• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man Claims He Was Anally Probed 8 Times Following Traffic Stop For Drugs

Man, what a crappy situation
 
Man Claims He Was Anally Probed 8 Times Following Traffic Stop For Drugs « CBS Las Vegas





Setting aside the horrific journalism of calling this guy a "victim" in the second paragraph before all the facts have come out, what a crazy story this is.

And to top it off, the guy was sent a $6,000 bill from the hospital for the procedures.

Man Seeks Millions After N.M. Police Force Colonoscopy in Drug Search - US News and World Report

It's time for the states to go back to the sodomy laws that use to prevent LE from sodomizing citizens.

BTW: Would have Obamacare covered the colonoscopy ?
 
Well, there were a few times it should have stopped, but an absolute stopper was when the first ER doctor refused saying the whole thing was unethical. I get it, this guy is probably a blight on the community and the officers were trying everything to get him gone. They still majorly screwed the pooch here and the police chief is butt stupid for even trying to cover them under policy. They're all going down now and the crackhead will get his payday. He'll in turn enrich a lot of the local dealers.

the blight on society is the people that will willingly stick things up peoples asses in the name of social engineering.
 
I've been to that WalMart. In fact, I was there in Deming visiting my mom last Christmas.

It would be interesting to know what evidence they had besides "clinching" to get a search warrant. If there wasn't any, then I'd say the guy has a pretty good case. If there was other evidence just not being given and they followed procedures for such a thing (not sure what the procedure is so can't say they didn't), then he is pretty much just going to have to get over it. It all comes down to the evidence they had to obtain the search warrant. I would hope it was more than just "clinching" because that is pretty weak and would most certainly cost the town if that was all.

They claim a drug dog hit on him.
 
the blight on society is the people that will willingly stick things up peoples asses in the name of social engineering.

Good grief. No. On one hand you have the rare case of over probing and over enforcement, on the other you have a group of addicted folks who scour the countryside for anything not locked down to destroy, steal and sell for their next fix, rinse and repeat daily.
 
I'm not sure if the xray alone really would do the trick when it comes to looking for drugs. Now, was it too invasive, most likely. But it also would be good to know what the procedure normally is or what it is set as in this town or county or even state and how excessively invasive it truly was in comparison to the normal procedure. The "anally probed 8 times" thing is a bit of an exaggeration though. There were four different procedures performed while the claim being made makes it sound as if the same thing was done to the guy 8 times.

All X-rays carry a cancer risk.
 
The search warrant in no manner required any doctor or medical personnel to do anything at all. For them to have gone on with X-rays, colonostomy, and the rest so radically crossed the malpractice line I would obliterate the hospital and any medical personnel involved in a judgment - including personally against those involved - that the hospital's and professionals' insurance couldn't possibly cover it. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars.

Why? To make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to medical personnel and facilities everywhere that if they decide to get their kicks by abusing patients believing a search warrant gives them permission to do so - though in no manner requires they do anything at all, it will cost them everything.

Again, NOT ONE of those medical personal nor the hospital had ANY legal obligation to do any of this. NONE. They did it because they wanted to and thought the search warrant allowed them to. As the first facility's doctor who refused stated, doing so was "unethical."

Since the procedures were done ENTIRELY without consent, ENTIRELY against the man's stated wishes, ENTIRELY with NO potential medical benefit and WITH potential medical harm, plus inflicting pain plus drugging the man (which also carries a medical risk), they should be economically obliterated as a lesson so at every training seminar in the country ALL medical personnel are informed to never, ever do anything like this. In addition, it would inform insurance companies to advise such professionals and facilities that their malpractice policies for the future will NOT cover medical personnel nor the facility becoming employed in non-consentual evasive procedures for law enforcement UNLESS there is a medical need and benefit for the person actually involved.
 
What is despicable media coverage is hiding the name of the judge who ordered this. The proper role of a judge would instead have been to order the police not do this.
 
Probed anally?

Well, if this isn't proof that space aliens have infiltrated our police force, I don't know what is.
 
Good grief. No. On one hand you have the rare case of over probing and over enforcement, on the other you have a group of addicted folks who scour the countryside for anything not locked down to destroy, steal and sell for their next fix, rinse and repeat daily.

and the solution is to increase the cost of the things they are addicted to?

right out of FDR's book of destroying food to improve the plight of the poor.
 
It is an indefensible lawsuit.

There was NO search warrant, as it had expired.

Nor was it valid if not, because the "search" was done in a different jurisdiction that the judge nor police had any jurisdiction in.

