from the adding-injury-and-insult-to-insult-and-injury dept.
The anonymous woman was raped in Houston in 2013, according to court documents, and was cooperating with prosecutors when she suffered a breakdown while testifying in December 2015.
She has bipolar disorder and was admitted to a local hospital for mental health treatment when the judge ordered a recess for the holiday break until January 2016.
According to the documents, authorities were scheduled to be on vacation and "did not want the responsibility of having to monitor Jane Doe's well being or provide victim services to her during the holiday recess."
The complaint alleges that the district attorney's office obtained an order from the Harris County sheriff to take the woman into custody so she would not flee before completing her testimony.
The employee booking her into Harris County Jail identified her as a "defendant in a sexual assault case, rather than the victim." That impacted her treatment from jail staff, as the complaint reads:
The Harris County Jail psychiatric staff tormented Jane Doe and caused her extreme emotional distress and mental anguish by further defaming her, falsely insisting to her that she was being charged with sexual assault, and refusing to acknowledge her status as an innocent rape victim."
Doe also suffered beatings from other inmates and from a guard, who then requested assault charges to be filed against her "in an attempt to cover up the brutal abuse," according to the complaint.
[...] The complaint notes that her "rapist was also an inmate in the same facility" and treated more humanely. "Her rapist was not denied medical care, psychologically tortured, brutalized by other inmates, or beaten by jail guards," it reads.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 25 2016, @03:36PM
Judge Daniel Stahnke of the Clark County Superior Court in Vancouver Washington granted me permission to act Pro Se, and appointed attorney Neil Cane as my defense attorney.
The form that the court clerk had for recording the case did not have any way to record that the defendant was to act Pro Se or Pro Per. (Pro Se: defendant speaks for himself, but with a legal adviser. Pro Per: defendant has no legal adviser.)
I spent a month and a half struggling to correct that screw-up, finally I threatened to disbar poor Mr. Cane, who was forced due to conflict of interest to resign from my case.
At the next hearing - when I was acting Pro Per - the prosecutor moved to dismiss.
I didn't have to agree with that, as I wanted a jury trial, but the whole thing was a huge PITA so in the end I agreed to the dismissal.
The judge's clerk refuses to change her form; I've spoken with her several times. The washington state judicial ethics commission claims this is not a problem they can fix.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @03:43PM
I threatened to disbar poor Mr. Cane
Yeah, I'm sure he was very afraid of your imaginary magical power to disbar ...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Monday July 25 2016, @04:05PM
MDC is one of our own -- a reasonably talented coder who's something of a social misfit. He also struggles with some non-trivial mental health problems.
In a civilized society, his ills would be like any other disability: a major pain in the ass, to be sure, but not an insurmountable barrier to living a fruitful life as a full and productive member of society. Yeah, he needs a bit more help than average, but that investment would still pay off quite well. And don't kid yourself -- we all need help from society: did you lay the pipes from your toilet to the wastewater treatment facility, and did you build that facility yourself? The reason you're not living next to a cesspool is because of the investment society made in you so you wouldn't have to.
MDC's frist ps0t might at first seem offtopic...but the experience he describes is a symptom of the exact same disease poor Ms. Doe fell victim to: the truly shamelessly horrifically way we treat those who fall into the black hole of our criminal injustice system.
These people need our help to get back on their feet every much as we ourselves need help to stay on our feet. That we should fail them at their darkest hours is inexcusable and incomprehensible.
And, yes. That includes the worst of the worst -- the Bundys and the Dahlmers and the Mansons. We obviously need to protect ourselves against them...but to go from protecting society from threats to becoming an active threat is as perverted a twist of logic as it gets. If some serial killer kidnapped his victims for years and then put together something that looked like a surgical theatre, dressed up as a doctor, and killed his victims in a fake medical procedure, that'd make him one of the most notorious such in all history -- yet we band together to do exactly that, in the most calculating cold blood, and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done and justice served.
And all the way back in the other direction...a woman who was raped was suspected of being a rapist, so somebody felt justified in kidnapping her and making her life a living hell...for what good purpose, exactly? Even if she were herself a rapist, how on Earth would the world be a better place for what was done to her?
You know how we look back at the Inquisition in horror and collective shame? How the sanitariums of a century ago are incomprehensible to the modern mind?
In another century or three, our descendants will view today's criminal "justice" system exactly the same way. They'll wonder how their ancestors could possibly have been so cruel and stupid.
