’m not, and I won’t apologize for that.
“s,” you write, “Now he (Ayoob) lies that members urged JPFO to die rather than accept the SAF takeover. Bullshit. I repeat: bullshit.”
The BS is on your end, “s.” I don’t know whether you deliberately lied, or whether you simply spoke from ignorance, but consider the following:
MamaLiberty, 9/1/14, at Claire Wolfe’s blog “1016” comments: “Nothing is forever, obviously. Seems to me an honorable death of the organization is preferable to what may become of it now… but we were not given a choice in the matter.”
J. Eric Andreasen, 8/22/14, at Claire’s original blog entry on the topic, comments: “Claire, this is simply horrifying. Gottlieb is a KAPO, plain and simple. Better to burn JPFO to the ground and start anew.”
On the same day in the same blog, Claire herself commented: “Kapo. Eric, that’s sad. But true. I tend to agree JPFO would be better off gone than turned into an SAF zombie.”
“Kapo.” A term for Jews who were suborned by the Nazis and led other Jews into the death chambers. A supreme insult to any Jew, particularly the one who just saved Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership from oblivion. And your folks don’t spew vitriol, huh, “s”? You say I’m wrong for imputing vitriol, yet in your own post you spew words like “lies,” “evidence from thin air,” “bullshit,” “lackeys,” and “testilying.” Can you spell i-r-o-n-y? Or, h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?
The record shows that JPFO came to SAF, not vice versa. I think the coming months will see JPFO and its message stronger and more widely known than before…no thanks to you and those who think like you. SAF will spread JPFO’s core message and research to a public that desperately needs to hear it, while you’re still hiding behind your cowardly internet anonymity, spewing your venom at people who’ve done more for gun owners’ civil rights than you ever have or will.
Wow Mas, I’d always assumed that you probably got your fair share of “hate” mail, but this guy takes the cake. How long did it take Gail to talk you down? My compliments on your level headed and rational reply to him. I’m sure you were banging the keys typing it! Hope to see you at the Gun Rights Policy Conference.
Wow Mas, I’d always assumed that you probably got your fair share of “hate” mail, but this guy takes the cake. How long did it take Gail to talk you down? My compliments on your level headed and rational reply to him. I’m sure you were banging the keys typing it! Hope to see you at the Gun Rights Policy Conference.
I belong to JPFO. SAF and CCRKBA as well. (at least I sent the money to JPFO and they had it, but I never heard from them again. SAF and CCRKBA I can’t seem to stop the deluge)
That being said, I try to like Alan, and every time I start liking him again, he goes and does something that rubs my last nerve raw.
Like playing ‘let’s make a deal’ in the WA Legislature with my gun rights. I know he was willing to give up something to get something very important, but the former was NOT his to give away.
Or like cutting of the mic on Mike Vanderboegh at a prior Gun Rights Policy Conference in in 2012, when he asked what Alan’s plans were when Romney lost. Mike was prescient and Alan seems to detach himself from both the grassroots, and reality at times. Not even Dave Workman can seem to protect him from himself when he’s on a jag.
Nobody can dispute SAF’s record. And nobody can dispute that the NRA seems to have thrown us under the bus here in WA state on I-594. The last man standing here seems to once again be Alan G.
But I would like to feel a little less uneasy standing next to him.
I belong to JPFO. SAF and CCRKBA as well. (at least I sent the money to JPFO and they had it, but I never heard from them again. SAF and CCRKBA I can’t seem to stop the deluge)
That being said, I try to like Alan, and every time I start liking him again, he goes and does something that rubs my last nerve raw.
Like playing ‘let’s make a deal’ in the WA Legislature with my gun rights. I know he was willing to give up something to get something very important, but the former was NOT his to give away.
Or like cutting of the mic on Mike Vanderboegh at a prior Gun Rights Policy Conference in in 2012, when he asked what Alan’s plans were when Romney lost. Mike was prescient and Alan seems to detach himself from both the grassroots, and reality at times. Not even Dave Workman can seem to protect him from himself when he’s on a jag.
