The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is infamous for stacking charges on defendants and arresting individuals for seemingly minor possessions. However, when it comes to its own agents, there appears to be an endless level of leniency. In 2012, DEA carried out a raid on a home and arrested a group of young people who were smoking marijuana. One was Daniel Chong. Despite the minor violation, Chong was arrested and interrogated. He was told that he would be released but DEA agents simply forgot about him and left him in a cell for five days without food or water. At one point, as the 23-year-old cried and begged for help, someone with the DEA came in and turned off the light in his cell to leave him in the dark. He was given no food or water. Someone was charged, right? Someone was fired, right? No, the DEA has decided that a few reprimands and short suspensions is fine for starving and almost killing Chong.
I earlier wrote a column on how the U.S. government seems to be gradually adopting the legal standards of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. This case seem to fit that storyline all too neatly.
Even the Justice Department has questioned “the DEA’s failure to impose significant discipline on these employees.”
Chong was never charged with a crime and ultimately received a $4.1-million settlement.
The three DEA agents and supervisor responsible will continue to work for the government even though they almost killed Chong who was hospitalized for days after his ordeal. Four reprimands were issued and the supervisor was given a seven-day suspension. Case closed.
Source: LA Times
So far, nowhere did I hear about a reorganisation of the booking process in order to avoid this kind of ‘oversight’. Frankly, I thought the word ‘oubliette’ was an outdated concept, but in the U.S it acquired its own configuration.
Outrageous conduct. I am glad Chong at least got a decent settlement for almost being killed because the officers “forgot” they locked him up.
Public school systems should be producing far more nurses in much less time and employers should not be whipsawed by greedy, striking unions.
The sole criterion for American education is that it produces enough workers as nurses to allow the industry to avoid the “manufactured shortage” being used in strikes against them. It does not take 2 or 4 years to learn to read prescriptions, to comprehend dosage limits, to read numbers on a graph or to interpret basic vital signs. Accelerated, focused and concentrated programs should be employed to produce higher numbers of nurses that can function in the hospital environment. The industry doesn’t need prima donnas and faux doctors with flamboyant pedigrees. Discipline, not coddling of unionists, will generate a superior, professional work ethic. In the end, it’s just a job.
Nurses need to be easily replaceable.
Support and facilitation of strikes should not be the goal of public education.
Educational requirements for union nurses are unnecessarily high.
You don’t have to be a doctor to be a nurse.
Darren Wow!! Great comment @ 2:06p. In stands out even more considering the vapidity flowing on this thread. I know you have been biting your tongue until it bleeds of late. As the Monty Python song goes, “Keep your sunny side up..”
Nurses are trained to understand lab values, complicated machinery, medications, etc. etc etc. nursing is far more than giving a shot. That’s the easy part.
No Forgot, wrong.
The most critical thing nurses do is assessments. More lives are saved by astute nurses alerting doctors when their patient is going down the tubes. How often do you think doctors are on the unit? A nurse is a doc’s eyes and ears and sometimes his/ her brain.
The problem with nurses is the same problem as that of police, fire, teachers, longshoremen, etc.
Obfuscatory “qualification” and “educational requirements.” Excessively high requirements exist to make striker replacement more difficult which, in turn, leads to higher “comparable pay” benefiting remaining government workers and union members.
The single “critical” thing nurses do is give a shot. Every other duty is simply following direction. Thai’s what auto-assemblers do. Duh. You don’t need a Bachelor of Science degree to give a shot. You do need advanced degrees to preclude facile replacement of striking nurses. Requirements for advanced degrees sure do make strikes exponentially more effective.
Firemen need to be healthy and strong. They don’t need to inordinately large, otherwise there would be no firemen in China. How do those little Chinese firemen put out fires and rescue people anyway? And how many times do you call 911? Seems like you could assemble a good crew for minimum wage – to sit around the firehouse playing ping pong. How many fires do firemen put out per month, per year?