They'll rightly conclude that these are dark ages and a blight upon human history.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday July 25 2016, @04:43PM
a woman who was raped was suspected of being a rapist, so somebody felt justified in kidnapping her and making her life a living hell...for what good purpose, exactly?
Way to totally misread what actually happened.
She was never suspected of being a rapist. Where did you see that?
She was thrown in jail by a District Attorney because he thought she was going to run away.
The "make her life a living hell" part is the result of a mentally unstable yet innocent person being tossed into prison and treated like any other criminal, with jail psychologists trying to talk her down.
Go back and re-read TFA or at least TFS. While doing so, Don't assume the wrack and red hot branding irons just because someone claimed "torture". And don't assume an MMA pummeling just because someone uses the term "beaten". Getting you hand slapped away while you were clutching at a jailer's throat qualifies as a beating in lawyer speak.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by TrumpetPower! on Monday July 25 2016, @04:56PM
In TFS, which you yourself accused me of not reading:
Or, to help you with your reading comprehension, defendants are the ones accused (or "suspected") of committing a crime -- and "sexual assault" means either rape or something that was heading in that direction.
Way to spectacularly miss the whole point of my post -- namely, that nobody -- not even the "any other criminal"s -- should be treated like that.
I mean, really. Were somebody here writing about how understandable it would be for somebody in a sanitarium to be freaked out by being straightjacketed and chained to a wall for days on end in their own soiled clothing, with the implication that that's a perfectly reasonable way to treat somebody with a mental illness...well, you'd be horrified at the notion that anybody would be treated like that, right?
So what on Earth has made those merely accused of a crime be as undeserving of basic human compassion and respect as the mentally ill were a century ago?
We're supposed to be better than this...and yet there're far too many -- such as you yourself -- who pride themselves in their barbarity.
What the bloody fuck?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Touché) by frojack on Monday July 25 2016, @05:38PM
The employee booking her in identified her as a defendant because he had an order from the district attorney stating that she was a defendant. Is that so hard to understand?
Jail warden's do not get to second guess the Sheriff or the District Attorney. Oh, what's that you say Miss? You're innocent? Oh dear, Well you can go then. Have a nice day. Sorry for the mistake.
.
There was no treatment that was unusual that I can see. In fact it was better than you would see in most county jails. A person with an actual medical degree attended to her, and attempted to calm her down.
Perhaps you are asserting that all psychiatric services should be pulled from every jail in the country. Are you claiming that merely having a psychiatrist visit a distraught inmate is some sort of crime of torture by society against an obviously innocent person?
Stop this nonsense about straight jackets and chains. You are simply inflaming the situation with things that didn't happen.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Monday July 25 2016, @06:14PM
frojack (1554) wrote:
And, yet, according to frojack (1554):
So, which is it? Was she in jail because the DA thought she was going to refuse to testify against her own rapist or because she was a defendant suspected of sexual assualt according to the DA's signature on the paperwork?
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you on this fact.
Where we differ is that you seem to think that that's a good thing, or at least acceptable; I, on the other hand, find it horrific and a most poignant indinctment of our for-profit prison industry.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday July 25 2016, @07:01PM
So, which is it? Was she in jail because the DA thought she was going to refuse to testify against her own rapist or because she was a defendant suspected of sexual assualt according to the DA's signature on the paperwork?
Read TFS again. And maybe the TFA as well.
You will find out the DA lied, in order to prevent her running away, he alleged she was a defendant in a rape trial.
Maybe by mistake, but that seems unlikely. Mistakes don't last a month. Most probably because he could hold her longer under an arrest warrant than he could under a material witness warrant.
The DA never suspected she was a perpetrator.
And by the way, a county Jail is not a for profit prison operation.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 26 2016, @08:39AM
> The DA never suspected she was a perpetrator.
Yes, but everyone else who saw or heard his lie, no matter how indirectly, *did* (at least have grounds, depending on how much faith they have in the DA or the system, to) suspect she might be a rapist. You appear to be trying to defend yourself as if you had made a different argument. Your actual argument was:
> She was never suspected of being a rapist.
Which flies against all facts and all reason - including facts and reasons you have subsequently presented yourself. You're just too proud to back down after making such a stupid statement, I can't believe anyone capable of stringing a few words together would still stand by such an absurdity unless contradiction was simply a way of life.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday July 25 2016, @07:06PM
you seem to think that that's a good thing, or at least acceptable; I, on the other hand, find it horrific
So then, just to make it clear, you are going on record as stating that providing medical/psychiatric services to inmates is "poignant indinctment" of jails.