The police response to the federal suit said the man was "known to hide drugs in his anus." What that really means is the police did this because they believed he was involved in drugs by rumor and made up all this crap to try to get him - and if not to so abuse him that he'll leave town. Small towns can be like that. If they don't want you there, the police and authorities WILL run you off by constant harassment.

They became so radically fixed on getting him that all ethics, morality and legalities went out the window. At least they didn't drive him out in the desert near the border and just gun him down claiming he had assaulted an officer and had a knife or something.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/latestne...t-anal-probes-ordered-after-deming-nm-traffic

What ANNOYS me is that it will be taxpayers who suffer. NOTHING will happen to the judge, those officers or the medical personnel personally. That aspect of civil law needs to change.
 
and the solution is to increase the cost of the things they are addicted to?

right out of FDR's book of destroying food to improve the plight of the poor.

The cost doesn't matter, and neither crack nor meth is all that expensive. They're still gonna steal to pay for it because eventually they can't work because of their addiction. And what the heck does this one fellow being probed have to do with raising the cost of illegal drugs?
 
The cost doesn't matter, and neither crack nor meth is all that expensive. They're still gonna steal to pay for it because eventually they can't work because of their addiction. And what the heck does this one fellow being probed have to do with raising the cost of illegal drugs?

crack is a derivative of cocaine, and thus is very expensive. meth is the market response to cocaine rising in price.
 
This went on for 14 hours and past the expiration of the search warrant, plus in a jurisdiction that judge nor police had any jurisdiction over.

And more... they took him across a county line, which not only is outside the jurisdiction BUT also required a hearing first.

Since the hospital and medical personnel billed him, they also can not claim some good-faith motive as they had a personal and professional personal profit motive.
 
The article does not currently include the word victim. It appears that the writer has seen the medical records, if they confirm that he was subjected to multiple tests it is very reasonable to call him a victim. I doubt that US News and World report would report the attorney's allegation as fact unless they had seen the medical documents.

This is what people who support the drug wars are tacitly supporting-the ability of the government to probe people's anal cavities without evidence of a crime.

It does use the word "victim". The first article I posted.
 
Darn those Obamacare colon cancer screenings....
 
Eckert was quoted as saying, "HEY!!!! That doesn't feel like a finger"
 
They should have looked in that balloon that was under his tongue.
 
I've been to that WalMart. In fact, I was there in Deming visiting my mom last Christmas.

It would be interesting to know what evidence they had besides "clinching" to get a search warrant. If there wasn't any, then I'd say the guy has a pretty good case. If there was other evidence just not being given and they followed procedures for such a thing (not sure what the procedure is so can't say they didn't), then he is pretty much just going to have to get over it. It all comes down to the evidence they had to obtain the search warrant. I would hope it was more than just "clinching" because that is pretty weak and would most certainly cost the town if that was all.

At what point is it too much.

If X-Rays showed no foreign bodies inside, why would they continue with more probing?
 
crack is a derivative of cocaine, and thus is very expensive. meth is the market response to cocaine rising in price.

First:
.1 grams is 10 bux .2 grams for 20 bux .3 grams for 30 bux thus ending up to be 100 bux for a whole gram of crack cocaine on the street...unless you got good drug dealers where you can pay for 1 gram and get one and a half or 2 whole grams for 100 bux....dont do crack,, its bad for you

Source

Second, no, street meth started to appear in the 80s when cocaine was at it's cheapest street prices historically. Now near 80% of it comes from Mexico where cocaine prices are much lower than in the US, so that's not the issue. But it's cheaper to manufacture meth and thus the drug of choice for manufacturers who are all about profits.
 
OMG! It's beginning to look like this story could actually be true. What an example of abuse of power as a result of the war on drugs.
 
It's like I always say: A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to probe your anus.




The U.S. Government is definitely capable of sending a probe to Uranus.

I will be interested to hear how this weird story turns out.

I am going to guess that it won't go to trial and the 'victim' will end up with a lot of cash.
 
Last edited:

How long does $20 of crack last? About 20 minutes. It is only cheap because it lasts minutes. Meth lasts hours.

Second, no, street meth started to appear in the 80s when cocaine was at it's cheapest street prices historically. Now near 80% of it comes from Mexico where cocaine prices are much lower than in the US, so that's not the issue. But it's cheaper to manufacture meth and thus the drug of choice for manufacturers who are all about profits.

It was at it’s cheapest, but still about 200% more expensive. Meth is known as the poor mans coke for a reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom