Sandra Bland Family Settles Wrongful Death Lawsuit

[Bronzeage]

When people with psychological problems are not given their medication and monitored closely they can become suicidal when under the stress of being wrongfully arrested and thrown in a cell.

The officer that arrested her was convicted of perjury. He had no reasonable basis to arrest her or ask her to leave the vehicle.

Police acting like petty dictators that are above the law is the problem. Not their victims.

Even if everything you say were true, she still chose to kill herself. Why should the county pay per parents 1.9 million because of her choice?

If she actually had a choice, she probably would have chosen to be let out of the cell.

She didn't choose to be in jail, so talk about respecting her choices comes a little late. When you put a person in a box, they are your responsibility and what happens to them is your responsibility.

We(tax payers) pay the family $1.9 million because the police fucked up. It would be much better if the police could send the woman back to her family, alive and well, but it's too late for that. The police department fucked up and all we can do is give away some money. That's the way it works.

In a perfect world, a person could not hang themselves in cell. In a next to perfect world, a $1.9 million dollar settlement would spur changes in police training and procedure.

This would not be an issue, if not for the video of the policeman and her arrest, which raises the question of how many times such a thing happened and no video ever made it to public view?

 

[RavenSky]

Because they're the ones who denied her her medication and then failed to monitor her properly.

How does that equate 1.9 million dollars? Show your work.

Yes. It should equate to more.

How much is your life worth?

 

[arkirk]

How does that equate 1.9 million dollars? Show your work.

Yes. It should equate to more.

How much is your life worth?

I am glad there was a settlement in money but unglad that jail was avoided by the culprits. This really won't ever stop until the law has some bite to it and cops who perform acts that lead to the death of people in custody or on the street go to prison for a long time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We(tax payers) pay the family $1.9 million because the police fucked up. It would be much better if the police could send the woman back to her family, alive and well, but it's too late for that. The police department fucked up and all we can do is give away some money. That's the way it works.

I disagree. It's not the police that fucked up, it's the jail that fucked up. Jails are notorious for denying inmates needed medical care, this time they got slapped $1.9m for it. Good.

 

[ZiprHead]

The cop fucked up when he hassled her for no reason other than wanting her to "respect his authoritae."

 

[Bronzeage]

We(tax payers) pay the family $1.9 million because the police fucked up. It would be much better if the police could send the woman back to her family, alive and well, but it's too late for that. The police department fucked up and all we can do is give away some money. That's the way it works.

I disagree. It's not the police that fucked up, it's the jail that fucked up. Jails are notorious for denying inmates needed medical care, this time they got slapped $1.9m for it. Good.

The jail is just as much the police as the uniform patrol. It's all one big ball of police.

 

[fast]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/us/sandra-bland-wrongful-death-settlement/

She was arrested for no reason, denied needed medication and not monitored as she should have been without that medication. The cops were guilty as fuck.

She was not denied her medication. Being neglectful in not providing needed medication is bad enough, but to go further and say she was denied needed medication untruthfully casts them in a more and unnecessary negative light.

To explain the difference, suppose you are accepting applications for which you can approve or deny. If you have not reviewed an application, you have not therefore denied the application any more than you have approved it. Had she requested the medication and was met with no response, one might say the consequences is just as bad as a denial, and if she requested the medication and was met with a no response, that would be a denial. There's no indication that there was a request for her needed medication at all--and no indication that unintentional neglect was escalated to intentional neglect. Even if the neglect was intentional, there's still no sign that she was denied her medication--just that they were negligent in their failure to see to the well being of someone in their custody.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/us/sandra-bland-wrongful-death-settlement/

She was arrested for no reason, denied needed medication and not monitored as she should have been without that medication. The cops were guilty as fuck.

She was not denied her medication. Being neglectful in not providing needed medication is bad enough, but to go further and say she was denied needed medication untruthfully casts them in a more and unnecessary negative light.

To explain the difference, suppose you are accepting applications for which you can approve or deny. If you have not reviewed an application, you have not therefore denied the application any more than you have approved it. Had she requested the medication and was met with no response, one might say the consequences is just as bad as a denial, and if she requested the medication and was met with a no response, that would be a denial. There's no indication that there was a request for her needed medication at all--and no indication that unintentional neglect was escalated to intentional neglect. Even if the neglect was intentional, there's still no sign that she was denied her medication--just that they were negligent in their failure to see to the well being of someone in their custody.

When you get put in jail they ask you if you are on medication. They take it very seriously because they don't want sick prisoners or to get sued.

