No Charges Prison For Guards Who Allegedly Boiled Schizophrenic Black Man to Death

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2017, 06:13 PM)GMDino Wrote:

You're still bringing up that I was wrong and admitted it as if that's a bad thing.

How sad for you.

Just pointing out how far you go to bash LEO's whenever you get a chance.  Some people are bigoted towards other races, religions or sexual orientations.  You're bigoted against an entire profession and reminding people of that is something I will continue to do.

[Benton]

(03-20-2017, 10:08 PM)Dill Wrote: It's still hard to tell exactly what happened.  But I don't see a path from "covered with feces and refused to wash" to "scalded to death" which does not involve serious negligence at the least. 

I don't automatically distrust a DA's version in such cases either.

judging by the lesser editorialized account, it sounds like the cause of death was a heart attack, not scalded to death. I dont know if some sources realize or care, but playing loose with facts casts an entire story in doubt. Painting the cause of death as scalding instead of a heart attack makes it hard to put faith in the rest of it.

[BmorePat87]

Seems like this isn't a race issue but a mental health issue. It's a shame that so many in this country do not or cannot receive proper care and often times find themselves in prison. It seems like all evidence of wrong doing was written off, so there may be little done to better train these guards to handle inmates with extreme mental health conditions.

[xxlt]

(03-20-2017, 06:05 PM)Benton Wrote: LeonardLeap's noting of the differences pretty well covers the "more believable" part. There's a lot of editorializing in the first one, some interpretations, some omitted information. My wife was an RN in a psychiatric unit. From her experiences, I find it more believable a mental patient would cover himself or his stuff in feces and he was forced to clean himself up, as opposed to some guards didn't like a black guy so they tortured him.

I respectfully ask, what are the assumptions that gird your belief that the second account is more believable? Also, is there no editorializing, no interpretation in your own assessment I have quoted here?

I find it completely believable a mental patient would cover himself or his stuff in feces. I also find it completely believable some guards don't like all kinds of inmates and mental patients and torture them, and some of the victims and some of the perpetrators of this violence happen to be black. Again, these beliefs are not mutually exclusive. I also add that I don't believe most guards torture inmates. And I believe most guards are not racist.

I also know that the percentage of black people in the US is around 12-13% but in the US prison population the percentage of black people is around 37-38%. So, I know that the odds of anything happening and the chances of the human transaction in question involving a black person are higher in prison because there are more black people there than in the general population. This does not necessarily mean the interaction occurred because the person was black, it just means when there are 3x as many of a certain type of person in a certain environment they will be involved in more transactions, both positive and negative.

Here is a link to support the prison population estimate:
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

[xxlt]

(03-21-2017, 12:55 AM)Benton Wrote: judging by the lesser editorialized account, it sounds like the cause of death was a heart attack, not scalded to death. I dont know if some sources realize or care, but playing loose with facts casts an entire story in doubt. Painting the cause of death as scalding instead of a heart attack makes it hard to put faith in the rest of it.

So let's say the first account was deliberately sensationalized in an effort to bring about Helter Skelter (to the delight of racists of all stripes). Let's say this includes deliberately lying about the cause of death. You seem to think that therefore the guards are exonerated. If their conduct precipitated the inmates death, or the heart attack that allegedly caused his death, or whatever else caused it - they aren't off the hook because Joe I Dream of Helter Skelter Journalist lied about it all!

[GMDino]

(03-21-2017, 12:55 AM)Benton Wrote: judging by the lesser editorialized account, it sounds like the cause of death was a heart attack, not scalded to death. I dont know if some sources realize or care, but playing loose with facts casts an entire story in doubt. Painting the cause of death as scalding instead of a heart attack makes it hard to put faith in the rest of it.

The heart attack theory is still based on what happened in the shower.  

There are MULTIPLE issues here including officers probably not trained to handle someone with a mental illness.  

[*michaelsean*]

Well the ME said no scalding, so unless he/she is in on the conspiracy, that seems pretty conclusive at least to that aspect.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-21-2017, 01:21 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Seems like this isn't a race issue but a mental health issue. It's a shame that so many in this country do not or cannot receive proper care and often times find themselves in prison. It seems like all evidence of wrong doing was written off, so there may be little done to better train these guards to handle inmates with extreme mental health conditions.

