Reader’s Choice: Two Die Under The Influence – In Police Custody… Another Dies After Consuming Something They Shouldn’t Have… How Is This SOMEONE ELSE’S Fault?

Posted on October 24, 2012


The United States (The Gaslamp Post) Credit to Gaslamp Post reader, Ferran for this story – Americans are free to do pretty much anything they wish, provided that they aren’t interfering with anyone else wishing to do the same.  With that freedom comes something called personal responsibility; you are free to your own devices but are also subject to any repercussions therefrom.

I get it, you guys get it.

I received an email about a story out of Indiana, where two people had died in police custody within days of each other.  Both were under the influence, and it was claimed that the police didn’t get them the medical attention that they needed – which the author claimed – contributed to their deaths.

On July 30, 2012, a 48-year-old intoxicated woman, who had been arrested for breaking into a building two days earlier, went into convulsions in her holding cell and died.  Prior to her arrest for breaking into the building, Mary Harris had been arrested for public intoxication in a liquor store parking lot 9 days earlier.

Mary Harris, pictured with then husband, Richard, and her son, Jacob. Image

Harris was a mother, described as intellectual, and driven.  She was a recovering alcoholic who regularly attended AA meetings, and took care of herself.  The gym was part of her daily routine.

Unfortunately one day, she fell off the wagon.  Her ex-husband Richard believes that although she had been sober for years, it may have had to do with “empty nest syndrome” after her children went off to college.

He said that her drinking became problematic and it ended their marriage.

Days earlier, on July 21, 2012, police were called after witnesses saw a man who was literally falling-down drunk in the parking lot of a strip mall.

According to the Indystar:

At 7:35 p.m., a woman called 911 to report that he was stumbling and falling down in the parking lot.

“He got up and he’s walking, but he’s going to go down again,” the caller told 911. “He either needs an ambulance or police. We need somebody here.”

The man, identified as Ken Flannery, 35, was out celebrating his birthday.  He was reportedly living with his mother, and was a father of 3.

Flannery reportedly had prior convictions for intimidation and battery, so police didn’t hesitate to use force when he became combative.  He was reportedly tasered and pepper-sprayed after injuring an officer, and was placed in the back of a police wagon.

Minutes later, the officer driving, noticed a problem and called EMS.  Police responded to the first call at 7:45 pm, by 9:17 Flannery was pronounced dead.

In both cases, people are pointing the finger at cost cutting measures taken by the city of Indianapolis, as the reasons that these two individuals died.  According to the author of the article, the city, in order to save money, put a limit on who should go to the hospital while in police custody.

Emergency room visits cost money after all.  Should the tax-payers of Indianapolis be on the hook for every drunk picked up by police?

In these two cases, yes the people died.  Losing a loved one is tragic, and no one is arguing against that, but in both cases the deceased were picked up while intoxicated and breaking the law.

They were both adults on top of that, free to exercise their rights to imbibe legal spirits.  They just made a poor choice which unfortunately led to their demise.

Are the police at fault when both of these adults made their choices and were therefore subject to the consequences of those choices?

A good counter argument would be that a drunk could crash their car and emergency services would still come to the scene, extricate the driver, and rush them to the hospital.  I would say that this is a different set of circumstances; upon police arrival there is an accident victim.  Unless a BAC test can be performed, there is no way to determine intoxication – especially if the driver is unconscious.

Secondly, the driver is injured and required medical attention when responding officers arrived on the scene.  This is not to be confused with someone who wasn’t injured when police arrived, or decided to pick a fight with a member of the civil authorities.

Alright, so we’re talking about adults doing this.  What about when it’s a child?

Yesterday on Drudge I saw a story about a 14-year-old girl who had suffered a heart attack and died after consuming the energy drink, “Monster.”  She had reportedly consumed 2 of the high-caffeine beverages and died on December 21, 2011.

The Food and Drug Administration announced yesterday that they are launching an investigation after the fatal “caffeine toxicity” death of Anais Fournier, which has now brought the death toll from this lethal beverage to 5.

Anais Fournier, 14, died after overdosing on Monster energy drinks. Why is this child wearing makeup?

5…  That’s the total number of deaths attributed to the consumption of this beverage, according to the Daily Mail. Out of the hundreds of millions of units sold and consumed throughout the world every day, only 5 people have died after consuming it to date.

Her parents said that they intend to slap the makers of Monster with a wrongful death suit.

Miss Fournier’s parents Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier claim Monster failed to warn about the risks of drinking its products.