Throw them in, weld the doors shut, and toss in food. That's your plan.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Monday July 25 2016, @07:16PM
If that's the game you want to play, how about you tell us when you plan to stop beating your wife?
You're not fooling anybody with this unartful wordplay of yours; all you're doing is demonstrating a very childish degree of either reading comprehension or rhetorical skill. Either way, you're just scoring an own goal by demonstrating opponents of prison reform to be ignorant barbarians.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Zz9zZ on Monday July 25 2016, @08:31PM
Discussion does not matter in these cases, it is most frustrating. I had a similar discussion with a retired officer who worked for a short bit in a county jail and he was telling the group about how their sheriff had bought military rations (MREs) at a good price in order to save the county money. He was denied from serving them to inmates. From the retired guy's point of view this was a tragedy where the sheriff was punished for trying to do something good. I did a quick search and found info stating that MREs are not healthy to eat long term, and possibly might not have been unspoiled (they were from the gulf war...) It didn't matter what I said, I didn't know what I was talking about and was full of shit.
The problem is some people can't accept new information if it in any way alters their existing world view. This is a human problem that won't go away, and it cuts on both sides of the liberal/conservative line. Frojack, you're replies are way too defensive, as if you can't imagine that something wrong is being done in jails/prisons. These injustices happen every day, and I have much more sympathy for the abused than the people being accused of causing that abuse. Even if they're criminals.
As I tried to point out to the guy from my little story, restricting people's freedom is the punishment. Malnutrition and other abuses should not be tacked on by some angry officers who want the bad people to "pay". Again, they are paying by not being free and living with a bunch of other people who make their life quite unpleasant.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 26 2016, @04:22AM
Thanks for being another person on this site who points out the steaming, crosseyed, grunting bullshit people like him put out. I can't comprehend what makes people behave like this, but knowing I'm not alone in this seemingly endless war is a relief.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday July 25 2016, @10:19PM
According to TFA, they did NOT provide her with her meds.
So apparently, all they provided was an extremely bad environment for someone with a psychiatric problem to recover in.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 25 2016, @08:57PM
A little bit of extra-curricular punishment for (accused) sex offenders isn't exactly unheard of. [foxnews.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday July 25 2016, @10:15PM
There is the minor matter of failing to give her her meds, and locking her up in the same facility as her attacker.
Since other inmates were also said to have beaten her, I'm pretty sure they don't mean a pillow fight.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 26 2016, @08:25AM
Well, let's see who thinks she might be a criminal...
> being tossed into prison and treated like any other criminal
Ah, you do.
Nice sneakers - shame about the shotgun holes in them.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday July 25 2016, @08:54PM
The way I see it, her case (and MichaelDavidCrawford's clerks case) sound like there was an error made in the system, but for some reason this error was not acknowledged or corrected.
Like it is acceptable for "commoners" to make errors, but when somebody in authority makes an error, there is a possible "flee forward" behaviour: doubling down on the idea that the authority cannot acknowledge the flaw, and therefore cannot correct it, because that would be admission that an error was made.
I've never been in the army, but I guess that errors made in the army also "percolate downwards", because it is a hierarchical, authoritarian structure. That means admission of errors could lead to a weakening of that individual's position and status in the hierarchy.
But everybody makes errors, even if they really really shouldn't.
In the case of MicahelDavidCrawford's clerk, she should have percolated her error "up", writing a letter to whatever judiciary organization oversight exists in the US: "some commoner pointed out an error in form XYZ-3 having to do with confusion between pro se and pro per, can you let someone review that form please?" It's not MDC's fault that he made a "user-level" bug report, but she the courthouse clerk should escalate it to "second-line" bug report, if you know what I mean.
In the case of TFS (I haven't read TFA. sorry. don't sue me.) the person who put her in jail should have afterwards invoked the procedure "sorry I really really screwed up; that person is in jail for other reasons, she's not the defendant but victim of the alledged rape, modify her status on paper and inform the relevant guards and psychologists. and I gotta apologise."
Also: Guildford Four [wikipedia.org] ... they even made a film about it later..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @09:08PM
They'll wonder how their ancestors could possibly have been so cruel and stupid.
