Official Anal Rape?

4/4/14  I am sorry that this piece still requires an update. I have not been able to do the work required because I am busy finishing my  book: I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography. I am not trying to avoid my intellectual obligation, just slow. JD

3/2014This essay needs an update. I will try to provide one soon. J.D.

Note: I indicate in-text and [in brackets] that some comments exist that answer my questions or factually contradict my impressions. Find them at the end of the text.

Several weeks ago, I remonstrated with Brandon Christensen, Editor of the libertarian blog Notes On Liberty (with which I am sometimes associated) for his credulousness. I reproached him for lacking criticality in connection with Notes’ publicity around the alleged case of a New Mexico citizen supposedly forced to undergo several anal procedures by police searching for illegal drugs. I pointed out among other things that the colonoscopy the victim was supposed to have undergone by force did not even make technical sense because to be useful, a colonoscopy requires 24 hours preparation. I had other objections to undermined the legitimacy of the story. I thought it was a typically absurd Internet rumor. It was easy to discount Brandon’s espousal of the story because he belongs to the Internet Generation which I think is subject to believing in outlandish conspiracy theories. They are the generation who had the talented and crazy movie director Oliver Stone for a babysitter. I also think that that generation – broadly defined – is eager to believe bad news, the liberals among them, but also others. (Have I written about this generational angle? I don’t quite remember.)

Below is a recent report from the conservative American Enterprise Institute about this whole affair. It links up to a companion article in US News and World Report (USNWR).

In November, I posted on CD about an investigation by Albuquerque TV station KOB Eyewitness News 4 of several police officers and emergency room doctors in Southern New Mexico, who violated the rights and body of an innocent victim of America’s cruel, expensive and failing War on Drugs Innocent Americas Suspected of Possessing Intoxicants Not Approved by the Government. Law enforcement officers of the city of Deming and the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office, and several doctors at the Gila Regional Medical Center, engaged in a series of unbelievably repulsive and disgusting actions against 63-year old New Mexico man David Eckert, who was wrongly accused of possessing illegal drugs.

In a futile attempt on January 2, 2013 to find drugs inside his body, police and doctors committed medical anal rape on Eckert six times over a 12-hour period, which included two forced digital rectal probings, three forced enemas, and finally a forced colonoscopy. Result? No drugs. The Gila Regional Medical Center, which performed the anal rape on Mr. Eckert, then billed him thousands of dollars for its “services” and persistently attempted to collect payment from Mr. Eckert.

KOB Eyewitness News 4 is now reporting that Hidalgo County and the City of Deming have settled a federal lawsuit filed by Mr. Eckert in US District Court last November for $1.6 million. According to a public records request filed by the TV station, Hidalgo County will pay Eckert $650,000 and the City of Deming will pay him $950,000. There is no resolution yet with the two medical doctors who performed the anal rape, the Gila Regional Medical Center where the rape occurred, or the assistant district attorney Daniel Dougherty, who authorized the search warrant that led to Eckert’s anal rape.

US News and World Report is also reporting on the $1.6 million settlement here.

Thanks to KOB Eyewitness New 4 for bringing the case to the public’s attention, it’s done a great service helping expose a very disturbing, but yet perfect example of why it’s time to end America’s cruel and immoral War on Drugs. And it would serve justice well if David Eckert receives additional, large financial settlements from the hospital, the medical doctors, and the district attorney. (source)”

This is a story right out of a bad horror movie. Or, it’s out of another century. Or, yet again, and more relevantly, this is reminiscent of the first years of Nazism, when the German people were getting used to atrocities until they finally became common-place. (The latter is all fresh in my mind because I am reading William Shirer’s detailed, and thorough Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.)

I respect the American Enterprise Institute (but I don’t know the writer, in this case, Mark Perry). I also think of the US News and World Report as one of the more trustworthy members of the traditional media. (I realize this a little like saying, “the tallest dwarf,” except that there are some members of the print press that richly deserve trust, the Wall Street Journal, for one, Vanity Fair, for another.) Nevertheless, I can’t shake my sense of disbelief. Many things in the report just don’t add up. Here are some; here is why.

Perry’s op-ed article article leaves me with several pressing and necessary questions unanswered:

Why? How was the victim selected? He does not have a Spanish surname. Nothing I read suggests that he is black; his name certainly does not. He could be a native American but I think the USNWR would have covered its butt from liberals criticism by mentioning the fact in the first or second line of its article if he were.

