LA County To Pay $200K To Woman Shot By Deputies

[ConfuZed]

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4502226/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news


LOS ANGELES -- An unarmed woman shot 10 times by Los Angeles County sheriff deputies in 2003 will get $200,000 in a settlement.

Simona Wilfred was a passenger in an SUV that came under suspicion when it stopped by a home that was under surveillance by a sheriff's narcotics team.

Plainclothes deputies believed the driver, who was Wilfred's boyfriend, was armed when they chased the vehicle. When the SUV backed up on toward them, the deputies fired 65 rounds without realizing she was a...

[benburch]

1. And if we had legalized all drugs...

How many more people would be alive today?

This is more proof of the idiocy of the drug war than of the violence of the police.

[Maat]

5. BenBurch .... I have always respected what you said ..

but are you saying that we should legalize super-dangerous drugs such as methamphetamine and heroin?

but .. you obviously weren't a social worker for seven years as I was, going to the scenes of methamphetamine busts, and seeing children that had been severely abused and neglected. At least 99% of the serious abuse, neglect and abandonment that I saw was the result of methamphetamine abuse. You obviously did not talk to the father that told me how he was going to jump out of a two-story building with his child (he was so paranoid after a speed-bender) if I hadn't taken the child into custody. You obviously did not talk to the family of the cops who were gunned down without provocation, because of the paranoia of the suspect who was loaded on meth, when they responded to a domestic dispute.

Moreover, I'm fairly sure that you are not familiar with the visciousness of the manufacturers, which would continue whether or not it was legalized.

No, drugs such as methamphetamine should not be legalized.

We have a program out here in California that works ... we give people a chance, if they haven't committed another crime while under the influence. We have seriously decriminalized mere use, in other words, but we insist on participation in a substance abuse program, that also teaches job skills and self-esteem.

I could go on and on (e.g. the child that drowned as her mother crashed on the bed), etc. etc.

I don't mind decriminalization, and I am no fan of an aggressive drug war in which the police are habitually violent, but I'm no fan of legalization of these drugs (such as heroin and meth).

Now, as to this situation, it was reprehensible.

[benburch]

8. My wife is a social worker...

And says that if the drugs were legal and cheap, she would have seen many more intact families as often one of the parents, and sometimes both, were incarcerated for drug sales related offenses! (Of course, when both were, the "Family" would usually be a grandparent and the kids.)

One household she used to visit had a son who had just gotten out of jail for a drug sales offense. The day after she visited, he was gunned down on the very spot on the porch where she usually sat during visits with the family.

None of this would happen if you could score your Heroin at the liquor store.

And from the historical British example, we see that Heroin and opium addicts can often be productive citizens if they don't have to do crime to get their fix. Winston Churchill had been an opium user. And of course, he would drain a fifth of brandy on a nightly basis.

[Maat]

10. Well, I guess I respectfully disagree.

Legalizing methamphetamine would be disastrous in Southern California.

Thank her for her work.

I just really disagree.

[Mairead]

16. I suspect you're thinking that legalisation would

increase the number of people who behave badly and abuse/neglect their kids?

As far as I'm aware, the evidence is consistent with it being a constellation of correlated behaviors. The people are abusing drugs and neglecting their kids because of some third thing; they aren't stable, low-stress, well-balanced people who suddenly begin neglecting their kids because they accidently fall into drug use. Almost all are marginal to begin with, though in some cases they manage to maintain in public.

[Maat]

20. With all due respect, that's not true.

At least it definitely does not jive with the over 2,000 referrals I investigated.

I've seen many a parent who I am positive would have not tortured or injured their child without the substance abuse. Many of them were lured into the substance abuse by 'friends.'

There is a VAST disparity between neglect and abuse that occurs with a non-substance-abuser, and an abuser.

NO comparison.

And I definitely disagree with the statement that there 'aren't stable, low-stress, well-balanced people who suddenly begin neglecting their kids because they accidently fall into drug use.' I have seen MANY instances of that. I don't know who came up with that data - but it is baloney-sauce in my humble opinion.

Thanks for all the thoughts - I will fight with every part of my being to see that those drugs do not become legal; by contrast, I do fervently believe in decriminalization. To me, there is a HUGE difference.

[opusprime]

17. Interesting perspective Maat...

Let me ask you this... if heroin and meth were made legal today, would you go out and buy some and start using these drugs?

I'm guessing your answer is no, you would not. In other words, you dont need the law to tell you what you should or shouldnt put into your body. But you think the law is necessary to prevent others from making these mistakes.