Because... money?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 25 2016, @04:29PM
simply to threaten to disbar him put him in a position of a conflict of interest. Had he not resigned, then I really could have disbarred him.
There is also the court reporter's record of my request and Judge Stahnke's permission.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @06:35PM
I still don't get it. "To disbar [thefreedictionary.com]" is "To prohibit an attorney from the practice of law by official action or procedure", in other words "to remove its license/authorization to be a lawyer", AFAIK.
I can imagine you could have fired him or sued him, but unless you're some kind of lawyer licensing authority (the Bar) or a judge, I fail to see how you could literally disbar him.
Now, of course suing him could eventually have had the consequence of getting him disbarred by such an authority, if found guilty of some sort of misconduct, but that's a long shot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @06:38PM
oh wait, did you mean debar [thefreedictionary.com]? Then your sentence would make much more sense to me.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Monday July 25 2016, @06:58PM
He couldn't disbar him, nor did he want to. What he did was file or make public his intent to file a hostile action or complaint against the lawyer with the bar association. At that point, the lawyer had a conflict of interest with his client and was ethically obligated to resign.
You can't represent someone who is suing you or is trying to get you disbarred, even if there's no chance in hell the disbarment attempt will succeed.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 25 2016, @07:30PM
I once complained about the plaintiff's ambulance chaser when he filed a defamation action due to his own fevered imagination.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday July 25 2016, @05:31PM
No it's the magical power of conflict of interest.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday July 25 2016, @03:49PM
Good lord, why would you want to go to trial? Leaving aside the extra time and expense, there's no telling what 12 idiots would do. A bird in the hand, yadda, yadda.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 25 2016, @04:34PM
In which I asked a Vancouver PD officer to help me report a 20 year old murder of a drug informant - a murder I witnessed - and he ridiculed me.
I expect the prosecutor dismissed because he actually spoke to the cop.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:43PM
It sounds like you lucked out. Not knowing the details, that's a very stupid reason to want to go to trial.
Hell, go to the press if you feel strongly about it, but its hard for me to imagine why it wouldn't be considered irrelevant and prevented from being entered into the record. And, if it were, who cares? The record of your case is never going to be of interest to anyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @03:53PM
You don't need permission to appear pro se, you have the right to do so.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 25 2016, @04:45PM
The judge can rule that the defendant is incompetent to act Pro Se or Pro Per.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Monday July 25 2016, @06:51PM
Yes, but, to my knowledge, in the US, that would also mean the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. Things may be different in Canada, where you were as I can see from your posts elsewhere in this discussion.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 25 2016, @07:27PM
I live there now but still call my company Portland Software Development and Consulting [soggywizards.com] so people don't think I'm in Canada.
Vancouver Washington was the first, established about 1840 or so as a Canadian Army fort, later turned over to the US Army when we finally agreed on our common border. I think the city itself was founded around 1870.
I think Vancouver Canada was founded in 1880 as a saloon out in the middle of nowhere.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by dry on Tuesday July 26 2016, @04:11AM
Vancouver Wa was originally a private fur trappers fort, the North West Company IIRC which soon merged with the Hudson Bay Company (they were at war for a while), which became a British fort. and then American. BC did not become part of Canada until 1871.
Vancouver, BC was founded in 1886, made possible as much by the trans-continental railroad. Before it was partially known as Gastown, named after Gassy Jack, who ran a saloon on the skid road (logs were skidded down it to the mill)
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Tuesday July 26 2016, @10:23PM
Ages ago, I read that the city of Coevorden [wikipedia.org] (NL, 35 000 souls) tried to establish a "sister city" link [wikipedia.org] with Vancouver (CA, 603 000 souls), but I think it was politely shooed away for not being important enough.
("Vancouver" comes from "van Coevorden")
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday July 25 2016, @04:21PM
While a little interesting what does your comment have to do with the article and the case it mentions?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 25 2016, @04:36PM
... because her form was not equipped with a checkbox.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:46AM
Now imagine the shit developers go through now a days where we have to create forms that have to handle shit that may only happen .00001% of the time, and if we don't we get shit on because our system can't handle it. A computer system is way more inflexible than a paper form where you can write in the margins...
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Monday July 25 2016, @05:53PM
This is the Procrustes story of the day. When something doesn't fit, make it fit. No entry on the form for "victim"? Just mark her as a defendant! No entry for "pro se"? Sorry, can't fix the form, out of our control.