Are the local police profiling white senior citizens?

Or, do the local police test for drugs every person who rolls through a stop sign? Anyone who turns without signaling? (That would be 60% or 70% of all drivers in Santa Cruz where I live. This turn without signaling pertains to another allegation of anal rape about the same police, in the same area.) The USNWR report of a defective drug searching dog that should have been retired long ago being responsible for the mishap comes in the middle to the story. It does not answer my simple questions. Do the local police perhaps have a systematic drug search plan where they have their tired confused old dog sniff every twentieth minor traffic offender? [See link in co first comment.]

And I don’t know anything about New Mexico law so, I ask: Wouldn’t subjecting a citizen to a dog search require an application of the doctrine of probable cause? If the answer is “yes,” what was the probable cause in this case? Shouldn’t any press article report it? If there was no probably cause, shouldn’t any press article report it? And if no probable cause is necessary, shouldn’ t the press report it for the benefit of faraway readers?
And then, Perry reports:

“the assistant district attorney Daniel Dougherty, who authorized the search warrant that led to Eckert’s anal rape.” (American Enterprise Institute)

It’s news to me that district attorneys can issue warrants. I thought they could only seek warrants from a judge. Am I wrong? [See comment.]

But US News and World reports otherwise:

“A judge granted police a search warrant authorizing a probe ‘up to and including [Eckert’s] anal cavity.'”

So, it seems to have been a judge issuing a warrant, in fact, as one would expect, not an assistant district attorney. Mark Perry, writing for the American Enterprise Institute, does not get this basic fact right although it simply depends on common knowledge, on the kind of knowledge that comes from watching good crime serials on TV. This negligence or this ignorance undermines my confidence in his reporting, of course.

Why would a judge authorize an anal cavity search (which is rape)? What pressing argument was presented, aside from the dog’s erroneous signaling? Is there was no other ground, I want to know more about it. If judicial rape has really become that routine, that fact deserves an in-depth inquiry. I am waiting.

And, incidentally, I am curious to find out what happened to the confused drug dog. Was it at least retired or are the mad cops still using it, and if the answer is “yes,” why?

The US News and World Report continues: “The warrant’s limits allegedly were exceeded by the colonoscopy and it’s unclear why that procedure was necessary after enemas and X-rays did not reveal hidden drugs. ”

I am more than puzzled, as I have asserted repeatedly. I can easily imagine that the cops involved were morons and dribs, moreover poisoned by that worst of legal drugs, adrenalin*. But wouldn’t the doctors allegedly performing a colonoscopy on an unwilling person tell the cops that it was useless in their search for drugs? It was useless because it could not add any information after digital probing, after three enemas, after X-rays (as the story in USNWR reported). Even if that were not the case, everyone of the millions of Americans who have had a medically recommended colonoscopy knows that it requires at least 24 hours of prior fasting to be useful. Why would the doctor not escape pressure to perform the procedure by divulging this simple, verifiable technical information? The implication here is that there was no pressure, almost that the doctors were eager.

More about the doctors: Irrespective of whether or not there were actually illegal drugs in the victim’s body, irrespective of how convinced there were that there were, what would compel them to violate so grossly their Hypocratic Oath. It says right at the beginning, “First, do no harm.” Moreover, everyone who undergoes a colonoscopy for medical reasons is asked to sign a document admitting to knowing that the procedure entails some serious risks to health. And everyone knows that any sort of anesthesia at all is potentially dangerous to the life of those to which it is administered. Surely, the doctors knew all this as well. Why would they take all these risks?

Furthermore, are there really doctors who are so opposed to illegal drugs that they would take such huge career risks of their own initiative? I ask because the medical corps is shining through its absence in the relevant public debates about drugs, drug use and the so-called “War on Drugs.” (Maybe, it’s just me; maybe the medical profession is vociferous on the subject but I did not notice. Please, correct me.)

Weren’t the police-compliant doctors in afraid that they would be thrown out of the medical profession by their own peers for performing a dangerous, invasive medical procedure without medical reason and without patient’s consent?

Even if professional organizations failed to act against such grievous behavior, wouldn’t the true story of a rape of a patient pursue the doctors for the rest of their medical careers?

There is yet a second storey, or level, to the issue of professional reputation. I keep hearing – without trying – doctors bitching about malpractice suits and the cost of protecting themselves against them. I am told that some medical specialties are almost empty because of that issue. (Obstetrics, comes to mind.) Were not the doctors involved fearful that they would never be able to obtain malpractice insurance in the rest of their professional lives, or their employing organizations. Were they both looking forward to a career exclusively limited to prison practice (where malpractice suits are uncommon, though not absent)?

