Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
96 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: "We're from the government. We're here to help." rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alaren
United States
flag msg tools
Turtle Power
badge
all the way down
Avatar
mb
I don't like statism. Here is one small example why.

Quote:
Eckert's attorney, Shannon Kennedy, said in an interview with KOB that after law enforcement asked him to step out of the vehicle, he appeared to be clenching his buttocks. Law enforcement thought that was probable cause to suspect that Eckert was hiding narcotics in his anal cavity. While officers detained Eckert, they secured a search warrant from a judge that allowed for an anal cavity search.

The lawsuit claims that Deming Police tried taking Eckert to an emergency room in Deming, but a doctor there refused to perform the anal cavity search citing it was "unethical."

But physicians at the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City agreed to perform the procedure and a few hours later, Eckert was admitted.

While there, Eckert was subjected to repeated and humiliating forced medical procedures. A review of Eckert's medical records, which he released to KOB, and details in the lawsuit show the following happened:

1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.

2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.

8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

Throughout this ordeal, Eckert protested and never gave doctors at the Gila Regional Medical Center consent to perform any of these medical procedures.


Someone might want to point out that these were state authorities, so thank goodness for federal oversight... or maybe that should be, "thank goodness it wasn't FBI or CIA agents who could find an excuse for a FISA court to bury the deed under 'national security' concerns."

Every time we make a new law, a new excuse is created for the government to do this to you. What, you think you're safe from a government-ordered anal raping? I bet Mr. Eckert thought so, too.
9 
 Thumb up
2.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can't doctors who perform procedures against the patients will lose their license?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rico
United States
Mill Valley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alaren wrote:
I don't like statism.

What ism do you like?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
Can't doctors who perform procedures against the patients will lose their license?


Unlikely, if directed to do so by a court ordered search warrant.

I'd rather see the judge be disbarred. "Clenching his buttocks" is the weakest reason for a search warrant I think I've ever heard.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
AKA Halston Thrombeaux
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Yet another example of why criminalizing possession of a substance is a Bad Idea: because this is what it takes to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are not carrying any illegal substance on your person

Edit: I suppose I should be clear that I suspect the cops could have reasonably concluded that the man was clean without all of these procedures, just that this is how far the cops can (apparently) take you in attempting to prove that you do not
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But truthfully, lack of statism and less government wouldn't be able to prevent this. This is a clear case of overreach. Overreach can happen at any point, even if the Judge nor the police had valid legality to do this. They didn't, and yet they still went through with it.

This is corruption of the system, nothing more.
12 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John So-And-So
United States
Fresno
California
flag msg tools
badge
You and the Cap'n make it hap'n
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't understand. This man is now suing, and of course, we all know he will win. This was clearly a failure at all levels - judgement, solution, and execution. The man will be as justly compensated as we can compensate him.

But then you use a failure of the system to talk about how intrinsically bad the system is. It's just like using the website not working to talk about how bad Obamacare is. In other words, it's irrational and not an actual argument.

If people were getting their anal cavities searched illegally all the time, then the system might have an endemic problem we need to worry about. Luckily, that's not the case, and when this happens, it is rare and outrageous enough that it makes us all shocked and sick. Which completely negates the sky-is-falling reason that you posted it in the first place.

Don't freak out Ken. Your ass is safer in America than most places in the world, and very few poor people took any of your money as a result of this fiasco.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LOL, the absolute best part is the hospital has the guy in collections because he refuses to pay for these "services".

Wow.
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ken, how does this relate to statism? I read either this or a very similar article, and took it as "wow, did the cops, the judge, and the hospital screw this one up." And I don't doubt that thy did screw it up, but we aren't discussing some new regulation or legislation here, we're talking about blowing basic criminal procedures. Appearing to clench your buttocks is probable cause for multiple invasive cavity searches?

I often sympathize with the notion that we have too many regulations (we do) and that they interact/overlap in ways that can make it difficult, expensive, or even nearly impossible to comply. And while I'm for streamlining lots of these, this one doesn't strike me as being anything more than a horrible failure of the basic justice system.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This does at first glance seem to be out of order.But it might be worth noting that he has several drug cases against him (not all of which have been dismissed (well someone bearing his name)).

Assuming his allegations are true then heads should role.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alaren wrote:
toku42 wrote:
Yet another example of why criminalizing possession of a substance is a Bad Idea: because this is what it takes to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are not carrying any illegal substance on your person


I admit I am perplexed by the Obama administration's failure to end the so-called "War on Drugs." It seems like--more than anything he has even proposed, much less accomplished--this would be a powerful way to change the face of poverty and law enforcement in America, and one on which there is some agreement across party lines.


At least he appoints Supreme Court justices who vote against unjustified invasive searches.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alaren wrote:
perfalbion wrote:
I often sympathize with the notion that we have too many regulations (we do) and that they interact/overlap in ways that can make it difficult, expensive, or even nearly impossible to comply. And while I'm for streamlining lots of these, this one doesn't strike me as being anything more than a horrible failure of the basic justice system.


Without the "War on Drugs" (a huge example of federal statism) this arrest and search would not have had any reason to take place.