Nobody can dispute SAF’s record. And nobody can dispute that the NRA seems to have thrown us under the bus here in WA state on I-594. The last man standing here seems to once again be Alan G.
But I would like to feel a little less uneasy standing next to him.
Two things:
1) There has been a resolution to the New Mexico case. The police departments involved (both county and city) settled with the man for $1.6 million. That’s a fairly hefty settlement for the departments to give if they were fully justified in their actions.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/justice/new-mexico-search-settlement/
2) Mas, I think you misunderstood the complaint “s” made regarding your comments about the New Mexico case. He was specifically complaining about your claim of a “duty to care” for the police and doctors involved. I have regularly searched for sources that would support your claims, but have yet to find any recognized, authoritative source that makes such a claim as would apply here. If anything, I have found numerous sources that claim that (particularly with regards to medical professionals) forcing medical procedures on a person without their consent is unethical.
Can you provide any sources other than your own assertion to support the claim that police and medical personnel have the authority to require people to undergo medical procedures without their consent (other than as required by a warrant)?
Two things:
1) There has been a resolution to the New Mexico case. The police departments involved (both county and city) settled with the man for $1.6 million. That’s a fairly hefty settlement for the departments to give if they were fully justified in their actions.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/justice/new-mexico-search-settlement/
2) Mas, I think you misunderstood the complaint “s” made regarding your comments about the New Mexico case. He was specifically complaining about your claim of a “duty to care” for the police and doctors involved. I have regularly searched for sources that would support your claims, but have yet to find any recognized, authoritative source that makes such a claim as would apply here. If anything, I have found numerous sources that claim that (particularly with regards to medical professionals) forcing medical procedures on a person without their consent is unethical.
Can you provide any sources other than your own assertion to support the claim that police and medical personnel have the authority to require people to undergo medical procedures without their consent (other than as required by a warrant)?
Just a thought. How can we get the ‘antis’ having disputes like this one?
Just a thought. How can we get the ‘antis’ having disputes like this one?
Observer, one of the first things any law enforcement officer learns in basic training is that when we take someone into custody, we are responsible for his safety. If we ignore a potentially life-threatening condition, we’re in the line of fire for all sorts of accusations and lawsuits. Every cop knows that an in-custody death is a tragedy for the family of the person in custody, and a potential career-killer for the officer himself.
Observer, one of the first things any law enforcement officer learns in basic training is that when we take someone into custody, we are responsible for his safety. If we ignore a potentially life-threatening condition, we’re in the line of fire for all sorts of accusations and lawsuits. Every cop knows that an in-custody death is a tragedy for the family of the person in custody, and a potential career-killer for the officer himself.
Mas,
Can you please provide a source independent of your word?
On the previous discussion, I provided you multiple, authoritative sources relating to medical ethics showing that performing procedures against the consent of the patient is considered unethical. All you have given to claim that such a thing could be required of a police officer is your own word. All I am asking is for you to point me to another source to verify your claims. Is that unreasonable?
Also, do you have any comments regarding the settlement of the claims against the police departments involved in the New Mexico case?
Mas,
Can you please provide a source independent of your word?
On the previous discussion, I provided you multiple, authoritative sources relating to medical ethics showing that performing procedures against the consent of the patient is considered unethical. All you have given to claim that such a thing could be required of a police officer is your own word. All I am asking is for you to point me to another source to verify your claims. Is that unreasonable?
Also, do you have any comments regarding the settlement of the claims against the police departments involved in the New Mexico case?
Folks, I believe if your intent is to attack Mas, you need to recall that his posts on the subject of the anal search were restricted to the possible defenses that could be used on the part of the officers.
These observations were true and correct. The fact that administrators in the jurisdictions (not a jury) decided to settle the case out of court doesn’t negate the veracity of his arguments.
Mas’s advice is based on real world, not emotion. His posts are based on legislative law and case law. In civil cases, many times they rely on emotion, not law.
I for one appreciate his wisdom and knowledge on subjects such as this. I hope in my old age I don’t become so entrenched in my beliefs that I can’t bring myself to consider both sides of a story.