(Score: 3, Funny) by edIII on Monday July 25 2016, @10:43PM
Tell me the whole thing doesn't scream of Vogon training? :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Capt. Obvious on Monday July 25 2016, @03:43PM
The bigger issue is that they feel compelled to torture someone awaiting trial who has not been found guilty. Yes, it's horrible this happened to her, but it also would have been horrible if it happened to an innocent person. Or, frankly, that a guilty person would be tortured by the staff like that.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday July 25 2016, @04:24PM
Torture is her word. Suddenly finding yourself listed as a perpetrator would cast any normal inmate services or counseling as torture, especially if you were already suffering a bipolar breakdown.
it sounds to me like the jail staff didn't know what was going on, not being privy to the DA's gambit, and only having the booking sheet to go by.
Tell me you wouldn't be first in line bitching if jail psychiatric staff denied her any services and ignored her, and left her alone in her cell to commit suicide, just because she was distraught and insisted she was innocent (like everybody else in the entire jail).
No what bother me is this bit:
The complaint alleges that the district attorney's office obtained an order from the Harris County sheriff to take the woman into custody so she would not flee before completing her testimony.
When you track that down, I bet it REALLY says the district attorney's office ISSUED an order to the sheriff to take her into custody. Because Sheriffs don't issue arrest orders - they follow them.
The DA's office seems to be at fault here, and maybe the booking officer going along with a detention for which there was no record of any arrest.
Also, a guard yelling at someone to get in their cell is assault, psychically pushing them into the cell is battery, and from battery to beating is usually a lawyers turn of a phrase.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 25 2016, @04:41PM
Usually guards and inmates don't walk around hand in hand looking for people to beat up because they're bored or Bernie lost the nomination or they failed to obtain their favorite pokemon character. I'm sure there's more to the story.
I think I found a FOURTH peculiarity of the case, traditionally a beat down from "inmates and a guard" means the inmates where fighting and a guard broke it up and its time to cash in the sweet lawsuit and the inmates have no money but the guard's employers do and theres always "something" to monday morning quarterback. So reading between the lines, she was involved in (started?) a fight and the guards broke it up, either too forcefully, or not forcefully enough (aka too slowly) or the guards were angry about having their coffee break interrupted so they yelled at them or who knows, but what matters is the guards employers have money to be taken in a lawsuit.
People being very complicated its hard to say if the fight was justified anyway. Its quite possible to be crazy, a crime victim, and totally orthogonal to those two, also be a jerk deserving of a beat down because ... Umm yeah the story is a bit light on the "because" part. Of the whole sad story, it may be the only thing happened to her that she actually deserved. Maybe. Or maybe not. Its carefully not being reported in the linked article, yet is more interesting than the entire rest of the article.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by driven on Monday July 25 2016, @04:54PM
That's the problem with news these days. It's crafted to rile people up, and doesn't seek to answer many of the important questions. It does a disservice to real issues that people really should be riled up about, because all the real issues float around in a sea of bullshit and click-bait. Couple that with the endless onslaught of new "news", and even reading the news becomes what seems more and more to me like a pointless exercise.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by frojack on Monday July 25 2016, @05:00PM
Yes, there's likely a whole lot more to this story.
The whole story seems taken from her lawyer's pleading.
Not something one normally takes at face value, even in a court of law.
Yet I'm constantly amazed at the mindset around SN that immediately assumes that This Lawyer was 100 percent truthful, (while in every other situation all lawyers are liars), just because it suits their political belief system (at least for the moment).
Quite likely she is due some compensation. Quite possibly the DA needs to be put on the hot seat. And quite obviously a lot of SN readers need to start reading and thinking like they are older than 15.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @06:53PM
> And quite obviously a lot of SN readers need to start reading and thinking like they are older than 15.
Start with #1 man. You have a history of making up shit from whole cloth just because it fits your own internal narratives. Even when 2 minutes of google would have shown you otherwise.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday July 25 2016, @10:19PM
The DA has made some public statements defending herself, which confirm several though not all key facts of the case. Here's a link to her statement, embedded in a criminal lawyer's assessment of the case. To the best of my knowledge he is older than 15. http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/07/23/harris-countys-devon-anderson-strips-naked/#more-29388 [simplejustice.us]
If you've read much about jail conditions, the victim's account is plausible. Things like that happen All The Time, whatever actually happened to her.