If all this really happened as told in both sources, something is missing from the story, something about the doctors’ motives. What their motives? Are they perchance illegal aliens? Are they or were they under suspicion themselves? I ask because there must be a great story there, almost Pulitzer price material. What means of pressure did the two cops have on the doctors? Without such means pressure, that centrally important part of the story is incomprehensible to me.

And, why would the original source, a local radio station, and the USNWR, and the American Enterprise Institute not publish the names of the doctors allegedly involved? Isn’t it common practice to just say, “alleged perpetrator” to cover one’s a..? Are all three sources, the USNWR, the American Enterprise Institute, and the local radio station that first aired the story that afraid of a libel lawsuit because – just like me – they have basic doubts about the story? (That’s although truth is almost always a sufficient defense against libel suits.)

In addition, would their fears be so great as to prevent them from doing a normal press public service at least by making it possible for ordinary people to stay clear of the doctors supposedly involved?

I cannot help but notice that from a narrow journalistic viewpoint the story is a god-sent, a once in a lifetime scoop. It’s difficult to understand why any press organ local or national (such as the USNWR) would fail to devote the resources to explore answers to my obvious questions. It’s difficult to imagine that a young upstart reporter would not investigate further on his/her own time. Perhaps it will yet happen. If it does not, silence will be like a finger of accusation.

There is worse.

Thus far, I have followed the lead of the to published pieces of the story by focusing on likely civil consequences, specifically, to the event. Note that the large (not large enough) money settlement with the city and county where the alleged atrocity took place can probably only serve the purpose of avoiding a civil suits against the same city and county. But, it seems to me that when it comes to violent crimes – of which rape is an instance – such as murder, prosecution is not a the discretion of the victim. We are not, in the United States, living under Sharia where the payment of a large amount of money can, if accepted by the victim or his family, erase the crime. Under Western concepts of law, if you kill someone, for example, the state comes after you even if the sister, the mother and the widow of the victim beg the state to leave you unharmed. I assume the same principle goes for rape under New Mexico law. Here again, if my assumption is wrong, someone will correct me, I am pretty sure.

I need to return to the alleged colonoscopy performed on the victim against his will. If I am right in my understanding that there was not conceivable technical purpose for the procedure, that it could not uncover any evidence not already uncovered by the other forms of body examinations the victim underwent, then, a strong presumptions exists to the effect that it was purely and simply torture. This in turn seems to make prosecution inevitable. And surely, if the doctors did not know this, the policemen would have. They would have done what they were said to have done at the risk of ending up in jail and there, probably favorite rape targets of the local worthies.

Now, I understand that the real presumption underlying the libertarian telling of the story is that of police impunity via immunity from prosecution. And, surely, it ‘s not difficult to find on the Internet true outrageous instances of such impunity. Still, it remains a gamble; instances to not aggregate into an assurance of impunity. Even if the probability of being caught is low, the severity of the consequences would make one hesitate

Furthermore, even if one posits a scandalous and obstinate complicity of local prosecutors with police abuse, there remains the risk of federal intervention. In this case, the victim alleges violation of his constitutional rights. That’s probably enough to induce Federal Prosecutor and FBI attention.

Any prosecution, be it by local authorities or by the federal government brings with it the risk of jury fury. Surely, I am not the only one who, if I were on the relevant jury and I believed that half the story is true, would do my best to send away for a long time the two cops and the two doctors, at least. The alternative would be for the alleged perps to opt for a judge trial, an extreme form of gamble.

It’s incomprehensible to me that neither of the reports cited above engage in the same bit of judicial speculation. Why would they not say at least, “Wait for the criminal repercussions,” unless there are serious reservations about some parts of the story as told?

What do I think, at this point?

Well, the implicit endorsement of the story by a good member of the general press did a lot to make the story more credible to me than it had appeared at first. The implicit further endorsement by a respected conservative organization, The American Enterprise Institute, added again to the credibility of the story. This is true although the Institute’s writer lapsed badly in the simple matter of which official authorizes warrants, an impressive display of ignorance, in my book. The fact that both reports give fairly good details about a monetary settlement between victim and city and county adds again to credibility because if one were motivated enough, one could search the records of the US District Court for trace that there has, in fact, been a settlement.