Folks, I believe if your intent is to attack Mas, you need to recall that his posts on the subject of the anal search were restricted to the possible defenses that could be used on the part of the officers.
These observations were true and correct. The fact that administrators in the jurisdictions (not a jury) decided to settle the case out of court doesn’t negate the veracity of his arguments.
Mas’s advice is based on real world, not emotion. His posts are based on legislative law and case law. In civil cases, many times they rely on emotion, not law.
I for one appreciate his wisdom and knowledge on subjects such as this. I hope in my old age I don’t become so entrenched in my beliefs that I can’t bring myself to consider both sides of a story.
As an ED physician, I can tell you I absolutely won’t do a cavity search or some other invasive procedure on a patient who has decision making capacity and doesn’t want one. Decision making capacity is not a legal concept and no law, judge, warrant, etc can compel me to perform invasive procedures on a patient who doesn’t want them, regardless of whether or not they are in custody or who signs the consent for treatment. In short, I have no “duty to care” as the term has been used here. I have a duty to offer a medical screening exam and stabilizing treatment. A patient with capacity has the right to lie to me in ways that will guide that treatment and possibly lead to their death. If they do so and suffer as a result, I have not failed in my legal or medical/ethical duty. The case referenced here has been widely discussed within the emergency medical community and this view is commonly held and repeated to residents regularly when police bring patients in requesting such things.
A simple solution to this issue would be to disallow any evidence gathered through medical procedures, if in fact what we’re really worried about is the detained person’s safety, but I suspect if that were the case I’d have far fewer officers bringing people through my door asking me to go digging.
As an ED physician, I can tell you I absolutely won’t do a cavity search or some other invasive procedure on a patient who has decision making capacity and doesn’t want one. Decision making capacity is not a legal concept and no law, judge, warrant, etc can compel me to perform invasive procedures on a patient who doesn’t want them, regardless of whether or not they are in custody or who signs the consent for treatment. In short, I have no “duty to care” as the term has been used here. I have a duty to offer a medical screening exam and stabilizing treatment. A patient with capacity has the right to lie to me in ways that will guide that treatment and possibly lead to their death. If they do so and suffer as a result, I have not failed in my legal or medical/ethical duty. The case referenced here has been widely discussed within the emergency medical community and this view is commonly held and repeated to residents regularly when police bring patients in requesting such things.
A simple solution to this issue would be to disallow any evidence gathered through medical procedures, if in fact what we’re really worried about is the detained person’s safety, but I suspect if that were the case I’d have far fewer officers bringing people through my door asking me to go digging.
Mr. Ayoob:
As Observer says, there was a first order resolution on the New Mexico lawsuit.
You may recall that I posted this information some months back but you wanted it with the original discussion. I thought that was an unfortunate decision because most folks don’t look at posts from the preceeding November.
Remember also that the (ethical) Docs did NOT do the colonoscopy. The first emergency room doctor turned the cops down flatly, stating that what they wanted was “illegal and unethical”. Hurray for him.
Because of that turn down, I expect that the suit against the second hospital may net the plaintiff more than the suit against the local cops. We may not hear about it though, because the plaintiff evidently (and understandably) does not want a lot more publicity.
Finally, the police claimed to believe that the guy had drugs in his GI tract. But they had nothing credible to support the assertion.
Now, you say you will suspend judgment until all the facts come out. That’s not going to happen – the facts are not going to come out as an explicit part of the court settlement. So are you going to suspend judgment indefinitely?
Bluntly, the $1.6 million settlement is an admission of misconduct – it is certainly not just a token settlement.
Once again, I look to you as an honest ex-cop to denounce police misconduct in a case so egregious as this.
Alan Weinstein once asked a fellow Columbia professor what it would take for him to believe that Alger Hiss was a communist agent. His colleague replied that nothing would convince him of that – including a signed confession from Hiss himself.
I would like to ask you:
What would it take for you to say “Here is an example of police misconduct”?
I hope that it would at least happen in the case of a signed confession. But I also hope you could be convinced by external evidence.
