Re: Family of woman who died after airport arrest sues Phoenix
Diogenes
wrote:
> Family of woman who died after airport arrest sues Phoenix
>
>By CHRIS KAHN, Associated Press Writer
>Thu May 8, 11:06 PM ET
>
>The family of a New York woman who died in police custody at the Phoenix
>airport sued the city Thursday, accusing officers of using excessive force and
>contributing to her death.
>
>Police spokesman Joel Tranter wouldn't comment on the lawsuit, but the
>department has previously rejected claims that it was responsible for Carol
>Anne Gotbaum's death.
>
>Gotbaum, the step-daughter-in-law of New York City's public advocate, died
>Sept. 28 in a police holding cell at Sky Harbor International Airport after
>being arrested for disorderly conduct. She was on her way by herself from New
>York to enter an alcohol treatment center in Tucson.
>
>An autopsy report released by the Maricopa County medical examiner's office
>concluded that Gotbaum accidentally hanged herself on her shackles while in
>the holding cell. The report said intoxication from alcohol and prescription
>drugs were contributing factors.
>
>The lawsuit filed by Gotbaum's family claims officers failed to follow
>department policies that would have kept her safe.
>
>"If they followed their policies, Carol would be alive today," family lawyer
>Michael Manning said.
>
>The suit cited requirements to ask for medical attention for people believed
>to be sick or injured, to keep mentally or physically impaired prisoners in
>sight at all times and to use reasonable force when detaining people.
>
>"They knew she was mentally and physically disabled, yet they took her to the
>ground, tackled her, handcuffed her, shackled her, and never during this
>episode did they call for medical input," Manning said.
>
>The lawsuit didn't say how much money the family is seeking from the police
>department, but Manning filed an $8 million wrongful-death claim against the
>city in March.
>
>A letter from the city's legal department to Manning criticized Gotbaum's
>family for blaming police.
>
>In the March 26 letter, attorney Stephen Craig pointed out that the family
>knew of Gotbaum's fragile mental state and her problems with alcohol. Still,
>Craig said, nobody accompanied her to the treatment program in Arizona.
So her loving "family", knowing that she had severe substance abuse
problems, casually packed her off aone on a two-thousand mile plane
trip to a treatment center. And now that "family" is blaming the city
of Phoenix for the result of their own negligence and incompetence.
Not only does this enable them to assuage their well-deserved guilt
but they also hope to get rich off it.
>Besides the city, the lawsuit also names the officers involved and Police
>Chief Jack Harris. It says the city and the police department have been
>"deliberately and callously indifferent to the care and safety of citizens" by
>allowing officers to be indifferent to people with medical conditions.
"Callously indifferent"? Hey Gotbaum family: take a good, long look in
the mirror.
----
Diogenes (cdh...@hotmail.com)
The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .
Peter Dworkin
wrote:
>On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:03:40 -0700, Pneuma <frank...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Family of woman who died after airport arrest sues Phoenix
>>
>>By CHRIS KAHN, Associated Press Writer
>>Thu May 8, 11:06 PM ET
>>
>>The family of a New York woman who died in police custody at the Phoenix
>>airport sued the city Thursday, accusing officers of using excessive force and
>>contributing to her death.
>>
>So her loving "family", knowing that she had severe substance abuse
>problems, casually packed her off aone on a two-thousand mile plane
>trip to a treatment center. And now that "family" is blaming the city
>of Phoenix for the result of their own negligence and incompetence.
>Not only does this enable them to assuage their well-deserved guilt
>but they also hope to get rich off it.
>
.
>
>"Callously indifferent"? Hey Gotbaum family: take a good, long look in
>the mirror.
>
>----
> Diogenes (cdh...@hotmail.com)
>
> The wars are long, the peace is frail
> The madmen come again . . . .
You seem to be callously indifferent to, or perhaps merely
unacquainted with the facts of the case. She was to have been
accompanied by someone who missed a connecting flight, and her husband
was on the telephone with the police during the incident, begging them
to be careful, explaining that they "didn't know what they were
dealing with" and explaining the facts of the delay of the companion,
who arrived after her death.
yD
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:04:09 -0400, Diogenes <cdho...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:03:40 -0700, Pneuma <frank.sp...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> Family of woman who died after airport arrest sues Phoenix
>
> >>By CHRIS KAHN, Associated Press Writer
> >>Thu May 8, 11:06 PM ET
>
> >>The family of a New York woman who died in police custody at the Phoenix
> >>airport sued the city Thursday, accusing officers of using excessive force and
> >>contributing to her death.
>
> >So her loving "family", knowing that she had severe substance abuse
> >problems, casually packed her off aone on a two-thousand mile plane
> >trip to a treatment center. And now that "family" is blaming the city
> >of Phoenix for the result of their own negligence and incompetence.
> >Not only does this enable them to assuage their well-deserved guilt
> >but they also hope to get rich off it.
>
> .
