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.
MAS,
Some people just toss crap out there.
They have an endless supply of it.
MAS,
Some people just toss crap out there.
They have an endless supply of it.
Reported deaths while being arrested by or while in police custody average less than 1000 per year. The majority of these are ruled justified or unavoidable.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21255937/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/study-died-police-custody-over-years/#.VBRyAfldUhw
Deaths due to malpractice by health care providers/physicians are estimated between 100,000 and 400,000 per year.
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals
http://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/Fulltext/2013/09000/A_New,_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.aspx
Statistically, the average American is 100 to 400 times more likely to die due to mistakes and malpractice at the hands of, or while in the care of, a healthcare professional than at the hands of law enforcement.
Something needs to be done to stop this wanton slaughter at the hands of those who profess to protect us.
Reported deaths while being arrested by or while in police custody average less than 1000 per year. The majority of these are ruled justified or unavoidable.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21255937/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/study-died-police-custody-over-years/#.VBRyAfldUhw
Deaths due to malpractice by health care providers/physicians are estimated between 100,000 and 400,000 per year.
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals
http://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/Fulltext/2013/09000/A_New,_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.aspx
Statistically, the average American is 100 to 400 times more likely to die due to mistakes and malpractice at the hands of, or while in the care of, a healthcare professional than at the hands of law enforcement.
Something needs to be done to stop this wanton slaughter at the hands of those who profess to protect us.
Well…I remember a news story a few years ago where a woman was found staggering around an airport. It was first assumed she was just drunk but as time passed and the security folks tried to talk to her, she became more and more incoherent. They summoned an ambulance and she was transported to the hospital. While in the emergency room she went into cardiac arrest. They cut her clothes off and in the process someone noticed something protruding from her vagina. It seems she had a condom filled with cocaine inserted into her vagina and it had torn and was leaking coke into her.
So, yes I suppose it is fairly common for people to attempt to hide various objects and substances in body cavities. Cops and docs are well aware of this. I also know of an incident where a person who had been involved in a automobile crash (he hit a deer and went into the ditch, overturning the car and was ejected…no seat belt). He was in critical condition for some time. While the ER docs were trying to save his life (he eventually survived) a highway patrol trooper showed up and demanded to be given a blood sample (they were trying to hit him with a DUI charge, he had not been drinking). The doc told the trooper to pound sand. The cop went away mad, but he went away empty handed.
I’m certain that ER docs are confronted by cops demanding this or that all the time. Ethical docs feel the patients care comes first and the hell with what the cops want, and this is how it should be. There are just too many examples of bad cops trying to skew or manufacture evidence to get the result they want because THEY have decided the person is guilty, and if not of this particular crime, then he is no doubt guilty of something else and must be punished.
I am also reminded of the scandal of a few years ago involving the Ramparts division of the LAPD. A couple of officers were found guilty of anally raping a suspect they had in custody with the handle of a toilet plunger. This was apparently an attempt to, “teach this punk a lesson about who is in charge and who to respect.” Investigations revealed this sort of behavior was fairly common among some parts of the LAPD.
Do you suppose these officers would have any problem demanding an invasive, humiliating colonoscopy for a “suspect” that had given them a little too much lip?
Well…I remember a news story a few years ago where a woman was found staggering around an airport. It was first assumed she was just drunk but as time passed and the security folks tried to talk to her, she became more and more incoherent. They summoned an ambulance and she was transported to the hospital. While in the emergency room she went into cardiac arrest. They cut her clothes off and in the process someone noticed something protruding from her vagina. It seems she had a condom filled with cocaine inserted into her vagina and it had torn and was leaking coke into her.
So, yes I suppose it is fairly common for people to attempt to hide various objects and substances in body cavities. Cops and docs are well aware of this. I also know of an incident where a person who had been involved in a automobile crash (he hit a deer and went into the ditch, overturning the car and was ejected…no seat belt). He was in critical condition for some time. While the ER docs were trying to save his life (he eventually survived) a highway patrol trooper showed up and demanded to be given a blood sample (they were trying to hit him with a DUI charge, he had not been drinking). The doc told the trooper to pound sand. The cop went away mad, but he went away empty handed.
I’m certain that ER docs are confronted by cops demanding this or that all the time. Ethical docs feel the patients care comes first and the hell with what the cops want, and this is how it should be. There are just too many examples of bad cops trying to skew or manufacture evidence to get the result they want because THEY have decided the person is guilty, and if not of this particular crime, then he is no doubt guilty of something else and must be punished.