Ms Crossland told the Record Herald: ‘I was shocked to learn the FDA can regulate caffeine in a can of soda, but not these huge energy drinks.

‘With their bright colors and names like Monster, Rockstar, and Full Throttle, these drinks are targeting teenagers with no oversight or accountability. These drinks are death traps for young, developing girls and boys, like my daughter, Anais.’

Again, no one is arguing against the fact that the death of a child is tragic, but there is something waaaay wrong with the premise behind this mindset.  Bright colors?  Names like Monster, Rockstar, and Full Throttle TARGETING TEENAGERS??????

Yeah, that’s targeting teenagers alright.  Just like Joe Camel was responsible for teenagers smoking – even though everyone I went to high school with smoked Marlboros…

Funny, I recall kids drinking in high school as well.  Where was the cartoon drunk for that vice?

So now back to the death from drinking Monster.  Personally, I can’t stand the stuff.  It’s God-aweful tasting, it makes you jittery and have to pee like mad, and good luck sleeping if you drink one after 11:00 am.

My dad on the other hand can drink them like nothing.  I warn him about those things constantly.  My aunt and an uncle, have already had heart attacks, and my pop’s getting up there in his years.

It never fails though, everytime my parents come up for a visit, pop’s in front of the box, sucking down one of those darn Monsters, watching Lawrence Welk.  Remember that show?  “And a-one, and a-two…”

Pop can slam one and then go right to bed.  In fact I can hear him snoring all the way upstairs with his bedroom door closed.  I honestly have no idea how ma can sleep through it.

But that’s the thing, it effects different people, differently.  Me, I can’t sleep after having ONE, my dad can pound them while fishing and then fall asleep with the pole in his hand.

So now the parents of this little girl want to bring suit against the makers of this drink, because they say that there isn’t any sort of warning.  Nevermind that the child was already diagnosed with an inherited disorder that can weaken blood vessels…

Two things here:

1)  The back of the can says quite clearly, limit 3 per day – please drink responsibly.

2)  Why on earth were her parents allowing her to drink these things – SHE WAS ONLY 14!!!!

I won’t let our 15-year-old on the internet unsupervised and there are parents out there letting their kids drink this crap?  What kind of parent lets their kid consume ANYTHING without first reading what’s in it?  (They sell draino in the grocery store, right?  You don’t take it home and drink it, do you???)

In all honesty, maybe many of you don’t read the ingredients, and we would think that something available for sale (for human consumption) should be, for all practical purposes, “safe”.  But common sense says that if something is called an “energy drink”, it more than likely has a high dose of something or other.

Our teenager is hyper enough, why on God’s green earth would you give a 14-year-old, something to increase them bouncing off the walls?

So now we’re once again at a crossroads, America.  Where does one’s responsibility end and someone else’s begin?

First we have an author in the first half of the story saying that the police are responsible for someone else’s bad decisions – pardon me, ADULT’S bad decisions, and in the second half, a company being responsible for a child’s bad – pardon me again, a PARENT’S bad decision.

Again, no one is arguing that these deaths were not tragic, loved ones suffered loss in all cases, but how is it that people can put the responsibility on anyone but the individuals?

Come to think of it, the 14-year-old child can’t truly be responsible for anything; she was a minor.  The back of the can said “please drink responsibly”.

A 14-year-old cannot vote, take out a loan, own property, or purchase a firearm – because they have ZERO ability to be responsible enough to handle those things.  Nope, I’m putting this on her parents who failed to warn her THEMSELVES.

With as much as I hammer on the government for over reaching into the lives of the everyday American, the abuses by police, and the corruption of our elected officials, I think it only prudent to display the other half of the equation.

Everything from the over regulating of the federal government, to the enormous tax-codes keeping us in virtual wage-slavery, to the quasi-police-state we are currently experiencing, is OF OUR OWN DOING.

From one half of our mouth we scream that the government is trampling our right, and on the other we’re screaming that the government should be doing more…

Which is it?  If we choose not to be responsible for something, and in turn hand it over to someone else to take care of – understand that the decision will not only be made FOR you, but for ALL AMERICANS.  The only way to make it work from a centralized standpoint, is to clip EVERYONE’S wings.

Now do you get it?  This is where the circuit in the brains of the nanny-staters (nicer way of saying idiot socialists and communists) don’t complete.

By demanding that police do more, they have more power over YOU.  By demanding MORE regulation over what you eat and drink, they have the ability to tell you what you (and your children) can and cannot consume.

Because SHE knows what’s BEST for your kids

America, now do you get it?

Posted in: Liberalism