Whatever turns up in this case, there are enough other data points to build a pattern. For example, there was the judge who referred to a rape victim as "the accused". Repeatedly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/judge-sex-assault-robin-camp-1.3663552?cmp=rss [www.cbc.ca]
You don't have to like the people who talk about "rape culture" to look around and notice that it's a thing.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Monday July 25 2016, @08:43PM
Jack booted thugs. That is what you guys come off as. She was 100% a victim from start to finish. If you want to blame someone why not blame the person responsible? The DA! Sending her to jail is bad enough, but saying she's the defendant? Everything else stems from this, and you conservatard thugs deserve a stint through the system labeled as child molesters so you can get a taste of what you promote.
As seems to always be the case, money is all that matters to you guys. In this case the guards' employer's money. Who cares about freedom, human rights, or a functional justice system that fixes more problems than it creates? Money is all that matters, money money money. She deserves compensation for being illegally jailed and thus assaulted.
Perhaps she is also on the line for assaulting a guard, as you say the details are vague. Did she have her meds? Yes? Culpable. No? Innocent. Also, degree and pre-meditation. Did she lash out because she was in the middle of a fight and someone grabbed her? Or did she see the guard and target him?
Oh, right, details won't actually matter unless they support your viewpoint. I guess I'm one sided even after saying she could be guilty of assault.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 25 2016, @09:15PM
Yeah I think we basically agree, seeing as her lawyer is also a big fan of
Oh, right, details won't actually matter unless they support your viewpoint.
There is something possibly odd that they dropped the assault charges and nobody wants to talk about it, so that implies there are aspects of that event that make both sides look bad, or make both look worse than any likely gain either side would get from continuing or talking about it.
I'd estimate based on the linked article we probably have less than 10% of the whole story. Like an article ten times longer and more detailed could come out of it, if properly researched.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday July 25 2016, @09:27PM
Until the court case settles we won't find anything out most likely. My take is that they dropped any assault charges against her for her doing the same. No matter what she could be found guilty of assault for hitting a guard, the law doesn't care what put her in that situation, so seems fair to drop the same charges against each other. No need for any deeper reasoning, though its possible there is more to it.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday July 25 2016, @10:35PM
She could be guilty of assault, but I'd insist on seeing surveillance video first, given that things like this happen: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2015/12/nueces-jailer-who-beat-inmate-accused.html [blogspot.com]
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday July 26 2016, @10:44AM
Why do you use the word "you guys"?
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:59PM
Because there are multiple users with the same type of opinion, and "guys" is basically a catchall for people, not just men. But that could just be my little bubble of experience. Its left as an exercise for the user to determine if they should be included.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 26 2016, @08:51AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @05:59PM
They don't have to know what's going on. Regardless of what's going on they're not allowed to harass non-convicted people. And they probably shouldn't be harassing convicts either.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Monday July 25 2016, @10:26PM
> "psychically pushing them into the cell is battery"
So the guards can't even think in the general directions of prisoners these days? Sheesh, what is the world coming to?
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday July 25 2016, @04:24PM
careful
"but it also would have been horrible if it happened to an innocent person."
Your showing the mindset that a someone who gets raped is at fault.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 4, Informative) by Capt. Obvious on Monday July 25 2016, @04:37PM
Sorry, that was a typo of a particularly bad sort.
Please correct to "but it also would have been horrible if it happened to any innocent person."
My intention was to say that any person in jail awaiting trial should be treated as innocent, not to imply she was in any way at fault.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday July 25 2016, @04:31PM
The SJW angle is that her rapist was in the same facility, and was treated better.
Did the guard think they got drunk and raped each other?
Did the guard think that she had second thoughts and was making up the rape accusation?
And even if he did, that meant she deserved abuse?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 25 2016, @04:43PM
Would the guards necessarily know they were involved in *the same* rape case?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:06AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 25 2016, @04:53PM
Fifth weird aspect to the story not being reported is why the dude is in there.
Yeah yeah critical feminist theory that all men are rapists or WTF-land. But in practice, accused attackers are not usually tossed in the mental health center. So there's something behind that story.
One story that instantly springs to mind is legally inmates cannot consent, therefore all sex is rape. The guards know that there are "couples" that keep it quiet, happy couples mean calm conditions mean happy guards (happy in a different way hopefully). But the guy cheats on her or otherwise pisses her off enough to make her angry enough to go all rape allegation, which is not unheard of, but this makes the guards look awful (as if they have enough staff to prevent two willing participants from bumping uglies) AND the local inmates are now getting cracked down on which is ruining their sex lives and therefore making them extremely angry with her.