I am also reminded of the scandal of a few years ago involving the Ramparts division of the LAPD. A couple of officers were found guilty of anally raping a suspect they had in custody with the handle of a toilet plunger. This was apparently an attempt to, “teach this punk a lesson about who is in charge and who to respect.” Investigations revealed this sort of behavior was fairly common among some parts of the LAPD.
Do you suppose these officers would have any problem demanding an invasive, humiliating colonoscopy for a “suspect” that had given them a little too much lip?
Divide and conquer.
Divide and conquer.
Divide and conquer.
Michael JT, I appreciate you looking at both sides. However, if you’re talking about the Louima case, you have the wrong department and missed that mark by about 3,000 miles. Just to make things clear, cops have absolutely no authority to be “demanding an invasive, humiliating colonoscopy for a ‘suspect’ that had given them a little too much lip.” If you can cite a case where that actually happened, please give us the citation.
Michael JT, I appreciate you looking at both sides. However, if you’re talking about the Louima case, you have the wrong department and missed that mark by about 3,000 miles. Just to make things clear, cops have absolutely no authority to be “demanding an invasive, humiliating colonoscopy for a ‘suspect’ that had given them a little too much lip.” If you can cite a case where that actually happened, please give us the citation.
Mas – thanks for keeping a calm, logical approach when you are hit with criticism. Please keep up the good work – it is to be emulated.
Mas – thanks for keeping a calm, logical approach when you are hit with criticism. Please keep up the good work – it is to be emulated.
Mas, sorry but I really don’t care for these kinds of posts. We all know that when you fire up the Interweb thingy, you are addressing gazillions of people. The stats say that 1 in 4 people are bat sh*t crazy. So that makes the audience of a site like this something along the lines of doing grand rounds at Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital. Don’t waste your time on it. I want to hear your thoughts on guns, shooting and the legal stuff ya do. At our age we don’t have time for nonsense 🙂
Mas, sorry but I really don’t care for these kinds of posts. We all know that when you fire up the Interweb thingy, you are addressing gazillions of people. The stats say that 1 in 4 people are bat sh*t crazy. So that makes the audience of a site like this something along the lines of doing grand rounds at Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital. Don’t waste your time on it. I want to hear your thoughts on guns, shooting and the legal stuff ya do. At our age we don’t have time for nonsense 🙂
Mas, sorry but I really don’t care for these kinds of posts. We all know that when you fire up the Interweb thingy, you are addressing gazillions of people. The stats say that 1 in 4 people are bat sh*t crazy. So that makes the audience of a site like this something along the lines of doing grand rounds at Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital. Don’t waste your time on it. I want to hear your thoughts on guns, shooting and the legal stuff ya do. At our age we don’t have time for nonsense 🙂
Mas, sorry but I really don’t care for these kinds of posts. We all know that when you fire up the Interweb thingy, you are addressing gazillions of people. The stats say that 1 in 4 people are bat sh*t crazy. So that makes the audience of a site like this something along the lines of doing grand rounds at Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital. Don’t waste your time on it. I want to hear your thoughts on guns, shooting and the legal stuff ya do. At our age we don’t have time for nonsense 🙂
Mas,
All I asked is that you provide an independent source to verify your claims, rather than simply make the same assertion over and over again. That’s very different from me not being “in the mood to accept anything [you] offer”. I am, by training, a fairly skeptical person and like to see verification of claims from at least two independent sources before I accept them as valid.
Can you point to any published police academy curriculum, any state laws, or court cases that support your claims? I cannot accept a source that you refuse to give.
If it is really “one of the first things any law enforcement officer learns in basic training”, then it should be relatively easy for you to point to a source that discusses it. What limits are there to that responsibility (or are there any limits)? How does that responsibility interact with the arrested/detained individuals civil rights?
THese are basic questions that cannot be answered simply with “Because Massad Ayoob says so”. They would require support beyond simply one person’s word on the matter.
Mas,
All I asked is that you provide an independent source to verify your claims, rather than simply make the same assertion over and over again. That’s very different from me not being “in the mood to accept anything [you] offer”. I am, by training, a fairly skeptical person and like to see verification of claims from at least two independent sources before I accept them as valid.
Can you point to any published police academy curriculum, any state laws, or court cases that support your claims? I cannot accept a source that you refuse to give.