>
> >"Callously indifferent"? Hey Gotbaum family: take a good, long look in
> >the mirror.
>
> >----
>
> > The wars are long, the peace is frail
> > The madmen come again . . . .
>
> You seem to be callously indifferent to, or perhaps merely
> unacquainted with the facts of the case. She was to have been
> accompanied by someone who missed a connecting flight, and her husband
> was on the telephone with the police during the incident, begging them
> to be careful, explaining that they "didn't know what they were
> dealing with" and explaining the facts of the delay of the companion,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm still at a loss as to how she, or anyone, could strangle
themselves while handcuffed. Very sad that he was on the phone
begging them to be careful, the tapes were heartbreaking, and then
learning that she was dead while he was being put off.
yD
Diogenes
wrote:
So supposedly "she was to be accompanied by someone who missed a
connecting flight." If that is true, then what family member at the
airport made the decision to let her travel on alone when the
companion did not show up? Or had she been just left at the airport
to fend for herself? In either case, the family knew that she was in
need of constant supervision and failed to provide it.
Regardless of how you try to spin it, that member of her family who
was supposed to have been responsible for arranging her safety and
well-being on that long trip failed to do so. And >that< is the
primary cause of Ms. Gotbaum's tragic death.
Bo Raxo
"yD" <yaff...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:18d85241-a17e-49c8...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I'm still at a loss as to how she, or anyone, could strangle
themselves while handcuffed. Very sad that he was on the phone
begging them to be careful, the tapes were heartbreaking, and then
learning that she was dead while he was being put off.
yD
- - - - - -
I'm guessing she was shackled. You keep someone handcuffed only for short
periods (transport), but shackles can be left on for a longer time. It
basically is chaining the feet together on a short leash so they can't run,
and putting the wrists on a short chain. Usually the wrist chain is secured
to a chain at the waist, but I suspect that instead it was secured to
something like a bed frame to keep her from moving around too much. She got
that chain connecting her wrists twisted around her neck, and slid off the
bed, putting enough weight on it to asphyxiate her - with some help from the
alcohol, enough of that I *think* depresses respiration somewhat (not sure).
They could obviously see she was plastered, but probably didn't have
something like a straightjacket available, or the personnel to watch her
constantly. It's a tragedy, but so rare I'm not sure it's a lawsuit. In
the end, it's her substance abuse that got her killed, the family doesn't
want to accept that and needs someone else to blame. In their position I
would probably feel the same way.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
"Diogenes" <cdh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a3c24deppegqbb5l...@4ax.com...
>
> So supposedly "she was to be accompanied by someone who missed a
> connecting flight." If that is true, then what family member at the
> airport made the decision to let her travel on alone when the
> companion did not show up? Or had she been just left at the airport
> to fend for herself? In either case, the family knew that she was in
> need of constant supervision and failed to provide it.
>
> Regardless of how you try to spin it, that member of her family who
> was supposed to have been responsible for arranging her safety and
> well-being on that long trip failed to do so. And >that< is the
> primary cause of Ms. Gotbaum's tragic death.
Well, in terms of moral responsibility I agree. I don't think they have a
lawsuit.
But from a practical point of view, the police need procedures to handle
people who are drunk off their ass, high as a kite, and/or crazy as a loon.
Because these are the people who get arrested in vastly disproportionate
numbers.
If you arrest someone who is wasted, and you chain them up in a way that
lets them accidentally hang themselves and die, don't you think the
procedures might need a wee bit of review?
Again, I'm not saying this department was grossly negligent - probably the
first time anyone has seen this happen. I'm saying if a prisoner dies while
in custody from the way they are restrained, then you need to find a
different way of restraining them. That's why they invented
straightjackets, and beds that have straps to hold someone down, and padded
rooms, etc.
Bo Raxo
Alison MacIntyre
> "Diogenes" <cdho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I feel they were grossly negligent also... for reasons I won't get
into. I'd like to sit down with her husband and share something that
happened to me that very same day in Tuscon.
Alison MacIntyre
wrote:
Tucson... damn I hate when that happens.
Diogenes
<chattan_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>On May 10, 12:04 pm, Diogenes <cdho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:03:40 -0700, Pneuma <frank.sp...@gmail.com>
>> Diogenes (cdho...@hotmail.com)
>>
>> The wars are long, the peace is frail
>> The madmen come again . . . .
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.activism.militia/msg/9815a4e037c3800c
>
>Do you shop at Walmart?
Is your (presumably) rhetorical question intended to convey some
clever message or are you simply trying to make farting noises with
your keyboard?
Alison MacIntyre
>
> >Do you shop at Walmart?
>
> Is your (presumably) rhetorical question intended to convey some
> clever message or are you simply trying to make farting noises with
> your keyboard?
I'm thinking CLEVER MESSAGE. Is that okay with you?
Diogenes
But of course. You are perfectly welcome to enjoy your delusions. You
know the old saying: a person who considers himself to be a wit is
usually only half-right.