 

[Bronzeage]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/us/sandra-bland-wrongful-death-settlement/

She was arrested for no reason, denied needed medication and not monitored as she should have been without that medication. The cops were guilty as fuck.

She was not denied her medication. Being neglectful in not providing needed medication is bad enough, but to go further and say she was denied needed medication untruthfully casts them in a more and unnecessary negative light.

To explain the difference, suppose you are accepting applications for which you can approve or deny. If you have not reviewed an application, you have not therefore denied the application any more than you have approved it. Had she requested the medication and was met with no response, one might say the consequences is just as bad as a denial, and if she requested the medication and was met with a no response, that would be a denial. There's no indication that there was a request for her needed medication at all--and no indication that unintentional neglect was escalated to intentional neglect. Even if the neglect was intentional, there's still no sign that she was denied her medication--just that they were negligent in their failure to see to the well being of someone in their custody.

Well, that makes all the difference in the world. I guess she's not dead now.

 

[untermensche]

When people with psychological problems are not given their medication and monitored closely they can become suicidal when under the stress of being wrongfully arrested and thrown in a cell.

The officer that arrested her was convicted of perjury. He had no reasonable basis to arrest her or ask her to leave the vehicle.

Police acting like petty dictators that are above the law is the problem. Not their victims.

Even if everything you say were true, she still chose to kill herself. Why should the county pay per parents 1.9 million because of her choice?

The cop that had no legitimate reason to ask her to leave the car also made a choice.

That same cop that lied under oath also made a choice.

One thing you tell people when they start taking anti-depressants is to not stop taking them abruptly because of the risk of things like suicide.

The police stopped her medication abruptly. That also was a choice.

You just don't want some people to pay for their choices.

 

[fast]

She was not denied her medication. Being neglectful in not providing needed medication is bad enough, but to go further and say she was denied needed medication untruthfully casts them in a more and unnecessary negative light.

To explain the difference, suppose you are accepting applications for which you can approve or deny. If you have not reviewed an application, you have not therefore denied the application any more than you have approved it. Had she requested the medication and was met with no response, one might say the consequences is just as bad as a denial, and if she requested the medication and was met with a no response, that would be a denial. There's no indication that there was a request for her needed medication at all--and no indication that unintentional neglect was escalated to intentional neglect. Even if the neglect was intentional, there's still no sign that she was denied her medication--just that they were negligent in their failure to see to the well being of someone in their custody.

When you get put in jail they ask you if you are on medication. They take it very seriously because they don't want sick prisoners or to get sued.

Assuming they followed such presumed protocol and asked the very thing they were supposed to ask, were they forgetful, disorganized, and merely neglected to supply her with her needed medication with such failing resulting in her death, or did they instead, with evil in their hearts, make the conscious decision to deprive her of it by intentionally and wantingly withhold her needed medication? In other words, were they merely negligent with no actual denial taking place, or were they not only neglectful in their duties but with complete awareness deliberately deny her what they were acutely aware in their minds that the medication was needed? The result is the same, and there should be disgust either way, but the level of disgust is still up in the air.

 

[fast]

The cop fucked up when he hassled her for no reason other than wanting her to "respect his authoritae."

After much contemplation, I think you're correct.

 

[ZiprHead]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/us/sandra-bland-wrongful-death-settlement/

She was arrested for no reason, denied needed medication and not monitored as she should have been without that medication. The cops were guilty as fuck.

She was not denied her medication. Being neglectful in not providing needed medication is bad enough, but to go further and say she was denied needed medication untruthfully casts them in a more and unnecessary negative light.

To explain the difference, suppose you are accepting applications for which you can approve or deny. If you have not reviewed an application, you have not therefore denied the application any more than you have approved it. Had she requested the medication and was met with no response, one might say the consequences is just as bad as a denial, and if she requested the medication and was met with a no response, that would be a denial. There's no indication that there was a request for her needed medication at all--and no indication that unintentional neglect was escalated to intentional neglect. Even if the neglect was intentional, there's still no sign that she was denied her medication--just that they were negligent in their failure to see to the well being of someone in their custody.