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.  It seems, and I'm sure it's not as black and white, that we had a strange alliance of conservatives who didn't want to pay for mental hospitals, and liberals who didn't think people should be confined in them.  Some people cannot take care of themselves.  These people need a place to go where they can be taken care of, and treated, and maybe in some instances get well enough to be on their own.  Obviously most could never pay for this, so this is where we do.  You take care of those who are incapable of caring for themselves.

[BmorePat87]

(03-21-2017, 10:22 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.  It seems, and I'm sure it's not as black and   white, that we had a strange alliance of conservatives who didn't want to pay for mental hospitals, and liberals who didn't think people should be confined in them.  Some people cannot take care of themselves.  These people need a place to go where they can be taken care of, and treated, and maybe in some instances get well enough to be on their own.  Obviously most could never pay for this, so this is where we do.  You take care of those who are incapable of caring for themselves.

You also have those who cannot afford prescription drugs and turn to illegal drugs and end up in prison. And those who turn to illegal drugs because the side effects aren't as bad as prescription drugs and end up in jail. 

Many are homeless.

There's a good documentary about this and Skid Row called Lost Angels. 

[Benton]

(03-21-2017, 07:02 AM)xxlt Wrote: So let's say the first account was deliberately sensationalized in an effort to bring about Helter Skelter (to the delight of racists of all stripes). Let's say this includes deliberately lying about the cause of death. You seem to think that therefore the guards are exonerated. If their conduct precipitated the inmates death, or the heart attack that allegedly caused his death, or whatever else caused it - they aren't off the hook because Joe I Dream of Helter Skelter Journalist lied about it all!

(03-21-2017, 09:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: The heart attack theory is still based on what happened in the shower.  

There are MULTIPLE issues here including officers probably not trained to handle someone with a mental illness.  

(03-21-2017, 10:18 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well the ME said no scalding, so unless he/she is in on the conspiracy, that seems pretty conclusive at least to that aspect.

The no scalding by the ME is a big part of it.

As far as the guards leaving the guy in the shower and him having a heart attack, I'm not unsympathetic there. It's unfortunate. It's not clear if the shower caused the heart attack, if he was having one over stress (which could be attributed to things irrelevant to the guards and shower), or if the guards were trained to handle medical emergencies. Those things might nudge my decision a bit, but I don't know how much.

People die under the care of prison staff. Sometimes it's because of action or inaction by staff. I just don't see this one as a direct, intended action. Guy had feces on him, guards tried to get him to clean up, guy has a heart attack. If there was no tampering of the water temperature, no maliciousness or different treatment for when it happened to others, I can't fault the guards for wanting to guy to get his own poop off.

[Dill]

(03-20-2017, 11:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've made plenty of cogent points in this thread.  In the post you quoted I pointed out how I precisely predicted how people like you and GMDino would react.  It's fun to be right.

Anyone who has been around this forum for a while could predict that you and I and Dino will pop up on race threads.
So your predicting that Dino or I will contest any whitelash we encounter doesn't make you especially prescient. I am sure you can do it on future threads again--instead of producing "cogent points."

I predict this is not the last time you will congratulate yourself before this thread is dead.

[Dill]

(03-20-2017, 10:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Cannot say I'm surprised that you chose not to answer the question that challenged your baseless assertion. 

Mentioning something is calling attention in a casual or inadvertent manner. Race was not mentioned in the OP it was stressed. 

Your dismissal of it being stressed in the OP is either intentional or not. If you are truly as concerned about race relations as the facade you present, my hope is that it was not intentional and you are just blind to it.

Actually the best way to end racial division is not the highlight it (or as some may say "mention") in every situation; especially when it is obvious to even the simplest of reader, that race was not a factor. 

Should gender be mentioned in cases like the one here addressed?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-21-2017, 04:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Should gender be mentioned in cases like the one here addressed?

Well you do need a noun, but you don't need an adjective.  I guess you could say "human being", but we really don't speak like that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-21-2017, 04:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Anyone who has been around this forum for a while could predict that you and I and Dino will pop up on race threads.
So your predicting that Dino or I will contest any whitelash we encounter doesn't make you especially prescient. I am sure you can do it on future threads again--instead of producing "cogent points."

I predict this is not the last time you will congratulate yourself before this thread is dead.

Whitelash, lol.  You do notice that Benton and everyone but you and GMDino are in agreement on this particular issue?