If this NM case is not an example considering the information, what would be?
Could you give a specific (and presumably public) example where you believe such misconduct occurred?
The Ferguson business is night-and-day different from this case, and is in fact illustrative of a correct need to withold judgment until information is released.
Mr. Ayoob:
As Observer says, there was a first order resolution on the New Mexico lawsuit.
You may recall that I posted this information some months back but you wanted it with the original discussion. I thought that was an unfortunate decision because most folks don’t look at posts from the preceeding November.
Remember also that the (ethical) Docs did NOT do the colonoscopy. The first emergency room doctor turned the cops down flatly, stating that what they wanted was “illegal and unethical”. Hurray for him.
Because of that turn down, I expect that the suit against the second hospital may net the plaintiff more than the suit against the local cops. We may not hear about it though, because the plaintiff evidently (and understandably) does not want a lot more publicity.
Finally, the police claimed to believe that the guy had drugs in his GI tract. But they had nothing credible to support the assertion.
Now, you say you will suspend judgment until all the facts come out. That’s not going to happen – the facts are not going to come out as an explicit part of the court settlement. So are you going to suspend judgment indefinitely?
Bluntly, the $1.6 million settlement is an admission of misconduct – it is certainly not just a token settlement.
Once again, I look to you as an honest ex-cop to denounce police misconduct in a case so egregious as this.
Alan Weinstein once asked a fellow Columbia professor what it would take for him to believe that Alger Hiss was a communist agent. His colleague replied that nothing would convince him of that – including a signed confession from Hiss himself.
I would like to ask you:
What would it take for you to say “Here is an example of police misconduct”?
I hope that it would at least happen in the case of a signed confession. But I also hope you could be convinced by external evidence.
If this NM case is not an example considering the information, what would be?
Could you give a specific (and presumably public) example where you believe such misconduct occurred?
The Ferguson business is night-and-day different from this case, and is in fact illustrative of a correct need to withold judgment until information is released.
The New Mexico Medical Ethics Board, who I would consider more expert on any duty to care in a medical sense than any cop, ruled that the doctor who performed the procedure violated medical ethics by doing so and caused harm to the victim.
Face it, on this one, you are just wrong. Everyone involved in the battery (and it was indeed battery) was wrong.
The New Mexico Medical Ethics Board, who I would consider more expert on any duty to care in a medical sense than any cop, ruled that the doctor who performed the procedure violated medical ethics by doing so and caused harm to the victim.
Face it, on this one, you are just wrong. Everyone involved in the battery (and it was indeed battery) was wrong.
“when we take someone into custody, we are responsible for his safety”
… and when has that ever extended to imposing surgical procedures on a conscious person without his/her consent? It’s an absurd stretch, for which you’ve never provided substantiation. Perhaps the lawyers would appreciate an amicus brief from you on the topic.
By the way, another part of the Eckert saga’s slow-motion conclusion was the decision by the local medical board that the colonoscopy doctor Odocha “committed professional negligence”, and is thus not shielded from liability. AFAIK he has not yet settled.
“when we take someone into custody, we are responsible for his safety”
… and when has that ever extended to imposing surgical procedures on a conscious person without his/her consent? It’s an absurd stretch, for which you’ve never provided substantiation. Perhaps the lawyers would appreciate an amicus brief from you on the topic.
By the way, another part of the Eckert saga’s slow-motion conclusion was the decision by the local medical board that the colonoscopy doctor Odocha “committed professional negligence”, and is thus not shielded from liability. AFAIK he has not yet settled.
Geez, Mas I couldn’t make heads nor tails of that rant. Thanks for interpreting that mess. I think “s” has his head where there is no sunshine.
Geez, Mas I couldn’t make heads nor tails of that rant. Thanks for interpreting that mess. I think “s” has his head where there is no sunshine.
There are sometimes cases like the New Mexico case where either choice could have been wrong. If every problem could be looked at from hindsight, life would be much easier.
There are sometimes cases like the New Mexico case where either choice could have been wrong. If every problem could be looked at from hindsight, life would be much easier.