I mean the most likely explanation of the story, that is carefully not being explained, doesn't cast her in a very positive light, which is probably why its not being reported. There are other possible explanations that make her look bad, but they're less likely.
Or reading between the lines, what if the dude's day job is being a guard? The dude isn't crazy, he works there. Or in the cafeteria or janitorial staff or who knows.
Its just fascinating that the dude is in there with her and that's carefully and intentionally not a major discussion point in the story.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Adamsjas on Monday July 25 2016, @05:18PM
You said:
"Fifth weird aspect to the story not being reported is why the dude is in there."
She was testifying at HIS rape trial. That's why he is in jail.
The only question is why was SHE in jail.
Harris county jail is huge. There is no suggestion they were even in the same wing, and certainly no rape took place there.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 25 2016, @05:58PM
Oh... oops. I got that wrong when I look at the details.
local hospital for mental health treatment
booking her into Harris County Jail
I was visualizing my home town where the multibuilding courthouse and jail complex has a mental health building that's the only specifically mental hospital in the area leading me to think this woman in TX was more or less in the same cell the whole time. Which is probably unusual.
The Harris County Jail psychiatric staff
Hmm so they have a mental health hospital thats not next door to the jail that she went to first, but the jail has mental health staff who are none the less not in a mental hospital.
Why would they have booked a diagnosed mentally ill person into the regular jail instead of into the mental health wing? I guess that's yet another problem, either with what they did or with her story.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday July 25 2016, @08:58PM
I read it completely differently :-)
My (completely substanceless) opinion is, that the guard thought: "oh shit! I really screwed up! If I ignore it, maybe the problem will go away! Pity for that woman though."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by VLM on Monday July 25 2016, @04:30PM
Three weird issues tapdanced around in the article.
1) She's bipolar so they treated her awful. I'm not saying its good that they treat bipolar people poorly, or that they should. But its weird that her victim status trumps her medical diagnosis to the point that its not being widely advertised as a mentally ill person being brutalized but instead she's a crime victim. If you read the story closely, she is both. This just sounds weird and the story behind that is likely more interesting than what was reported. I just find it weird that brutalizing sick people is BAU and therefore not clickbait but brutalizing victims is also BAU (although this is worse than normal) and therefore is clickbait. Journalists have very strange ideas when they frame their narrative.
2) Apparently, everyone in the system hates her and loves her attacker. Why? Who is he? Again this part of the story smells more interesting than the blah story provided. So is her attacker a cop or doctor or local politician or crime boss or other employee of the system? With all due respect, this is Houston, she's not the only criminal case in the system. Unfortunately there's nothing interesting or unusual about the crime she was involved in, at least not that was reported. So.... there's obviously an unreported story here? Obviously the attacker must be someone interesting?
3) No one higher up is interested in the case? No DA looking to make a name fighting corruption? She's claiming its solely a local level individual accident? There's a reason nobody higher up is on the case. We aren't being told, but I'm sure its fascinating. Maybe since its already been determined she's got mental problems, her entire story runs smack into a wall of multiple CCTV surveillance cameras showing that she's hallucinating the whole thing, and the higher ups know that. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, after all. Maybe she'll settle for less money than it'll cost the hospital to provide the video logs showing nothing happened to her. This is just a weird aspect of the story carefully not reported in the linked article.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @05:07PM
According to the documents, authorities were scheduled to be on vacation and "did not want the responsibility of having to monitor Jane Doe's well being or provide victim services to her during the holiday recess [...] an order from the Harris County sheriff to take the woman into custody so she would not flee before completing her testimony
You need to re-read TFS. The victim was not necessarily "in the system" at the time of the alleged rape and they just put her in jail because they didn't want to keep tabs on her during Christmas vacation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @08:06PM
But its weird that her victim status trumps her medical diagnosis to the point that its not being widely advertised as a mentally ill person being brutalized but instead she's a crime victim.
It's not that weird. It's because her victim status is relevant to the story and her bipolar situation is not. I don't mean this cynically... I mean this as superflouous information. For example, her ethnicity isn't really emphasized, nor her blood type, nor her having four functional limbs (I assume), nor...
The story here is "person who was allegedly a rape victim ends up misclassified and bad stuff happened to her as a result."