----
Diogenes (cdh...@hotmail.com)
Alison MacIntyre
Thank you that's quite considerate of you.
Twittering One
> something like a straightjacket available, or the personnel to watch her
> constantly. It's a tragedy, but so rare I'm not sure it's a lawsuit. In
> the end, it's her substance abuse that got her killed, the family doesn't
> want to accept that and needs someone else to blame. In their position I
> would probably feel the same way.
>
> Bo Raxo
Likely, it was not a substance abuse issue but more critically -- a
combination of the antidepressant Cymbalta and a relatively small
amount of alcohol.
Cymbalta is known for causing liver complications, specifically with
alcohol; liver clearance issues may have complicated the toxic effects
of the combination.
nimue
No matter how you try to spin it, she died in police custody under very
suspicious circumstances.
>And >that< is the
> primary cause of Ms. Gotbaum's tragic death.
She died in police custody. If we are looking for a PRIMARY cause, we need
to look at the police.
nimue
Oh, oh, will you share it with me? I lived in Arizona for many years, and
sad to say, what happened to Ms. Gottbaum did NOT surprise me.
nimue
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> happened to Carol Anne. Security was just following a direct order
> (pertaining to this specific woman) from someone in Homeland Security
> who had the authority to reach across borders. From where I sit, that
> wasn't hard to ffigure out.
She was in the custody of the Phoenix police when she died. What don't you
understand about that?
Twittering One
> need of constant supervision and failed to provide it.
If she was "in need of constant supervision" by NY State Mental
Hygeine law, she would have been hospitalized with or against her
consent in the state of New York.
nimue
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>>
>> She was in the custody of the Phoenix police when she died. What
>> don't you understand about that?
>
>
> with you. This woman was 'singled out' by someone who had the
> authority to so. To send a message. The Phoenix cops were just
> following orders from a higher authority outside of Arizona. Hopefully
> they'll be smart enough to point their finger at the guilty party and
> save their 'blue-flu' ass. Now tell me... exactly what don't you
> understand about that?
Your saying the State of Arizona had nothing to do with it. If someone dies
in the custody of the Phoenix police (it doesn't matter how she got there),
then the State of Arizona has something to do with it.
Diogenes
wrote:
Would you kindly elaborate on your charge of "very suspicious
circumstances"? The autopsy report "concluded that Gotbaum
accidentally hanged herself on her shackles while in the holding cell.
The report said intoxication from alcohol and prescription drugs were
contributing factors." Are you suggesting that she was murdered and
that the autopsy report is part of some sort of coverup? According to
a pathologist hired by her family, "his study was compatible with the
one done by the medical examiner, who said an intoxicated Gotbaum
accidentally strangled herself with her handcuffs".
>>And >that< is the
>> primary cause of Ms. Gotbaum's tragic death.
>
>
>She died in police custody. If we are looking for a PRIMARY cause, we need
>to look at the police.
The word "primary" means not only the first factor in importance but
also first in sequence of time. Ms. Gotbaum was in police custody
because her family allowed her to board a plane alone for a two
thousand mile trip when they knew she was in no mental condition to
safely do so. She was in police custody because she acted erratically
in the airport (Homeland Security alert), became irate and out of
control when barred from boarding her flight and fought with the
police officers who tried to calm her down.
That the airport police did not constantly monitor her was certainly a
contributing factor, but the PRIMARY factor is still that some family
member made the decision to send her on that journey alone. This lack
of a companion not only left her with no cushion against her
anxieties, it also provided her the opportunity to get thoroughly
drunk at the airport (0.24 blood alcohol plus antidepressants), which
led to her confrontation with the police. The police are not without
blame, but they are not primarily responsible of this tragedy.
Diogenes
And who would file the request that she be hospitalized? Since she
obviously wouldn't do it herself it would have to be a member of her
family, right?. And why do you think they didn't have her
hospitalized? Probably for the same reason that they were sending her
all the way to Arizona for treatment. Namely, they wanted to keep the
whole thing quiet. You know darn good and well there are plenty of
qualified rehab facilities a hell of a lot closer to New York than the
one in Tucson.
jerry warner
Peter Dworkin wrote:
Good theory. Wrong facts. In a world with 6 billion people
you cant have "over easy" on demand!
Another broke Amerikam who cant get over themselves?
nimue
> x-no-archive: yes
>
You did? Where? I received no email and saw no post where you explained
what happened to you on that day in Tucson.
>What personal knowledge/experience makes Ms.
> Gautbaum's death unsurprising to you? How many hysterical upperclass
> women with union/political connections do you know who've accidentally
> died after being SHACKLED and left alone to mysteriously strangle
> themselves?
THAT is what is so odd. That normally does NOT happen. Being white or
rich (the police could not have known she was politically connected) usually
serves as a kind of protective charm -- but not in Arizona.
I am not sure you understand what I am saying. I have lived in both Arizona
and New York. In my experience, Arizona is MUCH more of a police state.