Obviously liberal moles and other scumbags like “s” worm their way into organizations they despise and try to stir up trouble within by spreading misinformation and outright lies. We on Mas’ blog recognize these sleazy bums and pay no attention to their devious, Obama/Biden type tall tales.
Obviously liberal moles and other scumbags like “s” worm their way into organizations they despise and try to stir up trouble within by spreading misinformation and outright lies. We on Mas’ blog recognize these sleazy bums and pay no attention to their devious, Obama/Biden type tall tales.
Obviously liberal moles and other scumbags like “s” worm their way into organizations they despise and try to stir up trouble within by spreading misinformation and outright lies. We on Mas’ blog recognize these sleazy bums and pay no attention to their devious, Obama/Biden type tall tales.
Interesting (and probably predictable) topic drift, but I’ll play.
Observer, since you aren’t in the mood to accept anything I offer, I suggest you contact your state attorney general’s office and ask them for a written statement as to police officers’ duty as to the lives and safety of individuals in their custody. Please ask for a written copy on letterhead. I’ll be happy to publish it here.
Old Crusader, I believe it was you who wrote, “Bluntly, the $1.6 million settlement is an admission of misconduct.” Just as bluntly, you are incorrect. Ask any lawyer, or anyone experienced in this type of litigation. It may simply mean that the decision makers decided that cost of protracted legislation and negative public sentiment exceeds the $1.6 million. About 30 years ago, I was an expert witness for the defense in a Manslaughter case against a police officer who killed a suspect who was in the act of pulling a gun on him and his rookie partner. The shooting triggered a major riot, and apparently, a scapegoat was needed. The jury acquitted the officer. The acquittal brought another riot. The family of the deceased filed a lawsuit. The city settled out of court for $1.2 million early 1980s dollars. They knew the jury was going to side with the cop again…but they apparently figured that $1.2 mil was cheaper than another riot.
As to the finding on the doc in question by the medical ethics committee: do we know if he even testified in his own behalf, or might he have been advised by his attorney not to do so, in light of pending litigation? If so, the ethics committee will have made its decision without hearing his full side of the story.
Have the cops in question yet made a sworn statement as to whether or not they feared for the suspect’s life, when they had probable cause to believe he had dangerous drugs inside his body that could kill him? Have they ever said they DIDN’T have concern for his life and safety, and not merely concern for evidence recovery? Because if they haven’t addressed that yet, we still don’t have that missing piece of the puzzle. If they’ve ever said, “Nah, we didn’t give a crap about him, we just wanted the evidence” please share the link to that info here, because I haven’t seen it yet. And, until then, their side of the story has not yet been fully told.
Fellas, as I’ve said here in the past: 1. The police community is well aware of people who’ve died from hiding drugs up their butt. 2. Cops are taught that if the person in their custody appears to be in a life-threatening medical condition, he is to be transported to medical facilities. After that, it’s up to the docs. 3. I’m a cop, not a doc, but I am saddened to be told that docs are supposed to let people in emergency situations die if they don’t want to be helped…because cops aren’t.
What part of “wait to hear both sides before you judge” have I failed to get across?
Interesting (and probably predictable) topic drift, but I’ll play.
Observer, since you aren’t in the mood to accept anything I offer, I suggest you contact your state attorney general’s office and ask them for a written statement as to police officers’ duty as to the lives and safety of individuals in their custody. Please ask for a written copy on letterhead. I’ll be happy to publish it here.
Old Crusader, I believe it was you who wrote, “Bluntly, the $1.6 million settlement is an admission of misconduct.” Just as bluntly, you are incorrect. Ask any lawyer, or anyone experienced in this type of litigation. It may simply mean that the decision makers decided that cost of protracted legislation and negative public sentiment exceeds the $1.6 million. About 30 years ago, I was an expert witness for the defense in a Manslaughter case against a police officer who killed a suspect who was in the act of pulling a gun on him and his rookie partner. The shooting triggered a major riot, and apparently, a scapegoat was needed. The jury acquitted the officer. The acquittal brought another riot. The family of the deceased filed a lawsuit. The city settled out of court for $1.2 million early 1980s dollars. They knew the jury was going to side with the cop again…but they apparently figured that $1.2 mil was cheaper than another riot.