Adding to my puzzlement is an attitude running between the lines of the Institute’s story : “innocent victim,” “wrongly accused of possessing illegal drugs,” “futile attempt.” The implication seems to be: “They did not even find any drugs.” (This is not a quote from anyone; it’s my attempt at summarizing.) Why say any of this? Is it the case that the catalogue of horrors allegedly inflicted on the victim would have been justified had ten vials of heroin been ultimately found in his large intestine? Is the general idea, here that gross torture is a little bit OK to chase down illegal drugs? How could this implicit message be expressed by a conservative of libertarian tendency such as the American Enterprise Institute and a writer who claims to be combating the War on Drugs ? Why would mainstream libertarians let this pass without commenting? Would opposition to the criminal, wasteful, liberticide War on Drugs be less legitimate if it were found that the story of interest here is false, largely false, or even partly false?

This story and the non-inquisitive, passive way it was treated by USNWR, by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and by several libertarian bloggers remind me of the miracles of Jesus. They were not really necessary for an understanding of Jesus’ elevated moral and limpid message: “Love your neighbor.” But his followers could not resist temptation after his passing: a few lepers with suddenly good skin, a dead man walking, feeding thousands with a handful of dinner rolls, and better even, water turning into wine, could only help persuade a few more of the recalcitrant and deepen the commitment of some of the lukewarm. Except, it did not really work that way. Every miracle story caused reasonable people, rational people, to drop out, lost them forever to the great cause of Christianity.

Government is evil even when it does not commit gross atrocities (against either the innocent or the guilty). You couldn’t do better than atrocities involving the homosexual rape of heterosexual men if you wanted to create irrational hatred of government (as opposed to rational, clear -headed diffidence). I believe the story as told right now is just too good to be true.

What I have learned in this pass on the topic is not nearly enough to dissipate my skepticism, as I say above in some detail. The reports motivate me to pay more attention. They make this unbelievable story more believable. And yes, of course, I run the risk of being shown completely wrong in the end. I believe that the fear of being wrong should be taken into consideration but that it should not entirely dictate behavior, that it should not even come close to doing so.

For anyone who is curious a couple of things about me: First, I have denounced the War on Drugs for years, at least for twenty years. I don’t do much about it because I feel overwhelmed, like many others. And, currently, I use no illegal drugs, have not for a long time. Second, my skepticism does not spring – paradoxically – from naivety. I believe in the most concrete way in the existence of evil.

* This is not a gratuitous insult against New Mexico law enforcement officers. Many of us saw on television recently a member of the New Mexico State Police fire his pistol repeatedly at a car he knew contained only a woman and several children. The female driver had done nothing but flee. She did not brandish a weapon. The cop was fired within the week, by the way.

PS I believe that at no point in this essay to I make any comments about any sexual practice taking place between consenting adults.


About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Socio-Political Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Official Anal Rape?

  1. The legal blogosphere has already answered all of your questions. Ken White, a criminal defense attorney in LA (educated at Stanford and Harvard), has the best summary (so far) of the recent settlement:

    PS: One of the reasons we can all continue to live in good times, and know for fairly certain that life will continue to get better, is because of the loud and vociferous opposition that citizens like Fred, Ken, and myself make whenever our government is caught violating our liberties.

    • Brandon: I don’t know why you think I am opposed to loud and vociferous opposition… to government violating our liberties. Opposition to such surely does not require that we shut our skepticism up, that we decide that a particular offense is so outrageous that the burden of proof should be lightened. (Guess who is currently doing this all over North America?)

      Thanks for the link you provided but the lawyer’s essay to which it leads does not come close to answering “all” my questions. In particular, he barely touches the issue of possible criminal charges. In fact, he does not tell us whether such charges have already been filed. I infer that they may have because of the motions to dismiss he mentions. I don’t know why he is not more specific. Doe he or she assume that everyone knows? By the way, motions to dismiss charges are completely routine. It bothers me that an attorney would fail to mention the fact in an opinion piece for ordinary people.

      I am frankly reading between the lines but I think he hopes there will be no criminal prosecution because it would prove an ideological point so beautifully – like Jesus’ miracles.

      The attorney asserts that he thinks the cops involved will suffer no consequences. He is talking to his small in-group only in this case. I don’t believe this; it’ not obvious to me. I don’t know anyone of any age who thinks so. (We might see this in responses on blogs. ) His assertion smacks of juvenile conspiracy theory (Harvard and Stanford notwithstanding). All it takes is one young ambitious upstart US attorney persuading his/her boss. The “criminal attorney” you sent me to talks as if cops never went to jail. This supposition is patently false.