MUCH more. I am not at all surprised that an upper class white woman, who
might have been considered "untouchable" in other places, was treated that
way by Arizona police. I think everyone -- whether they are poor or people
of color or wealthy or white or whatever -- is treated worse by the police
in Arizona than they are by the police in New York. I lived in Arizona for
years; I have lived in NYC for years -- my experiences in both places have
left me with this belief.
You sound really pissed at me and I have to say I have no idea why.
nimue
No police = no death. Ms. Gottbaum, despite a history of addiction and
mental illness, did NOT die until she came into contact with the Phoenix
police.
Twittering One
> >Hygeine law, she would have been hospitalized with or against her
> >consent in the state of New York.
>
> And who would file the request that she be hospitalized?
Her personal physician or psychiatrist is a likely candidate, who is
as/or more qualified than her family to make such a decision.
The physician who put her on Cymbalta and Cylexa -- when in fact,
Cymbalta is contraindicated in a patient with alcohol substance use
issues.
Since she
> obviously wouldn't do it herself it would have to be a member of her
> family, right?. And why do you think they didn't have her
> hospitalized? Probably for the same reason that they were sending her
> all the way to Arizona for treatment. Namely, they wanted to keep the
> whole thing quiet.
I would too.
That fact that she was going to a respected clinic in AZ is a marginal
issue. Her husband worked in CO, and flew home on weekends. She was
accustomed to spending time in her home alone.
The fact is this: If YOU find yourself in a US airport, you may have a
rare seizure, and find yourself in the hands of police.
DON'T YOU WANT TO KNOW YOUR SAFETY IS ASSURED AND REGULATED?
nimue
Broke? The Gottbaums are quite well-to-do. Poor people don't generally
send their relatives to expensive rehabs out of state. Have I misunderstood
what you meant by "broke"?
Alison MacIntyre
I'm not pissed at you nimue. It's just that I know that what happened
to Carol Anne Gotbaum was no accident. I see the Arizona police only
as minions (low-ranking employees worried about their jobs) carrying
out the order of a 'murderous/anonymous entity' from higher up... to
MESS with this woman... which ultimately resulted in her death. That
bothers me... it bothers me alot. Especially when I have STRONG
suspicions that this murderous/anonymous entity, who sits comfortably
and safely inside Homeland Security, wanted her silenced... forever.
Now why would someone in Homeland Security want a rich 'blubbering
alcoholic' from NY with political connections silenced? For the EXACT
same reason that I came within a hair of meeting the same fate in
Tucson... that very same day. That same entity also messed with me...
but unlike Carol Anne, I managed to keep my wits about me and didn't
panic. Which is very difficult to do when you KNOW you've been
'singled out' and you KNOW what's going down. Very difficult/extremely
scary for someone like myself... who doesn't have money OR
connections... other than the internet to voice their concerns.
JonesieCat
"Alison MacIntyre" <chattan_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6554a9-59c4-4831...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------
? An entity w/in Homeland Security singles out specific NYC women who travel
to Arizona? and notifies the locals to detain said individual women, IIUC?
I'm willing to believe what you say, but I still don't quite get it? Maybe
there's a subtext I'm not privy to? Can you expand further?
jc
Alison MacIntyre
> "Alison MacIntyre" <chattan_silverm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I don't know what IIUC means. As far as subtext... if you're asking me
if this entity sucessfully managed to 'send a message' to me
personally... the answer is YES.
How did I interpret that message? Well... it was/is my interpretation
that this murderous/anonymous entity can fuck with WHOEVER he/she
wants... WHENEVER he/she wants... for no reason other than because
they have the authority to do so. And if they don't have a legitimate
excuse... they can make one up. That's the message I interpreted from
just MY personal experience. Carol Anne's death only COMPOUNDED that
message. A talent that this murderous/anonymous entity is very adept
at doing.
Diogenes
<mourne...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >If she was "in need of constant supervision" by NY State Mental
>> >Hygeine law, she would have been hospitalized with or against her
>> >consent in the state of New York.
>>
>> And who would file the request that she be hospitalized?
>
>Her personal physician or psychiatrist is a likely candidate, who is
>as/or more qualified than her family to make such a decision.
>
>The physician who put her on Cymbalta and Cylexa -- when in fact,
>Cymbalta is contraindicated in a patient with alcohol substance use
>issues.
So if the Cymbalta is contraindicated in her situation, should the
prescribing physician be held responsible for her bizarre behavior
which led up to her death?
>Since she
>> obviously wouldn't do it herself it would have to be a member of her
>> family, right?. And why do you think they didn't have her
>> hospitalized? Probably for the same reason that they were sending her
>> all the way to Arizona for treatment. Namely, they wanted to keep the
>> whole thing quiet.
>
>I would too.
>
>That fact that she was going to a respected clinic in AZ is a marginal
>issue. Her husband worked in CO, and flew home on weekends. She was
>accustomed to spending time in her home alone.