It could be argued that the prohibition of these drugs is what makes them available to individuals who otherwise would not try them. I would argue that had Marijuana never been made illegal, I would never have been interested in trying it.

Dont get me wrong, I think meth is horrible and destructive drug. It has become an epidemic much the same as crack was in the 80's and 90's. But lets remember, both of these drugs are actually the result of prohibition. Crack was invented as a means to more easily hide and deal cocaine. Meth was created to fill the void left by criminalizing amphetimines.

So, one could argue that the war on drugs is now self-fulfilling. Drugs are being created as a means to cope with prohibition. And now that they are removing all the Sudafed from grocery stores, a new drug will be developed to replace meth once it get too expensive.

But your right on one thing... the cat is out of the bag at this point. Stopping prohibition on some of these drugs could be incredibly destructive to those too weak to make the right choices. But to me, that's the price of freedom and liberty.

Nobody is here telling me not to drink a gallon of scotch right now.

Thanks for the thoughts.

[Maat]

18. I wouldn't ... but I know of many who would.

Legalizing the drug would put a stamp of approval on it. Why would you want to do that with a drug that induces psychosis?

People would be able to buy it, use it, with children in the home, and no one would be able to stop them. You would have to wait until they injured their child (too late - the child would be dead by then) in order to remove that child for safety reasons - because the parent would be engaging in a LEGAL activity.

Drinking alchohol is legal, for example, and it is very hard to do anything about a child in danger because of a parent's drinking. You cannot remove a child because of the drinking - it is a legal activity; you have to wait until the child is injured (it may be too late by then).

By contrast, a person can be arrested for possession of meth; it is an illegal activity and grounds for removal by itself.

The drug makes a parent psychotic, delusional, paranoid and violent.

I talked to five social worker friends after this topic came up. NONE would advocate the legalization of meth; they all stated that anyone who advocated that obviously had not seen children tortured as a result of their parent's use of it.

Eh ... it's not going to be legalized. Thankfully.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[DIKB]

2. 65 Rounds ?

Sweet David Koresh !!!

Why not just unleash a 50 caliber machine gun on em ? It's obvious they never intended to take em alive. Aside from the bullshit that is the war on drugs, the outrageously liberal use of lethal force is astounding.

I believe in the right to self defense. Sadly a perceived threat is NOT a realized threat, therefore force isn't warranted.

[DoNotRefill]

3. Because .50 caliber machineguns are never used by criminals...

due to their bulk and weight.

[SouthernDem2004]

4. Sounds like alot of rounds but it isn't...

A semi-automatic weapon will fire as fast as you can pull your finger. Try right now and see how many times you can pull your finger in 2 seconds.

[CarinKaryn]

6. No, 65 rounds is a lot.

How can you say otherwise? WTF are you trying to say? That its not as bad as being shot at 100 times?

[SouthernDem2004]

14. Four people can let loose 65 rounds in a couple of seconds.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

19. Correct me if I'm wrong, 65 rounds, 4 people...

There was some reloading going on.

[SouthernDem2004]

21. Nope, a Glock 17's mag holds 17 rounds + the 1 in the tube.

a Glock 22 even holds 15 + 1 in the tube....

[dhinojosa]

7. She should get squat for not telling her boyfriend to stop the car....

WTF? Stop the fucking vehicle and take whatever grieves you to court.

[gratuitous]

9. Amen!

And why didn't she have her Wonder Woman bracelets on so she could deflect the bullets? Total negligence on her part.

[dhinojosa]

11. I see you are living in the past where women were supposed to be weak.

Sarcasm noted. But women today aren't humble, shy, and do whatever their man tells them and put up with it. She could've got her boyfriend to stop speeding off.

[Lars39]

12. Read the article.

The article does not state that the vehicle 'sped off'.

[dhinojosa]

13. Yeah, sorry, putting word into the article...

"was armed when they chased the vehicle." I interpret it as a chase, at which time the girlfriend could got her boyfriend to stop without eventually backing into the cops.

I guess a better described story is in order.

[gratuitous]

15. What?

I thought she should have taken control of her own destiny, but negligently failed to do so. I never said she should be weak or at the mercy of a man, even though I'm not quite sure how she was supposed to know what he was about to do when he backed the van up, or that the police would open fire like they did.

Sarcasm! As if an anonymous poster with the handle "gratuitous" could or would ever engage in such a thing! Hmph!