Were you able to predict my response that the story, if true, was horrible.  Were you able to predict that I would be 100% correct in my initial response that there had to more to the story as otherwise the DA's decision made no logical sense?

You and GMDino are as predictable as Rush Limbaugh.  However, if you feel I belong in the same category than feel free to predict my responses in the future, it should be entertaining to watch.

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2017, 04:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Should gender be mentioned in cases like the one here addressed?

Once againAgain

bfine32 Wrote:Cannot say I'm surprised that you chose not to answer the question that challenged your baseless assertion.

Asking a question is not an answer Fred. 


But to answer yours: Michael gave an answer that should suffice. The title needs a subject. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2017, 05:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well you do need a noun, but you don't need an adjective.  I guess you could say "human being", but we really don't speak like that.

Hell Dill might have had a valid question is Gender had been used as an adjective "black, male Prisoner" but that's not how it was used. So he only succeed in making himself appear more confused in an attempt to support this click-bait and the OP. 

[Dill]

(03-21-2017, 09:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell Dill might have had a valid question is Gender had been used as an adjective "black, male Prisoner" but that's not how it was used. So he only succeed in making himself appear more confused in an attempt to support this click-bait and the OP. 

Should gender be mentioned in cases like the one here addressed?

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2017, 09:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Should gender be mentioned in cases like the one here addressed?

This question has been answered by two separate  yet you continue your petulant game because you cannot honestly answer the one posed to you prior to asking your question for the first time.

But let's see which one should be mentioned in title as I am not a coward in word or deed:

Man: a (1) :  an individual human; especially :  an adult male human (2)


Black: b (1) often capitalized :  of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin

[Dill]

(03-21-2017, 09:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Whitelash, lol.  You do notice that Benton and everyone but you and GMDino are in agreement on this particular issue?

Were you able to predict my response that the story, if true, was horrible.  Were you able to predict that I would be 100% correct in my initial response that there had to more to the story as otherwise the DA's decision made no logical sense?

You and GMDino are as predictable as Rush Limbaugh.  However, if you feel I belong in the same category than feel free to predict my responses in the future, it should be entertaining to watch.

We had ample display of your "predictive powers" on the CIA assessment thread.

Claiming "the usual suspects engaging in their usual behavior" doesn't seem very precise all.

EVERYONE assumes there is more to a story than presented in a first news account. Apparently you amazed yourself by simply expecting that. As far as "predicting" goes, it is not hard to predict that some people on the list will defend Trump and others will criticize him. I predict Mike M will defend Trump on some future thread because he has in the past. Good for him. But I don't imagine that endows me with some special insight, so I won't pop up on that thread talking about my special powers and how I was 100% right. (Whence comes the need for that kind of validation?) If he starts a thread on how Trump's accusation of Obama was vindicated, he might predict I will show up to contest that, but he won't be claiming special powers and looking over his shoulder for approval from others on the thread.

PS. Notice that I did predict you would congratulate yourself again before this thread died, and you couldn't even wait one post before bearing me out. I predict this trend will continue, here and on other threads as well.

[Dill]

(03-22-2017, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This question has been answered by two separate  yet you continue your petulant game because you cannot honestly answer the one posed to you prior to asking your question for the first time.

But let's see which one should be mentioned in title as I am not a coward in word or deed:

Man: a (1) :  an individual human; especially :  an adult male human (2)

Black: b (1) often capitalized :  of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin

The only question I recall you addressing to me is this one: "I felt race played no part in this story and definitely didn't need to be in the headline. How about you?"  Which I answered. "I didn't "feel" anything about race until people started complaining it was mentioned." I added that I was against censoring race in such reports. And you, with no explanation, decided that was not an answer.  

I don't follow your angry "a" and "b" above and all the talk about "honesty" and your non-cowardice. 
 
And I did not realize Michaelsean was answering for you,  but if he was, his answer did not suffice.  Since the question at hand concerned why we speak the way we do--black man instead of  just "man"--and how should we be speaking if some don't like the way speak, to simply say "We really don't speak like that" is a non answer. 

We don't say a "human being died" in a news report about a prison death because people want to know the attributes of the deceased--male or female, black, white, or other--as well as the circumstances of the death. If a child dies, we add that bit of info as well.  That is the norm at the moment.

And I question why anyone would want to change that norm by erasing race.