Spending time alone in familiar circumstances does not qualify one to
travel to make a long journey unaccompanied. And I'll bet that in her
home there was no alcohol that she could access either. But as soon as
she found herself unsupervised in Phoenix Airport she also found the
airport bar and proceeded to slug down as many drinks as the
opportunity afforded (0.24% blood alcohol, remember?). At this point
she became a classic "drunk and disorderly" as far as the police knew.
>The fact is this: If YOU find yourself in a US airport, you may have a
>rare seizure, and find yourself in the hands of police.
She did not "have a seizure", as in epileptic, hypoglycemic, etc. She
was obviously intoxicated, erratic, unruly and combative, which is a
not uncommon occurrence in airports. Perhaps drinking is a coping
method for people who are nervous about flying, but intoxicated
travelers getting off or attempting to board commercial aircraft is a
daily problem for airport security. Based on her behavior, the Phoenix
police undoubtedly thought they just had yet another disruptive drunk
on their hands.
>DON'T YOU WANT TO KNOW YOUR SAFETY IS ASSURED AND REGULATED?
Excuse me, but assuring my safety is primarily my own responsibility
and not that of the state. If I am not competent to fulfill that
responsibility then it next becomes the duty of my family and my
physician to act on my behalf. Ms. Gotbaum's family did not properly
fulfill that duty and, according your statement, her physician was
also negligent in misprescribing her medication. Their mistakes and
failures are what resulted in this unfortunate woman being drunk and
disorderly in an airport, with the tragic aftermath.
Diogenes
wrote:
What if, instead of coming "into contact with the Phoenix police", Ms.
Gotbaum had staggered out of the airport bar and right in front of a
bus? Would you then try to blame her death on the bus company?
Bo Raxo
"Twittering One" <mourne...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:55cdaf8f-290d-4a15...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
- - - - - - -
No, she asphyxiated when she hung herself on her shackles. Whether she was
so intoxicated because of this drug or that drug is irrelevant - police deal
with severely intoxicated people every day. About as wasted as people can
get. They need to restrain them every day.
Alison MacIntyre
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:57:03 -0400, "nimue" <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Diogenes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 20:33:43 -0400, "nimue" <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Diogenes wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:32:22 -0400, Peter Dworkin
> >>>> <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:03:40 -0700, Pneuma <frank.sp...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Family of woman who died after airport arrest sues Phoenix
>
> >>>>>>> By CHRIS KAHN, Associated Press Writer
> >>>>>>> Thu May 8, 11:06 PM ET
>
> >>>>>>> The family of a New York woman who died in police custody at the
> >>>>>>> Phoenix airport sued the city Thursday, accusing officers of
> >>>>>>> using excessive force and contributing to her death.
>
> >>>>>> So her loving "family", knowing that she had severe substance
> >>>>>> abuse problems, casually packed her off aone on a two-thousand
> >>>>>> mile plane trip to a treatment center. And now that "family" is
> >>>>>> blaming the city of Phoenix for the result of their own
> >>>>>> negligence and incompetence. Not only does this enable them to
> >>>>>> assuage their well-deserved guilt but they also hope to get rich
> >>>>>> off it.
>
> >>>>> .
>
> >>>>>> "Callously indifferent"? Hey Gotbaum family: take a good, long
> >>>>>> look in the mirror.
>
> >>>>>> ----
If that were the case at hand, we'd have one dead drunk and a
traumatized bus driver... and we wouldn't be having this conversation
because it would have never make national headlines.
But if someone suspected that Carol Anne's stumbling out of a bar had
been cleverly SYNCHRONIZED with the arrival of that bus... it would be
wise to scrutinize the people who possess the expertise to arrange
these types of accidents.
> ----
> Diogenes (cdho...@hotmail.com)
>
> The wars are long, the peace is frail
> The madmen come again . . . .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alison MacIntyre
> "Twittering One" <mournenwo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:55cdaf8f-290d-4a15...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > They could obviously see she was plastered, but probably didn't have
> > something like a straightjacket available, or the personnel to watch her
> > constantly. It's a tragedy, but so rare I'm not sure it's a lawsuit. In
> > the end, it's her substance abuse that got her killed, the family doesn't
> > want to accept that and needs someone else to blame. In their position I
> > would probably feel the same way.
>
> > Bo Raxo
>
> Likely, it was not a substance abuse issue but more critically -- a
> combination of the antidepressant Cymbalta and a relatively small
> amount of alcohol.
>
> Cymbalta is known for causing liver complications, specifically with
> alcohol; liver clearance issues may have complicated the toxic effects
> of the combination.
>
If true, then someone prescribing Cymbalta to someone who is known to
have issues with alcohol should also be scrutinized. Even if she had
lied about her addiction, as most alcoholics do, an honest and
competant physician would have looked for other avenues after
confronting her and explaining the risks. At least I would hope that's
what they'd do.
nimue
That is a silly comparison. Anyone who walks in front of a moving bus will
be run over. People who are taken into police custody are not supposed to
wind up dead.