.
That I agree with without hesitation, the war on drugs is a stupid concept.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I assume most most of the liberals in RSP would be cool with this, I mean free rectal probe is better then paying for them !
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Jones
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
I assume most most of the liberals in RSP would be cool with this, I mean free rectal probe is better then paying for them !


I would think the righties would be more likely to be OK with this. After all, if you aren't hiding anything in your anal cavity why would you mind it being probed?

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alaren wrote:
Without the "War on Drugs" (a huge example of federal statism) this arrest and search would not have had any reason to take place.


But this was police enforcing state and not federal law, so this strikes me as an over-reach. Change the police agency to the FBI, ATF, etc. and I get it. But even if you pulled the federal war on drugs and legalized consumption tomorrow, very few states would be ready to handle that based on their own laws in the first place.

I recall you arguing that more power should rest with the states in the past. And I agree with that on a number of levels. But this isn't about federal power going too far, it's state power.

A "statist" example of this would be Colorado cops refusing to ask for a search in this type of case, only to have the feds do so due to the priority of federal law, resulting in the chain of events reported. Then I can see the argument that this is an example of state power gone too far.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
bill from the hospital for services rendered?


So A guy named Bill was offering to rectal probe a guy at the hospital ?

I am confused now but it sounds like an average Tuesday night at Slater's house.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ken, do you think that government workers are eager to take malicious actions against random citizens? If not, and I would hope not, how can you possibly justify statements like "every time we make a new law, a new excuse is created for the government to do this to you?" It seems like all this indicates is that the laws need to be refined, it says nothing about government power being inherently negative.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John So-And-So
United States
Fresno
California
flag msg tools
badge
You and the Cap'n make it hap'n
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't like this new pass interference rule, therefore, the NFL is bad for football.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
perfalbion wrote:
Ken, how does this relate to statism? I read either this or a very similar article, and took it as "wow, did the cops, the judge, and the hospital screw this one up." And I don't doubt that thy did screw it up, but we aren't discussing some new regulation or legislation here, we're talking about blowing basic criminal procedures. Appearing to clench your buttocks is probable cause for multiple invasive cavity searches?

I often sympathize with the notion that we have too many regulations (we do) and that they interact/overlap in ways that can make it difficult, expensive, or even nearly impossible to comply. And while I'm for streamlining lots of these, this one doesn't strike me as being anything more than a horrible failure of the basic justice system.


How does it relate to statism? Well, the state has a monopoly on force. Agents of the state chose to exercise that force with repeated anal invasion while allegedly in pursuit of a plant that they have deemed illegal to possess.


Under what form of government would an event like this be impossible?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
A more libertarian government would make it a lot less likely, though.


That remains to be seen.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jonb wrote:
Quote:
A more libertarian government would make it a lot less likely, though.


That remains to be seen.


No, he's right. Government wouldn't be doing these things. They wouldn't have the resources to. But they'd also not be preventing large scale crime, so those things would still be happening. And far worse. Just not by government.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Alaren wrote:
I don't like statism.

Every time we make a new law, a new excuse is created for the government to do this to you. What, you think you're safe from a government-ordered anal raping? I bet Mr. Eckert thought so, too.


I don't like the courts. Sometimes people are convicted or fined on unreliable evidence. We should do away with courts.

I don't like cops. Sometimes individual cops abuse their authority. We should do away with cops.

I don't like politicians. Sometimes they sell their votes for cash or promise of a better job. We should do away with politicians.

I don't like school boards. Sometimes they impose curriculum that I don't agree with. We should eliminate school boards.

Gee. Let's just do away with all organs of government since they never function with perfect harmony and efficiency. I'm sure my neighbors will behave in ways that I would approve of if only their weren't cops, courts and politicians to get in the way.

Dude get over it! Humans are imperfect and law & order, justice, freedom and efficiency are in contstant tension. We'll never quite get the perfect mix but, that doesn't mean we pick up the marbles and go sulk at home.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And how do you see libertarianism as solving or alleviating this type of problem ? Do you believe that private police forces would in any way be less prone to this type of behavior ?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alaren wrote:
Golux13 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
perfalbion wrote:
Ken, how does this relate to statism? I read either this or a very similar article, and took it as "wow, did the cops, the judge, and the hospital screw this one up." And I don't doubt that thy did screw it up, but we aren't discussing some new regulation or legislation here, we're talking about blowing basic criminal procedures. Appearing to clench your buttocks is probable cause for multiple invasive cavity searches?

I often sympathize with the notion that we have too many regulations (we do) and that they interact/overlap in ways that can make it difficult, expensive, or even nearly impossible to comply. And while I'm for streamlining lots of these, this one doesn't strike me as being anything more than a horrible failure of the basic justice system.


How does it relate to statism? Well, the state has a monopoly on force. Agents of the state chose to exercise that force with repeated anal invasion while allegedly in pursuit of a plant that they have deemed illegal to possess.


Under what form of government would an event like this be impossible?


I can't think of one.

A more libertarian government would make it a lot less likely, though.


How so? Are agents of a more libertarian government somehow less likely to abuse power and authority?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
How so? Are agents of a more libertarian government somehow less likely to abuse power and authority?


It's not that they'd be any less prone to abuse their power, but that it's harder to abuse power when you have less of it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.