And how about teachers? They can’t be replaced because the requirements are advanced degrees. Truth is, the most important factor in public education is not the teacher but the student and the support of his family. Public school across the nation sends a very small percentage to Harvard and Yale. After the dropouts, most public school students become dental assistants and fork lift drivers. The Maserati of education is not justifiable and wasted on the general public school population. Teachers apply a very small portion of their advanced degree educations in the classrooms of public schools. They do, however, assure that replacement teachers cannot be easily hired during one of their frequent strikes by imposing extreme educational requirements. A good high school education with subject training and teaching certificates would do nicely and any warm body would HAVE to do during a strike. Teachers should be forbidden by law from striking and joining unions.
And how about those thugs at the longshoremen’s union hall. Some real Einsteins there. The protocol historically was for the first mate of an arriving ship to call out, “men along the shore” to come and unload the cargo as temporary and casual employment. That is to say, NO TRAINING WHATSOEVER NECESSARY. The persistent strikes, conducted through threats, intimidation and thuggery, for many decades, have assured that those accomplished and celebrated longshoremen make upwards of $200K in annual compensation. WTF? Over.
The problem with false and obfuscatory “educational requirements” is that they are simply a union strike tool with no obtainable benefit to customers or the public in general.
After the strikes, the rest of the government workers and/or union members get to avail themselves of “COMPARABLE PAY.” How about that? It’s not, “pay only the amount necessary to attract a workforce,” it’s, “they get it so you get it.”
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
There is also a reward element to every risk.
The risk that the doctor might be a dope and prescribe something harmful to me is counterbalanced by the reward that he will more likely on an individual event cure me. If I go to the doctor 100 times a year then the risk that there will be a mistake will be probably much higher.
If I consistently rob liquor stores or deal drugs, the risk that I will be arrested or even shot will be much higher than if I didn’t do those things. However, the reward component needs to be there as well, since sane people don’t take risks without some sort of a reward. In the crime area it is money, prestige and power.
Or in other words….you place your bets you takes your chances. The more you play…..the more chance you have to lose.
@ Wade
You obviously do not understand statistics, probability, math and risk management strategies.
Statistically, because the probability of being in contact with a certain event is higher than another, the risk of an adverse action from that event will naturally be higher in the event that has the most contact. Percentage of risk of the event will go up with the numbers of potential contacts of the event. Some events you can be 100% adverse to, meaning don’t participate at all. Others you can minimize the risk by selecting the time, place and action of the event. Some events cannot be risk managed because they are random accidents.
If I drive my car every day and go 200 miles a day, my probability of being in an auto accident is higher than that of someone who only drives once a week to a 20 mile away location. Those while they seem similar, because there is an auto involved are not similar. You can compare the risks on a statistical level however, but they do not compare on a risk avoidance level..
This is math.
Since my personal probability of being in an altercation with a police officer is close to zero due to lack of contact……there is no logic in claiming that I must also reduce my probability of a medical or other event by reducing my contact to medical professionals. These are not equal risks.
Exposure to risk that is mostly voluntary can be controlled. I can chose to go to the doctor or be forced into an interaction by an automobile accident beyond my control, for example. I can also chose to interact with the police by putting myself into a high crime lifestyle that calls attention to myself or by accident be involved in an event such as witnessing a crime.
Your logic is faulty.
Yes, that’s the one. Thanks Squeeky.
@I.Annie
This one, which is at 10:09 AM on May 6, 2015 above???:
Oh What A Wonderful World!!!
A Short Poem by Squeeky Fromm
Oh what a wonderful world there will be
When the whole damned country gets high!
Train engineers and the drivers of trucks,
The surgeons, and pilots who fly!
Oh what a wonderful world will then dawn
When gangsters all lay down their guns!
And gather together to sing Kumbaya,
Get married, and raise up their sons!
Oh what a wonderful world we will see
When everyone sits around stoned!
And schools overflow to the very brim
With pupils dilated and zoned!
Oh what a wonderful world there will be!
Yeah. For sure. Not!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Dusty at 2:26. Sure.
It’s still a ridiculous statement.
Let’s put it like this….
When you and you husband vow to never consult a doctor or dentist again and you vow to urge your children and grandchildren to never consult a dentist or doctor again, then I will take your position seriously.
Wade so right about more conservatives being pro DEA than liberals. IIRC Squeeky posted a cute poem about drugged out people in the advent of the end of the War on Drugs, I’m pretty sure I saw one somewhere, Squeeky?