Twittering One
> "Twittering One" <mournenwo...@aol.com> wrote in message
As to primary cause of death, yes, your point is valid; however, it
DOES matter insofar as the woman's character, in the wake of ehr
death.
I recall the forensic pathologist stated that the toxic level of all
chemicals in ehr body may also have contributed to some degree with
possible reduced oxygen to brain.
Also, in regard to "abuser" vs "victim of prescriber," this point
matters insofar as bringing about greater understanding of people who
may have irratic behanvior and the sensitivity with which they should
be restrained, if necessary.
Twittering One
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your point is a good one.
yD
> "yD" <yaffaD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:18d85241-a17e-49c8...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm still at a loss as to how she, or anyone, could strangle
> themselves while handcuffed. Very sad that he was on the phone
> begging them to be careful, the tapes were heartbreaking, and then
> learning that she was dead while he was being put off.
> yD
>
> - - - - - -
>
> periods (transport), but shackles can be left on for a longer time. It
> basically is chaining the feet together on a short leash so they can't run,
> and putting the wrists on a short chain. Usually the wrist chain is secured
> to a chain at the waist, but I suspect that instead it was secured to
> something like a bed frame to keep her from moving around too much. She got
> that chain connecting her wrists twisted around her neck, and slid off the
> bed, putting enough weight on it to asphyxiate her - with some help from the
> alcohol, enough of that I *think* depresses respiration somewhat (not sure).
>
> They could obviously see she was plastered, but probably didn't have
> something like a straightjacket available, or the personnel to watch her
> constantly. It's a tragedy, but so rare I'm not sure it's a lawsuit. In
> the end, it's her substance abuse that got her killed, the family doesn't
> want to accept that and needs someone else to blame. In their position I
> would probably feel the same way.
>
> Bo Raxo
Thanks, I can see that. She was shackled to a bench, I believe. I
had assume handcuffs or those plastic ties, but your explanation makes
sense to me.
yD
Diogenes
wrote:
And being fall-down drunk is often the causative factor of a person
walking in front of a moving bus and therefore a primary cause of
their death by misadventure, which is exactly what happened to Ms.
Gotbaum. .
nimue
>>>> No police = no death. Ms. Gottbaum, despite a history of addiction
>>>> and mental illness, did NOT die until she came into contact with
>>>> the Phoenix police.
>>>
>>> What if, instead of coming "into contact with the Phoenix police",
>>> Ms. Gotbaum had staggered out of the airport bar and right in front
>>> of a bus? Would you then try to blame her death on the bus company?
>>
>> That is a silly comparison. Anyone who walks in front of a moving
>> bus will be run over. People who are taken into police custody are
>> not supposed to wind up dead.
>
> And being fall-down drunk is often the causative factor of a person
> walking in front of a moving bus and therefore a primary cause of
> their death by misadventure, which is exactly what happened to Ms.
> Gotbaum. .
No. She should have been safe in police custody. Best case scenario --
they did not do their job correctly. If they had, a clearly disturbed woman
would have been monitored and protected (aren't police supposed to protect
and serve? Isn't that their job?). Worst case scenario -- foul play by
cops irritated by how difficult she was.
She died in their custody. People are not supposed to die in police
custody. It is the job of the police to keep people in their custody safe.
They are paid for that (among other things). They didn't do it. Again, I
don't know if it was negligence or foul play, but it is their fault. Are
there many other people in Ms. Gottbaum's life who failed her in some way?
Yes. But none of them are paid to protect and serve and she did not die
when she was with any of them. No, she survived years with them, mentally
ill and addicted as she was. But she couldn't survive being in police
custody. That should tell you something.
Diogenes
wrote:
>snip
>>>>> No police = no death. Ms. Gottbaum, despite a history of addiction
>>>>> and mental illness, did NOT die until she came into contact with
>>>>> the Phoenix police.
>>>>
>>>> What if, instead of coming "into contact with the Phoenix police",
>>>> Ms. Gotbaum had staggered out of the airport bar and right in front
>>>> of a bus? Would you then try to blame her death on the bus company?
>>>
>>> That is a silly comparison. Anyone who walks in front of a moving
>>> bus will be run over. People who are taken into police custody are
>>> not supposed to wind up dead.
>>
>> And being fall-down drunk is often the causative factor of a person
>> walking in front of a moving bus and therefore a primary cause of
>> their death by misadventure, which is exactly what happened to Ms.
>> Gotbaum. .
>
>No. She should have been safe in police custody. Best case scenario --
>they did not do their job correctly. If they had, a clearly disturbed woman
>would have been monitored and protected (aren't police supposed to protect
>and serve? Isn't that their job?). Worst case scenario -- foul play by
>cops irritated by how difficult she was.