If it is really “one of the first things any law enforcement officer learns in basic training”, then it should be relatively easy for you to point to a source that discusses it. What limits are there to that responsibility (or are there any limits)? How does that responsibility interact with the arrested/detained individuals civil rights?
THese are basic questions that cannot be answered simply with “Because Massad Ayoob says so”. They would require support beyond simply one person’s word on the matter.
I’ll try and narrow the focus to the essential issue:
If this NM case is not an open and shut example of abuse of police authority, what is?
Can you and will you give a specific example where you believe such misconduct occurred?
To firm it up a bit:
Please confine it to your lifetime
Please confine it to the United States
Please avoid Federal misdeeds – State or even better Local cops.
Why is this important?
Those of us who are complaining want to understand what conduct it requires for Massad Ayoob to say, “THESE cops are bad, they acted in an unjustified manner, they are a disgrace to the profession, and they tried to cover their misdeeds with transparent lies.”
If there is no such case, it tells us how we will have to evaluate M.A.’s commentary on touchy police matters.
I’ll try and narrow the focus to the essential issue:
If this NM case is not an open and shut example of abuse of police authority, what is?
Can you and will you give a specific example where you believe such misconduct occurred?
To firm it up a bit:
Please confine it to your lifetime
Please confine it to the United States
Please avoid Federal misdeeds – State or even better Local cops.
Why is this important?
Those of us who are complaining want to understand what conduct it requires for Massad Ayoob to say, “THESE cops are bad, they acted in an unjustified manner, they are a disgrace to the profession, and they tried to cover their misdeeds with transparent lies.”
If there is no such case, it tells us how we will have to evaluate M.A.’s commentary on touchy police matters.
I’ll try and narrow the focus to the essential issue:
If this NM case is not an open and shut example of abuse of police authority, what is?
Can you and will you give a specific example where you believe such misconduct occurred?
To firm it up a bit:
Please confine it to your lifetime
Please confine it to the United States
Please avoid Federal misdeeds – State or even better Local cops.
Why is this important?
Those of us who are complaining want to understand what conduct it requires for Massad Ayoob to say, “THESE cops are bad, they acted in an unjustified manner, they are a disgrace to the profession, and they tried to cover their misdeeds with transparent lies.”
If there is no such case, it tells us how we will have to evaluate M.A.’s commentary on touchy police matters.
I’ll try and narrow the focus to the essential issue:
If this NM case is not an open and shut example of abuse of police authority, what is?
Can you and will you give a specific example where you believe such misconduct occurred?
To firm it up a bit:
Please confine it to your lifetime
Please confine it to the United States
Please avoid Federal misdeeds – State or even better Local cops.
Why is this important?
Those of us who are complaining want to understand what conduct it requires for Massad Ayoob to say, “THESE cops are bad, they acted in an unjustified manner, they are a disgrace to the profession, and they tried to cover their misdeeds with transparent lies.”
If there is no such case, it tells us how we will have to evaluate M.A.’s commentary on touchy police matters.
Amen.
Amen.
Old Crusader, it ain’t open and shut until you hear all the evidence, from both sides. You seem to have some difficulty grasping that.
What it takes for me to say “These cops are bad” is the totality of the evidence, and yes, I’ve said that before.
Observer, I’m not your clerk. If you’re too damn lazy to write the letter or make the phone call suggested previously, you have no standing to criticize, and no foundation for the points you are trying to make.
Old Crusader, it ain’t open and shut until you hear all the evidence, from both sides. You seem to have some difficulty grasping that.
What it takes for me to say “These cops are bad” is the totality of the evidence, and yes, I’ve said that before.
Observer, I’m not your clerk. If you’re too damn lazy to write the letter or make the phone call suggested previously, you have no standing to criticize, and no foundation for the points you are trying to make.
Old Crusader, it ain’t open and shut until you hear all the evidence, from both sides. You seem to have some difficulty grasping that.
What it takes for me to say “These cops are bad” is the totality of the evidence, and yes, I’ve said that before.
Observer, I’m not your clerk. If you’re too damn lazy to write the letter or make the phone call suggested previously, you have no standing to criticize, and no foundation for the points you are trying to make.
Old Crusader, it ain’t open and shut until you hear all the evidence, from both sides. You seem to have some difficulty grasping that.
What it takes for me to say “These cops are bad” is the totality of the evidence, and yes, I’ve said that before.