As to the finding on the doc in question by the medical ethics committee: do we know if he even testified in his own behalf, or might he have been advised by his attorney not to do so, in light of pending litigation? If so, the ethics committee will have made its decision without hearing his full side of the story.
Have the cops in question yet made a sworn statement as to whether or not they feared for the suspect’s life, when they had probable cause to believe he had dangerous drugs inside his body that could kill him? Have they ever said they DIDN’T have concern for his life and safety, and not merely concern for evidence recovery? Because if they haven’t addressed that yet, we still don’t have that missing piece of the puzzle. If they’ve ever said, “Nah, we didn’t give a crap about him, we just wanted the evidence” please share the link to that info here, because I haven’t seen it yet. And, until then, their side of the story has not yet been fully told.
Fellas, as I’ve said here in the past: 1. The police community is well aware of people who’ve died from hiding drugs up their butt. 2. Cops are taught that if the person in their custody appears to be in a life-threatening medical condition, he is to be transported to medical facilities. After that, it’s up to the docs. 3. I’m a cop, not a doc, but I am saddened to be told that docs are supposed to let people in emergency situations die if they don’t want to be helped…because cops aren’t.
What part of “wait to hear both sides before you judge” have I failed to get across?
I’ll stand with you on this one, Mas. And as for that anti-Semitic moron who calls himself “s”, he’s not worth the time to respond to.
I’ll stand with you on this one, Mas. And as for that anti-Semitic moron who calls himself “s”, he’s not worth the time to respond to.
I’ll stand with you on this one, Mas. And as for that anti-Semitic moron who calls himself “s”, he’s not worth the time to respond to.
Re: The New Mexico case and topic drift.
In a democratic society it is vital that Law Enforcement, and indeed any arm of government, is not considered to be beyond criticism. And it is also vital that they can, through the legal process, be required to justify and if necessary be held accountable for their actions.
However, as to waiting for “full facts” and hearing “both sides.” Well an apt example might be the George Zimmerman case . . . if you looked at the initial “evidence” – and NB: the ” ” around the word evidence – you would come the conclusion that a twelve year old black child had been shot in the back by someone dressed in full KKK regailiar . . .
As to JFPO and SAF debate, it’s not something I know enough about to fully comment about, but seems an awful lot of politics, and throwing around words like “kapo”in this context is not going to usefully contribute to a rational debate.
As for ‘s’ post, well done to Mas for taking time to produce a reasoned response.
Re: The New Mexico case and topic drift.
In a democratic society it is vital that Law Enforcement, and indeed any arm of government, is not considered to be beyond criticism. And it is also vital that they can, through the legal process, be required to justify and if necessary be held accountable for their actions.
However, as to waiting for “full facts” and hearing “both sides.” Well an apt example might be the George Zimmerman case . . . if you looked at the initial “evidence” – and NB: the ” ” around the word evidence – you would come the conclusion that a twelve year old black child had been shot in the back by someone dressed in full KKK regailiar . . .
As to JFPO and SAF debate, it’s not something I know enough about to fully comment about, but seems an awful lot of politics, and throwing around words like “kapo”in this context is not going to usefully contribute to a rational debate.
As for ‘s’ post, well done to Mas for taking time to produce a reasoned response.
Mas, I believe some folks are hung up on the court rulings saying police have “no duty to protect” the public that have been repeated so often on the anti-cop blogs. If they would read these rulings they will find these rulings are based on the “relationships” between the police and individual citizens.
“Duty to protect” changes when an officer takes someone into custody. This constitutes a “special relationship” with that person. The court decisions resulting in “no duty to protect” applies only when the police have no “special relationship” with an individual.