Do you equate being in police custody with some kind of return to the
womb? The police can be expected to take reasonable measures to
protect a detainee from external dangers, but it is nearly impossible
to protect a person from themselves. Consider how many people manage
to kill themselves in custody even while on a suicide watch. The
police had no way of knowing that Ms. Gotbaum was "disturbed" since
there was no one with her to advise them of that. They only knew that
she was drunk and disorderly, and restrained her as they would any
other disorderly drunk. Unfortunately the police do not have the
resources to constantly babysit every single person they arrest for
D&D.
You are basing your argument on a common misconception. The "job" of
the police is NOT to "protect and serve" you, Ms. Gotbaum or anyone
else for that matter. That is just a BS slogan that looks good on the
side of a police cruiser, and nothing more. The duty of the police is
to >enforce the law<, and that definition of their responsibility has
been repeatedly upheld by the courts. Although her family had a moral
duty to "protect and serve" her, the police had no legal duty to do
so.
>She died in their custody. People are not supposed to die in police
>custody. It is the job of the police to keep people in their custody safe.
>They are paid for that (among other things). They didn't do it. Again, I
>don't know if it was negligence or foul play, but it is their fault. Are
>there many other people in Ms. Gottbaum's life who failed her in some way?
>Yes. But none of them are paid to protect and serve and she did not die
>when she was with any of them. No, she survived years with them, mentally
>ill and addicted as she was. But she couldn't survive being in police
>custody. That should tell you something.
What it tells anyone is that she should not have been sent alone and
unsupervised into a security-sensitive area where she could access
alcohol and then instigate a confrontation with airport personnel. If
the police had known about her mental issues they would probably have
handled the situation differently, but all they knew was that they
were dealing with just another combative drunk who was reeking of
alcohol.
nimue
Why would you think that?
> The police can be expected to take reasonable measures to
> protect a detainee from external dangers, but it is nearly impossible
> to protect a person from themselves.
Or from the police, apparently. Again, this woman, with her addictions and
mental illness, survived just fine until she encountered the police.
>Consider how many people manage
> to kill themselves in custody even while on a suicide watch.
I have no idea how many do. Do you? Does it matter?
>The
> police had no way of knowing that Ms. Gotbaum was "disturbed" since
> there was no one with her to advise them of that.
Her behavior was clearly disturbed.
>They only knew that
> she was drunk and disorderly, and restrained her as they would any
> other disorderly drunk.
Really? Prove it.
>Unfortunately the police do not have the
> resources to constantly babysit every single person they arrest for
> D&D.
No one asked them to.
>
> You are basing your argument on a common misconception. The "job" of
> the police is NOT to "protect and serve" you, Ms. Gotbaum or anyone
> else for that matter. That is just a BS slogan that looks good on the
> side of a police cruiser, and nothing more.
Oh, so you are accusing the police of spreading false propaganda and lying?
>The duty of the police is
> to >enforce the law<,
Weren't police once known as "peace officers"? Aren't they still? They are
supposed to keep the peace. And since when did "enforcing the law" mean
that disturbed women in your custody should wind up dead?
>and that definition of their responsibility has
> been repeatedly upheld by the courts. Although her family had a moral
> duty to "protect and serve" her, the police had no legal duty to do
> so.
Police are not allowed to murder those in their custody. They are not
allowed to neglect or abuse them.
>
>> She died in their custody. People are not supposed to die in police
>> custody. It is the job of the police to keep people in their
>> custody safe. They are paid for that (among other things). They
>> didn't do it. Again, I don't know if it was negligence or foul
>> play, but it is their fault. Are there many other people in Ms.
>> Gottbaum's life who failed her in some way? Yes. But none of them
>> are paid to protect and serve and she did not die when she was with
>> any of them. No, she survived years with them, mentally ill and
>> addicted as she was. But she couldn't survive being in police
>> custody. That should tell you something.
>
> What it tells anyone is that she should not have been sent alone and
> unsupervised into a security-sensitive area where she could access
> alcohol and then instigate a confrontation with airport personnel.
What it tells me is that this woman could survive ANYTHING but the police.
She, who survived addiction and mental illness and perhaps even neglect,
could not survive the police.
>If
> the police had known about her mental issues they would probably have
> handled the situation differently,
Probably?
>but all they knew was that they
> were dealing with just another combative drunk who was reeking of
> alcohol.
So? She's DEAD. She died at their hands.
Diogenes
wrote:
Since you seem to think that once she is in police custody she should
also automatically be safe from herself.
>> The police can be expected to take reasonable measures to
>> protect a detainee from external dangers, but it is nearly impossible
>> to protect a person from themselves.
>
>Or from the police, apparently. Again, this woman, with her addictions and
>mental illness, survived just fine until she encountered the police.
If she was surviving "just fine" then why was she being packed off to
a treatment center in Arizona? It is a reasonable assumption that she
was not going there to enjoy the scenery.
>>Consider how many people manage
>> to kill themselves in custody even while on a suicide watch.