Observer, I’m not your clerk. If you’re too damn lazy to write the letter or make the phone call suggested previously, you have no standing to criticize, and no foundation for the points you are trying to make.
Mas,
For someone who claims to wait for judgement until all the facts are in, you seem to make a lot of assumptions about me.
For your information, I tried calling the attorney general’s office for my state. They said that they don’t provide such letters unless the request comes from my elected representative (neither of whom exactly like me because of my advocacy in support of the Second Amendment). Can you recommend any other sources?
I’m not posting this to criticize you. If that were my goal, I have already expressed my criticism and I would leave it at that. You claim to be an expert on this question, and I am honestly seeking where I can get more information to understand the limits of what you are describing.
You made a claim and made yourself out to be an expert on this specific question, which traditionally places the burden on you to back up that claim. I have attempted to search for other sources, and have come up empty. If I can’t get any other direction from a claimed expert, then where else do you expect me to turn?
I have an extensive background in research, and you never want to rely on a single source of information. You always want to verify as much as you can, preferably from primary sources (avoiding hearsay). Without additional sources to support your claims, what else do I have to go on?
I have a lot of respect for you and your experience as it relates to self defense. However, even there I don’t accept anything on your word alone. In the previous thread, you made some claims that aren’t supported and provably false (particularly as it relates to medical ethics). No one is immune to human error, which is why it is so important to verify as much as you can from multiple sources.
Mas,
For someone who claims to wait for judgement until all the facts are in, you seem to make a lot of assumptions about me.
For your information, I tried calling the attorney general’s office for my state. They said that they don’t provide such letters unless the request comes from my elected representative (neither of whom exactly like me because of my advocacy in support of the Second Amendment). Can you recommend any other sources?
I’m not posting this to criticize you. If that were my goal, I have already expressed my criticism and I would leave it at that. You claim to be an expert on this question, and I am honestly seeking where I can get more information to understand the limits of what you are describing.
You made a claim and made yourself out to be an expert on this specific question, which traditionally places the burden on you to back up that claim. I have attempted to search for other sources, and have come up empty. If I can’t get any other direction from a claimed expert, then where else do you expect me to turn?
I have an extensive background in research, and you never want to rely on a single source of information. You always want to verify as much as you can, preferably from primary sources (avoiding hearsay). Without additional sources to support your claims, what else do I have to go on?
I have a lot of respect for you and your experience as it relates to self defense. However, even there I don’t accept anything on your word alone. In the previous thread, you made some claims that aren’t supported and provably false (particularly as it relates to medical ethics). No one is immune to human error, which is why it is so important to verify as much as you can from multiple sources.
“If you’re too damn lazy to write the letter or make the phone call suggested previously,”
Mas, humour us with a pointer — where exactly do you think YOU learned that police have the obligation/power to impose surgery on conscious non-consenting arrestees? Perhaps we can start with checking that source.
“If you’re too damn lazy to write the letter or make the phone call suggested previously,”
Mas, humour us with a pointer — where exactly do you think YOU learned that police have the obligation/power to impose surgery on conscious non-consenting arrestees? Perhaps we can start with checking that source.
“If you’re too damn lazy to write the letter or make the phone call suggested previously,”
Mas, humour us with a pointer — where exactly do you think YOU learned that police have the obligation/power to impose surgery on conscious non-consenting arrestees? Perhaps we can start with checking that source.
“If you’re too damn lazy to write the letter or make the phone call suggested previously,”
Mas, humour us with a pointer — where exactly do you think YOU learned that police have the obligation/power to impose surgery on conscious non-consenting arrestees? Perhaps we can start with checking that source.
Frank, are you being disingenuous or do you really consider a colonoscopy “surgery”? In any case, as has long since been established in this ongoing discussion, the cops take the situation to the docs, and the docs take it from there.
Observer, I’d be curious to know what state you live in, since most inquiries get more cooperation from a state AG’s office than what you describe. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’d suggest you start with the US Supreme Court’s decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago Ctu. Social Services Dept. Though most frequently cited as a “police don’t have to protect you” case, the decision states:
“While certain ‘special relationships’ created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 ; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 , the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty. ”
In short, we take you into custody, we are responsible for you.
Frank, are you being disingenuous or do you really consider a colonoscopy “surgery”? In any case, as has long since been established in this ongoing discussion, the cops take the situation to the docs, and the docs take it from there.