Imagine instead she had had been given a lethal dose of anti-psychotic drugs. Then the story would have emphasized her bipolar status and its mis-rteatment, rather than her being an alleged rape victim. Imagine she had a limb amputated by mistake at a hospital. Then both her bipolar status and her alleged rape victim status would both have been de-emphasized in favor of why she had gone to the hospital.
No conspiracy or hierarchy of status here.
Apparently, everyone in the system hates her and loves her attacker.
Why do you say this? I had read it more as "U.S. prisons are a terrible place to be in" and "they don't treat people think they of as rapists well in women prisons." Do you have reason to think that this was all done in support of her alleged attacker?
No one higher up is interested in the case?
No idea here. Maybe (and hopefully) they are investigating, but we just haven't heard?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday July 26 2016, @04:58AM
Somewhere along the line I began to wonder if she was actually raped in the first place.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AlHunt on Monday July 25 2016, @04:38PM
A prosecutor in Maine had a victim jailed and arrested a few years back, too:
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/09/20/news/state/prosecutor-orders-arrest-of-woman-as-material-witness-to-testify-against-her-alleged-abuser/ [bangordailynews.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @09:50PM
Why stop there? Say she survived over 6 million rapes already and get it over with.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday July 25 2016, @11:16PM
Anybody can get thrown in jail. http://gothamist.com/2014/01/17/cops_arrest_professors_wh.php [gothamist.com]
Sometimes all it takes is mental illness. Content warning, this is hard to read: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/19/cops-taunted-black-veteran-as-he-died.html [thedailybeast.com]
Or standing too close to someone with a broken arm. https://medium.com/@peretzp/good-samaritan-backfire-9f53ef6a1c10?source=top_stories---------16- [medium.com]
Police officers keep their jobs and get promoted based on how many arrests they make. Ponder the likely results.
Do you need psych meds? You may not even get insulin in jail. That happened to a Breitbart reporter, thrown in jail for apparently nothing at all. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/12/lee-stranahan-my-weekend-incarceration-in-a-baton-rouge-prison/ [breitbart.com] He survived, not everyone does: https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140821/hunts-point/rikers-jail-medical-provider-let-inmate-die-from-diabetic-coma-suit-says [dnainfo.com]
How about the day after surgery cutting into your jaw bone? Think you might get your prescription Vicodin that the arresting officers brought to the jail for you? Or ibuprofen at least? http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1740633.html [findlaw.com]
Nobody should be treated like this, even the dangerously guilty, and jails are full of pre-trial people legally considered innocent. Whatever this guy's crime, leaving him in solitary for four and a half days with no water does not make me safer: https://shadowproof.com/2015/01/28/report-for-profit-medical-provider-killed-mentally-ill-inmate-in-solitary-confinement-on-rikers-island/ [shadowproof.com]
Anyone who can defend things like that happening in America does not understand what America means and cannot be my friend.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 26 2016, @04:29AM
We get sociopathic authoritarians like Frojack, the Shitey Uzzard, and J-Mo who are almost certainly masturbating to things like this. In my experience, their kind is entirely lacking the ability to connect with other humans, and sees all this as a cross between an actuarial spreadsheet and an MMO. It's only when they themselves get the shit end of the stick that they wake up; in other words, that kind of person is entirely selfish, and only learns through personal suffering.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:59AM
I am somewhat authoritarian. And while there are some situations where we would prefer to curb individual behavior because it shits on the whole (say like people smoking in public), it is more about doing what is deemed best for society than lack of apathy.
More to the point, authoritarians also take comfort in the fact that someone is there to take charge of a situation so that this kind of fuck-up does not happen. This is our worst nightmare! A system where there is no one who can say "HEY WTF are you doing?" because everything is a circle-jerk committee. Current wave of Trump-mania is a result of people who have authoritative tendencies getting fed up with no one being at the wheel, and the feeling the bus is headed off the cliff. You can dismiss it as whatever the hell you like, but it is what it is.
Being that most authoritarians view themselves as part of the mainstream society, they believe that their own well being is directly tied to the well being of the society as a whole. So if they are doing badly in any aspect, especially economical, that means the society as whole is doing terribly. They always followed the implicit and explicit rules of their society, so if their outcomes are not optimal, something must be very wrong. It is the best barometer they have, and it is not in their eyes even remotely selfish in nature.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:39PM
Ja, ja, ve vere shust followink das orderz.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...