In the New Mexico case, had it gone to trial, I would think that both sides would have been in the position of establishing that a “special relationship” existed between the police and the suspect. The plaintiff, to establish that relationship to claim he was entitled to protection from an unwanted invasive procedure, the police to establish they were required to protect him from possible death from what they believed was in his intestinal tract.
As you said, we will never know since their will be no sworn testimony. It may interest folks to know that decisions on going to trial/settling on civil cases such as these are largely made by the liability insurance company covering the governmental entity.
Mas, I believe some folks are hung up on the court rulings saying police have “no duty to protect” the public that have been repeated so often on the anti-cop blogs. If they would read these rulings they will find these rulings are based on the “relationships” between the police and individual citizens.
“Duty to protect” changes when an officer takes someone into custody. This constitutes a “special relationship” with that person. The court decisions resulting in “no duty to protect” applies only when the police have no “special relationship” with an individual.
In the New Mexico case, had it gone to trial, I would think that both sides would have been in the position of establishing that a “special relationship” existed between the police and the suspect. The plaintiff, to establish that relationship to claim he was entitled to protection from an unwanted invasive procedure, the police to establish they were required to protect him from possible death from what they believed was in his intestinal tract.
As you said, we will never know since their will be no sworn testimony. It may interest folks to know that decisions on going to trial/settling on civil cases such as these are largely made by the liability insurance company covering the governmental entity.
Mas, I believe some folks are hung up on the court rulings saying police have “no duty to protect” the public that have been repeated so often on the anti-cop blogs. If they would read these rulings they will find these rulings are based on the “relationships” between the police and individual citizens.
“Duty to protect” changes when an officer takes someone into custody. This constitutes a “special relationship” with that person. The court decisions resulting in “no duty to protect” applies only when the police have no “special relationship” with an individual.
In the New Mexico case, had it gone to trial, I would think that both sides would have been in the position of establishing that a “special relationship” existed between the police and the suspect. The plaintiff, to establish that relationship to claim he was entitled to protection from an unwanted invasive procedure, the police to establish they were required to protect him from possible death from what they believed was in his intestinal tract.
As you said, we will never know since their will be no sworn testimony. It may interest folks to know that decisions on going to trial/settling on civil cases such as these are largely made by the liability insurance company covering the governmental entity.
Mas, I believe some folks are hung up on the court rulings saying police have “no duty to protect” the public that have been repeated so often on the anti-cop blogs. If they would read these rulings they will find these rulings are based on the “relationships” between the police and individual citizens.
“Duty to protect” changes when an officer takes someone into custody. This constitutes a “special relationship” with that person. The court decisions resulting in “no duty to protect” applies only when the police have no “special relationship” with an individual.
In the New Mexico case, had it gone to trial, I would think that both sides would have been in the position of establishing that a “special relationship” existed between the police and the suspect. The plaintiff, to establish that relationship to claim he was entitled to protection from an unwanted invasive procedure, the police to establish they were required to protect him from possible death from what they believed was in his intestinal tract.
As you said, we will never know since their will be no sworn testimony. It may interest folks to know that decisions on going to trial/settling on civil cases such as these are largely made by the liability insurance company covering the governmental entity.
“What part of “wait to hear both sides before you judge” have I failed to get across?”
In this case, it’s an excuse to suspend judgement indefinitely — or to give an opportunity to self-serving after-the-fact statements to accepted as exoneration. “We were terribly worried about a lump in the arrestee’s breast, so we bullied the doctor into giving her an involuntary mastectomy, just to be sure.”
“What part of “wait to hear both sides before you judge” have I failed to get across?”
In this case, it’s an excuse to suspend judgement indefinitely — or to give an opportunity to self-serving after-the-fact statements to accepted as exoneration. “We were terribly worried about a lump in the arrestee’s breast, so we bullied the doctor into giving her an involuntary mastectomy, just to be sure.”
MaxOff, interesting post. Does this mean that you would refuse court ordered medical procedures to prevent a prisoner from starving to death while on a “hunger strike”, while in custody of authorities, if that individual still had “decision making capacity” and tells you he doesn’t want those procedures performed?