>
>I have no idea how many do. Do you? Does it matter?
The point is that people in detention manage to kill themselves on a
regular basis, even when being monitored to prevent it from happening.
>>The
>> police had no way of knowing that Ms. Gotbaum was "disturbed" since
>> there was no one with her to advise them of that.
>
>Her behavior was clearly disturbed.
Since she was reeking of alcohol the police made the reasonable
assumption that her erratic behavior was the result of intoxication.
>>They only knew that
>> she was drunk and disorderly, and restrained her as they would any
>> other disorderly drunk.
>
>Really? Prove it.
"Prove it"? Prove what? The autopsy report stated a blood alcohol
content of 0.24%. Or do you think that is part of some vast,
police-orchestrated conspiracy?
>>Unfortunately the police do not have the
>> resources to constantly babysit every single person they arrest for
>> D&D.
>
>No one asked them to.
But your statements and accusations indicate that you expect them to
do exactly that.
>> You are basing your argument on a common misconception. The "job" of
>> the police is NOT to "protect and serve" you, Ms. Gotbaum or anyone
>> else for that matter. That is just a BS slogan that looks good on the
>> side of a police cruiser, and nothing more.
>
>Oh, so you are accusing the police of spreading false propaganda and lying?
I am pointing out that you are basing your expectations of police
responsibilities on a slogan that the municipal public relations
department puts on the side of police cruisers. Now do you understand?
>>The duty of the police is
>> to >enforce the law<,
>
>Weren't police once known as "peace officers"? Aren't they still? They are
>supposed to keep the peace. And since when did "enforcing the law" mean
>that disturbed women in your custody should wind up dead?
Yes, they were referred to as "peace officers" in TV Westerns. Guess
what; that source of legal information is no more valid than the
previously discussed slogan.
>>and that definition of their responsibility has
>> been repeatedly upheld by the courts. Although her family had a moral
>> duty to "protect and serve" her, the police had no legal duty to do
>> so.
>
>Police are not allowed to murder those in their custody. They are not
>allowed to neglect or abuse them.
So is it now your contention that the police "murdered" Ms. Gotbaum?
Your statements are becoming increasingly bizarre.
>>> She died in their custody. People are not supposed to die in police
>>> custody. It is the job of the police to keep people in their
>>> custody safe. They are paid for that (among other things). They
>>> didn't do it. Again, I don't know if it was negligence or foul
>>> play, but it is their fault. Are there many other people in Ms.
>>> Gottbaum's life who failed her in some way? Yes. But none of them
>>> are paid to protect and serve and she did not die when she was with
>>> any of them. No, she survived years with them, mentally ill and
>>> addicted as she was. But she couldn't survive being in police
>>> custody. That should tell you something.
>>
>> What it tells anyone is that she should not have been sent alone and
>> unsupervised into a security-sensitive area where she could access
>> alcohol and then instigate a confrontation with airport personnel.
>
>What it tells me is that this woman could survive ANYTHING but the police.
>She, who survived addiction and mental illness and perhaps even neglect,
>could not survive the police.
>
>>If
>> the police had known about her mental issues they would probably have
>> handled the situation differently,
>
>Probably?
I used the word "probably" on purpose. Unlike some other people on
this NG I do not pretend to be all-knowing.
>>but all they knew was that they
>> were dealing with just another combative drunk who was reeking of
>> alcohol.
>
>So? She's DEAD. She died at their hands.
Yes, she's dead; tragically, but at her own hand.
Twittering One
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:41:13 -0400, "nimue" <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Diogenes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:29:28 -0400, "nimue" <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com>
>
> >> The wars are long, the peace is frail
> >> The madmen come again . . . .
>
> ----
>
> The wars are long, the peace is frail
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Died of her own hand?
The attourney Michael Manning has prevailed in other AZ cases, citing
UNSAFE restraints, the mechanisims, and initated changes in the
physical structure of such restraints.
Few people, including myself, understand exactly HOW she managed to
strangles herself; I suppose there will by enacts in court
illustrating the hypothetical maneuver.
She told police she was "a sick mother."
Did they call Paramedics?
They provide CPT and defib, but does their medical training extend
beyond?
If a restrained persons tells you she is "sick," how do you handle
her?
Alison MacIntyre
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:41:13 -0400, "nimue" <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Diogenes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:29:28 -0400, "nimue" <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com>
The point is... DETERMINED people can and do commit suicide while in
detention... but were they shackled and left unsupervised while
screaming BLOODY ASS MURDER? My guess is NO. And might I add... that
DETERMINED people who want a screaming lunatic to STFU can and do
unimaginable things to achieve that goal... and that's what I believe
happened to Carol Anne Gotbaum.
> >> Diogenes (cdho...@hotmail.com)
>
> >> The wars are long, the peace is frail
> >> The madmen come again . . . .
>
> ----
> Diogenes (cdho...@hotmail.com)
>
> The wars are long, the peace is frail