Observer, I’d be curious to know what state you live in, since most inquiries get more cooperation from a state AG’s office than what you describe. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’d suggest you start with the US Supreme Court’s decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago Ctu. Social Services Dept. Though most frequently cited as a “police don’t have to protect you” case, the decision states:
“While certain ‘special relationships’ created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 ; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 , the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty. ”
In short, we take you into custody, we are responsible for you.
“Frank, are you being disingenuous or do you really consider a colonoscopy “surgery”?”
The whole medical industry considers it that way. It involves putting the patient/victim under anaesthesia, sticking a yard-long semirigid object into his intestines, and hoping that it won’t puncture anything. It involves an operating room and surgeons like the good Doctor Odocha.
“… the affirmative duty to protect …”
But your own quote specifies:
“… from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf ”
So it cannot possibly relate to conscious non-consenting adults regarding surgery. Such people retain the freedom to ask for medical treatment if they wished it.
“Frank, are you being disingenuous or do you really consider a colonoscopy “surgery”?”
The whole medical industry considers it that way. It involves putting the patient/victim under anaesthesia, sticking a yard-long semirigid object into his intestines, and hoping that it won’t puncture anything. It involves an operating room and surgeons like the good Doctor Odocha.
“… the affirmative duty to protect …”
But your own quote specifies:
“… from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf ”
So it cannot possibly relate to conscious non-consenting adults regarding surgery. Such people retain the freedom to ask for medical treatment if they wished it.
“Frank, are you being disingenuous or do you really consider a colonoscopy “surgery”?”
The whole medical industry considers it that way. It involves putting the patient/victim under anaesthesia, sticking a yard-long semirigid object into his intestines, and hoping that it won’t puncture anything. It involves an operating room and surgeons like the good Doctor Odocha.
“… the affirmative duty to protect …”
But your own quote specifies:
“… from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf ”
So it cannot possibly relate to conscious non-consenting adults regarding surgery. Such people retain the freedom to ask for medical treatment if they wished it.
“Frank, are you being disingenuous or do you really consider a colonoscopy “surgery”?”
The whole medical industry considers it that way. It involves putting the patient/victim under anaesthesia, sticking a yard-long semirigid object into his intestines, and hoping that it won’t puncture anything. It involves an operating room and surgeons like the good Doctor Odocha.
“… the affirmative duty to protect …”
But your own quote specifies:
“… from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf ”
So it cannot possibly relate to conscious non-consenting adults regarding surgery. Such people retain the freedom to ask for medical treatment if they wished it.
“Frank, are you being disingenuous or do you really consider a colonoscopy “surgery”?”
The whole medical industry considers it that way. It involves putting the patient/victim under anaesthesia, sticking a yard-long semirigid object into his intestines, and hoping that it won’t puncture anything. It involves an operating room and surgeons like the good Doctor Odocha.
“… the affirmative duty to protect …”
But your own quote specifies:
“… from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf ”
So it cannot possibly relate to conscious non-consenting adults regarding surgery. Such people retain the freedom to ask for medical treatment if they wished it.
Frank, you are — perhaps willfully — missing the point. The “limitations imposed on his freedom” come from the fact that he is under arrest and in custody, making us responsible for his safety regardless of his decision-making capacity.
Frank, you are — perhaps willfully — missing the point. The “limitations imposed on his freedom” come from the fact that he is under arrest and in custody, making us responsible for his safety regardless of his decision-making capacity.
Frank, you are — perhaps willfully — missing the point. The “limitations imposed on his freedom” come from the fact that he is under arrest and in custody, making us responsible for his safety regardless of his decision-making capacity.
Frank, you are — perhaps willfully — missing the point. The “limitations imposed on his freedom” come from the fact that he is under arrest and in custody, making us responsible for his safety regardless of his decision-making capacity.
Frank, you are — perhaps willfully — missing the point. The “limitations imposed on his freedom” come from the fact that he is under arrest and in custody, making us responsible for his safety regardless of his decision-making capacity.
The case was about defending the arrestee because he can no longer defend himself (because he’s been disarmed or whatever).
The question is where you got the idea that this is to extend to imposing surgical treatment.
The case was about defending the arrestee because he can no longer defend himself (because he’s been disarmed or whatever).
The question is where you got the idea that this is to extend to imposing surgical treatment.
The case was about defending the arrestee because he can no longer defend himself (because he’s been disarmed or whatever).
The question is where you got the idea that this is to extend to imposing surgical treatment.
Comments are closed.