Is this a generally accepted code of conduct in the medical profession or your own personal standard.
If the police had personally observed an individual ingest a deadly poison, transported him to your emergency department, he was still coherent with “decision making capacity” and stated “leave me alone, I don’t want you to touch me”, would you refuse to treat him? Would you wait until his condition worsened, passing out, administering life saving techniques only after he no longer had “decision making capabilities”? Would you refuse to administer medical aid at all, based on his his last request while “having decision making capacity”? Would you let him die to satisfy your own moral code?
I could go on with “what if’s” all day long. Police have to answer questions like these on a regular basis, they are second guessed just like I did with you. I assume you refuse malpractice insurance because of your infallibility. Have a good “I’m superior to others” life.
Statistically, deaths from medical malpractice are exponentially higher than deaths caused by police. Wow, I’m feeling morally superior already! Criticizing others gives a person quite a rush! I’m going out and buying a new hat, this one is getting too tight.
MaxOff, interesting post. Does this mean that you would refuse court ordered medical procedures to prevent a prisoner from starving to death while on a “hunger strike”, while in custody of authorities, if that individual still had “decision making capacity” and tells you he doesn’t want those procedures performed?
Is this a generally accepted code of conduct in the medical profession or your own personal standard.
If the police had personally observed an individual ingest a deadly poison, transported him to your emergency department, he was still coherent with “decision making capacity” and stated “leave me alone, I don’t want you to touch me”, would you refuse to treat him? Would you wait until his condition worsened, passing out, administering life saving techniques only after he no longer had “decision making capabilities”? Would you refuse to administer medical aid at all, based on his his last request while “having decision making capacity”? Would you let him die to satisfy your own moral code?
I could go on with “what if’s” all day long. Police have to answer questions like these on a regular basis, they are second guessed just like I did with you. I assume you refuse malpractice insurance because of your infallibility. Have a good “I’m superior to others” life.
Statistically, deaths from medical malpractice are exponentially higher than deaths caused by police. Wow, I’m feeling morally superior already! Criticizing others gives a person quite a rush! I’m going out and buying a new hat, this one is getting too tight.
MaxOff, interesting post. Does this mean that you would refuse court ordered medical procedures to prevent a prisoner from starving to death while on a “hunger strike”, while in custody of authorities, if that individual still had “decision making capacity” and tells you he doesn’t want those procedures performed?
Is this a generally accepted code of conduct in the medical profession or your own personal standard.
If the police had personally observed an individual ingest a deadly poison, transported him to your emergency department, he was still coherent with “decision making capacity” and stated “leave me alone, I don’t want you to touch me”, would you refuse to treat him? Would you wait until his condition worsened, passing out, administering life saving techniques only after he no longer had “decision making capabilities”? Would you refuse to administer medical aid at all, based on his his last request while “having decision making capacity”? Would you let him die to satisfy your own moral code?
I could go on with “what if’s” all day long. Police have to answer questions like these on a regular basis, they are second guessed just like I did with you. I assume you refuse malpractice insurance because of your infallibility. Have a good “I’m superior to others” life.
Statistically, deaths from medical malpractice are exponentially higher than deaths caused by police. Wow, I’m feeling morally superior already! Criticizing others gives a person quite a rush! I’m going out and buying a new hat, this one is getting too tight.
Mas, I like the way you bring it.
Mas, I like the way you bring it.
Frank, your argument is too weak to stand up. Yes, we do wait to judge until we’ve seen the evidence. You, of course, came to your one-sided judgment long before this discussion, as your previous comments here clearly show. Your impatience does not justify your rush to judgment.
Frank, your argument is too weak to stand up. Yes, we do wait to judge until we’ve seen the evidence. You, of course, came to your one-sided judgment long before this discussion, as your previous comments here clearly show. Your impatience does not justify your rush to judgment.
Frank, your argument is too weak to stand up. Yes, we do wait to judge until we’ve seen the evidence. You, of course, came to your one-sided judgment long before this discussion, as your previous comments here clearly show. Your impatience does not justify your rush to judgment.
Comments are closed.