      Of course, not surprisingly, the attorney in question, being an attorney, does not spend much time on the possible career repercussions of the events on the two doctors who performed the dangerous, invasive, torturous procedure. And, by the way, I would like to know why he only names one doctor if there were two actively involved, in a hands-on fashion. Is he afraid? I would respect his legal instincts in this matter if it were the case that he is. And then, I would want to know more.

      My essay is going to stay on because the alleged events must be publicized and because this is a case where collective criticality may have a role to play.

      I am sorry that I did not put in proper links when I posted this essay. Only incompetence is to blame. Please, feel free to create any links you think useful and I thank you in advance for your help.

      • I am frankly reading between the lines

        Yes. Yes, you are. You’re also arguing from ignorance. I hope a True Critical Thinker finds this post and is able to use it to spread a flicker of hope throughout America.

  2. Jim N says:

    A minor point:

    “although the Institute’s writer lapsed badly in the simple matter of which official authorizes warrants, an impressive display of ignorance, in my book.”

    There is a difference between ‘authorizing’ a warrant and ‘issuing’ a warrant; in order to obtain the issuance of a warrant from a judge, someone — usually the district attorney — must authorize the judicial request for the warrant.

  3. JIm N. Thank you and I stand corrected. The impressive display of ignorance was mine, it seems: The Institute’s writer did not lapse and my skepticism on that account is unwarranted. I don’t know why he and that he would expect ordinary readers to know the distinction you just pointed out. I wish he had told us what judge had issued the warrant. It seems to me it’s more important than who authorized it. Is it not the case that DAs authorize warrant right and left? I am just asking.

    • Jim N says:

      I would think so; DAs are in the business of prosecuting, and thus (I suspect) are not at all hesitant to request warrants. Judges are presumed to issue warrants based on an objective view of the facts presented in suppport thereof. ‘Presumed’ is the operative word, however; they seem to defer greatly to DAs. Since they both work for the state, I suppose there’s no real surprize there …

  4. Just curious: Given that all of your trolling has not turned up any weaknesses, what is your current opinion on the forced rape and torture, by the police and in the name of the Drug War, of an innocent man in New Mexico?

  5. Brandon: I answered this question at the end of my essay. There are many things in the story as told that don’t make sense. Perhaps through the miracle of the Internet and help from others, they will end up all making sense. I don’t decide until I am persuaded. I don’t replace judgment with faith.

    I am against torture (no kidding!). I keep finding extraordinary and repugnant that Party-line libertarians persist in adding qualifiers such as “innocent.”

    I would be as opposed to torture if the victim in the story had been found in possession of ten vials of pure heroin. But, of course, I already said this in the text. And I answered your other question too.

    I sure hope I will become a “True Critical Thinker” some day.

    • “Party-line libertarians”?

      Ouch! Good luck with your quest. If you ask nicely (always a tough thing to do), you might be able to get some more info on the rape and torture of David Eckert.

      If you can’t ask nicely, I guess you’ll be stuck in the dark on this matter? Would that please you, to be stuck in the dark on this matter?

    • Martin Anding says:

      Some things don’t make sense? As in Hitler killing millions? Pol Pot killing all the educated in Cambodia? WWI? Most of Greek Not making sense is not much of a requirement.

      • Martin: I don’t think you are answering either my essay or my comments. By the way, you are right, in a way: I think that neither Bush’ s America nor Obama’s are Hitler’s Germany, or Pot Pol’s Cambodia. Hence, my skepticism.

  6. You are arguing from ignorance, which is a fallacy.

    I’m not going to try and hunt down all the facts you demand for the case for a couple of reasons:

    1) Most of them can be found in the link I provided above,
    2) This is old news to me, and I really don’t feel like tracing my footsteps in order to debunk a fallacy.

    So why don’t we do something else, instead? Why don’t we make a bet? I’ll bet you that I’m right and that you’re wrong about all of the facts.

    If I win, you have to apologize to me, to Fred, and to Ken White for lobbing spurious charges against us. You have to do it publicly, on this blog. I’ll let you name the conditions if you happen to win. I figure this is much easier than forcing me to go on a wild goose chase simply to satisfy your trolling efforts.

    Whaddya say?