Yes, she was. The jail does not provide medication on the word of the detainee. They confirm the medication with the detainee's physician. A pretty tough thing to accomplish on a Friday and the physician is in another state. This was discussed in the other thread on this subject.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think the issue has less to do with medication and more to do with her incoming paperwork documenting previous suicide attempts and depression. The staff were supposed to be trained and were supposed to do hourly checks on inmates, but they did not have proper training on how to deal with such inmates. They had previously been warned or should have known because of a previous suicide. If she did commit suicide, it would seem it had to do with no one being able to get her bail money as well as the stress involved in the whole bullshit event. The police do seem to be responsible (a proximal cause) of her death as both her arrest was unconstitutional and the later neglect/recklessness of not following appropriate procedures. However, I do have to add that if that whole civil case went to trial there is a whole heaping of bullshit and reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing/more recklessness that could have additionally come up and with a preponderance of evidence burden of proof, these dumbasses are lucky that the family let them get off so easy. Frankly, it was compassionate to settle. If it was my child that was wrongfully arrested, kneed in the neck and back, civil rights violated, and then neglected in a prison cell, I'd seek all kinds of righteous vengeance.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

She was not denied her medication. Being neglectful in not providing needed medication is bad enough, but to go further and say she was denied needed medication untruthfully casts them in a more and unnecessary negative light.

To explain the difference, suppose you are accepting applications for which you can approve or deny. If you have not reviewed an application, you have not therefore denied the application any more than you have approved it. Had she requested the medication and was met with no response, one might say the consequences is just as bad as a denial, and if she requested the medication and was met with a no response, that would be a denial. There's no indication that there was a request for her needed medication at all--and no indication that unintentional neglect was escalated to intentional neglect. Even if the neglect was intentional, there's still no sign that she was denied her medication--just that they were negligent in their failure to see to the well being of someone in their custody.

Yes, she was. The jail does not provide medication on the word of the detainee. They confirm the medication with the detainee's physician. A pretty tough thing to accomplish on a Friday and the physician is in another state. This was discussed in the other thread on this subject.

Medical records are faxed so being out-of-state is not really much of an issue. Also, they could call and confirm their info instead. Being a Friday is more of an issue, depending on the time of day. I dont think the medicine is as big a deal, though, as I wrote in the post above.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/us/sandra-bland-wrongful-death-settlement/

She was arrested for no reason, denied needed medication and not monitored as she should have been without that medication. The cops were guilty as fuck.

She was not denied her medication. Being neglectful in not providing needed medication is bad enough, but to go further and say she was denied needed medication untruthfully casts them in a more and unnecessary negative light.

To explain the difference, suppose you are accepting applications for which you can approve or deny. If you have not reviewed an application, you have not therefore denied the application any more than you have approved it. Had she requested the medication and was met with no response, one might say the consequences is just as bad as a denial, and if she requested the medication and was met with a no response, that would be a denial. There's no indication that there was a request for her needed medication at all--and no indication that unintentional neglect was escalated to intentional neglect. Even if the neglect was intentional, there's still no sign that she was denied her medication--just that they were negligent in their failure to see to the well being of someone in their custody.

The state has an obligation to check on the medical needs of arrestees.

Besides, if there was a request do you think there still would be a record of it?!?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She was not denied her medication. Being neglectful in not providing needed medication is bad enough, but to go further and say she was denied needed medication untruthfully casts them in a more and unnecessary negative light.

To explain the difference, suppose you are accepting applications for which you can approve or deny. If you have not reviewed an application, you have not therefore denied the application any more than you have approved it. Had she requested the medication and was met with no response, one might say the consequences is just as bad as a denial, and if she requested the medication and was met with a no response, that would be a denial. There's no indication that there was a request for her needed medication at all--and no indication that unintentional neglect was escalated to intentional neglect. Even if the neglect was intentional, there's still no sign that she was denied her medication--just that they were negligent in their failure to see to the well being of someone in their custody.

Yes, she was. The jail does not provide medication on the word of the detainee. They confirm the medication with the detainee's physician. A pretty tough thing to accomplish on a Friday and the physician is in another state. This was discussed in the other thread on this subject.

I don't care if it's difficult.

1) They don't need to. The pharmacy would be enough. Scripts can be transferred without talking to the doc, therefore you can have a temporary transfer of the script to the jail.

2) If they can't verify it and the drug is important and not a drug of abuse, go ahead and provide it anyway assuming the patient knows all the needed details.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, she was. The jail does not provide medication on the word of the detainee. They confirm the medication with the detainee's physician. A pretty tough thing to accomplish on a Friday and the physician is in another state. This was discussed in the other thread on this subject.

I don't care if it's difficult.

1) They don't need to. The pharmacy would be enough. Scripts can be transferred without talking to the doc, therefore you can have a temporary transfer of the script to the jail.

2) If they can't verify it and the drug is important and not a drug of abuse, go ahead and provide it anyway assuming the patient knows all the needed details.

I agree with number two completely.