  7. Brandon: “Most” responses to my skeptical questions cannot be found on the link you provided.

    A bet makes no sense because I am not really as sure that you are wrong on all counts as you are sure that you are right on all counts. In fact, I am virtually certain that you cannot be wrong on all counts. There is no symmetry between skepticism and faith.

    If I turned out to be wrong on all (ALL) counts, that is if all my skepticism without exception turned out to be groundless, I would not owe anyone an apology. Accusing others of lack of criticality is obviously the expression of a subjective viewpoint. It’s like affirming that you are ugly. I don’t see how anyone can miss the subjectivity of the opinion; I don’t see how anyone would fail to feel free to dismiss it out of hand. Readers are free to judge me unreasonable for expression the several points of doubt I express. They are free to think, for example that:

    Of course, doctors administering a medically unnecessary, invasive, dangerous procedure by force would not be worried about their medical careers!

    I think you keep arguing that vigilance is undermined by criticality. I think the reverse is true. The delusions of many European intellectuals and of some American intellectuals between 1930 and 1960, approximately, support my point. The reading of reference here is Eric Hoffer’s The True Believers

    • Okay, I’ll sweeten the deal.

      If I am wrong about one fact then I’ll bow to your demands (whatever those may be).

      If, however, it turns out that all the facts about the man who was raped and tortured by police in New Mexico turn out to be true, you have to apologize to me, Fred, and Ken White. Publicly. All you have to say is that you are sorry for trashing our names in a public forum and suspecting us of being naive fools (or inadvertent fascists).

  8. Brandon: This is more and more absurd! I have already said that I doubted you were wrong on all assertions. It’s also of limited interest. Please, bring answers and corrections as they come to my expressions of skepticism. If you would do it on this blog, I would certainly comment. If you wish to give reading assignments to readers, please, do so.

    I think that you and others on Notes are too quick to accept uncritically stories that serve your Manichean view of the world. I think this promptness to accept does harm to the general idea that smaller government is desirable. It also undermines reasonable people’s proclivity to reject the so-called war on drugs. That’ s true even if you turn out to be right on the complete list (I don’t even know what it is) of events linked to the story..

    Your own personal vigor in condemning ordinary skepticism applied to an article of faith brings back bad memories. For example, and you are inducing me to repeat myself,

    “…doctors administering a medically unnecessary, invasive, dangerous procedure by force would not be worried about their medical careers!”

    Maybe they were not so worrried but certainly that fact deserves an explanation.

    • There is really no “promptness to accept” this case. This case is now old news and, as I’ve already said, has been covered rigorously throughout the legal blogosphere.

      I can’t answer your question about why doctors would do such a thing. Perhaps they saw the badge and the paperwork and simply thought they would be protected from any lawsuits. They’re both being sued, so if this were the case they definitely thought wrong.

      Do you deny that David Eckert was raped and tortured by the police?

  9. Brandon: I think something awful happened to Mr Eckert. I think hat none of it is justified whether he had illegal drugs on him or not. (This is a point the reports to which you link strangely fail to make clearly.) The main story to which you linked me is, I suspect neither the whole story nor , most importantly,is it finished.

    You, I, millions of others who don’t know the story would agree that both the police officers and the doctors belong in jail for a long time if even half the story is true. I suspect you and other libertarians are not eager to have to announce that the process that would send them to jail has begun. If this happened, the story would loose much of its doctrinal usefulness.

    In brief: I think that book has to remain opened.

    Incidentally, if all my critical comments of the story proved to be groundless, if all my skeptical questions were answered to my full satisfaction, I would still reproach you and your traveling companions for not having raised them.

    • Now you are just straw manning.

      The cops aren’t going to jail. Their employers settled with the victim to the tune of $1.6 million. The doctors are not going to jail, though they may have to fork over some cash to the man they raped and tortured.

      Accusing people of having positions that they don’t have, and then proceeding to knock down the imagined positions, is the epitome of a straw man fallacy. Calling the victims of your fallacy naive idiots or inadvertent fascists is just the icing on the cake.

  10. I did not call anyone any of those things,,Brandon, You are just getting your knickers in a twist for nothing. I accused you of not being skeptical enough. It seems to me you are arguing that you are skeptical enough. Great retort!

    I am going to find out if it’s the case that a money settlement averts criminal charges in New Mexico. (I know it does in countries under Sharia.)

  11. I read this article fully on the topic of the resemblance of
    newest and preceding technologies, it’s remarkable article.

  12. Pingback: Official Rape: an Update | FACTS MATTER

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s