*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, November 6th, 2013 12:24pm PST - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

I was going to upvote until the guy started jumping back and forth across the county line. That sort of reporting is pretty much morally equivalent with rape.

if u look at the x-ray of the man, all sorts of spinal issues are apparent. even to the untrained eye. The pelvis has been, at a minimum, grossly subluxed (misaligned) at the pubic symphysis.

yes, he was clenching his buttocks. that is how one stabilizes fucked-up-edness.
this man was involved in an accident, probably auto, that caused him to walk funny. Likely, even without a prolonged anal rape, he was constantly in considerable pain to begin with.

This is an Onion video, right?

If this gets out, everyone will want one and I'll have to start waiting months to go in for my 14 hour anal probe, le sigh.

Oh nvm, I don't live in America, carry on.

I do love how this is too graphic for children, yet rape, murder and violence are not . . .

This is just awful. But unfortunately, as a "statist", I am forced to condone this kind of treatment.

Oh no, wait, that's utter bullshit.

This is wrong, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with your political ideology. Claiming that "statists" support police brutality is as retarded as claiming people who oppose gun control support murder.

If you have to ask if it's "way too far" it's way too far.

Something tells me that this guy is going to win all the money. Not that it makes what happened okay, but it wouldn't hurt.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'statist idiots, police, xrays, anus, rape, government, abuse' to 'statist idiots, police, xrays, anus, rape, government, abuse, David Eckert' - edited by chingalera

I would be very interested in hearing the rest of this story.

The law is what the law says it is. YAY.

@VoodooV

Blankfist loves that word. Though I often question if he knows what it means. Totalitarianism or Police Sate just don't have the same ring to his ear.

Per my post it really would be useful to have the full story here. I know that wanting all the facts and understanding the entire situation before jumping to conclusions isn't popular, but I'm ok with that.

Surely there are a large range of possibilities of what happened here ranging from the police and doctors went totally insane to David Ersatz is a known drug smuggler with a confirmed history...

Let's just all pretend that we can reach informed conclusions based upon this video and the recycled news cloud it formed.

/sarcasm: Go listen to the Young Turks I'm sure they have many interesting things to say.

It's like I'm psychic...amazing what 90 seconds of searching can find:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/justice/new-mexico-search-lawsuit/

"Hildalgo County K-9 officer did inform me that he had dealt with Mr. Eckert on a previous case and stated that Mr. Eckert was known to insert drugs into his anal cavity and had been caught in Hidalgo County with drugs in his anal cavity," the affidavit said.

I am not a fan of the "War on Drugs"...

I'm also not a fan of sensationalist news stories and the people that perpetuate them.

Statists gonna hate.

@kevingrr

im trying to understand your point here.

is it JUST how this news piece is presented in a sensational manner?

OR is it that the piece didnt mention the officers mentioning of his previous run-ins with mr eckert and his propensity in hiding drugs in his ass?

in which i would ask:why is that relevant?
does this little sniglet of information somehow excuse the officers abuse of power?
it would explain the k-9 search.
and maybe even a cavity search.
but how does that piece of information explain 14 hours of anal torture?

if its just the over-hyped hyperbole than i can agree to an extant.
but it wouldnt change the outcome of an officer using his authority to belittle and humiliate.

bullies will be bullies.

Agreed on the word, but there is -no- possible "other side of the story" that makes this encounter okay. Unless the basic facts (multiple anal probes followed by surgery followed by the victim receiving a bill), are incorrect. There is just no way to justify anything past the first xray and probe. Certainly no way is the victim liable for the charges for a failed medical search.

I'll second @enoch's comment and just add that if you're going to take someone to task for not doing a little research you should maybe do your own research a bit more thoroughly. Point 42 of 234 points in the man's lawsuit:

"42. Defendant Orosco and defendant Arredondo then informed Defendant Chavez that Plaintiff was known in Hidalgo County to insert drugs into his anal cavity. This information was false."

It's unlikely that his lawyers would make that assertion unless they know it to be true or at least know that it can't be disproven.

If you'd like to read the entire lawsuit it's here

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3209305.shtml?cat=500#.UnwGfGJDuSr

Some guys have all the luck.

You don't have to approve of it, but you're certainly forced to accept it, because there's really no way to change it is there? How could you? Most local police departments receive militarized weaponry and vehicles, and even funding, from the federal government, and no one has done a thing to stop that.

You can't fire the police. In fact, the most you can do is complain. And how often do police launch internal investigations only to find later that the officers being investigated acting in accordance with protocol? So often it's almost protocol itself.

So what can you do? Vote for politicians to reform the system? Isn't that quant. The statist's only recourse to problems like these is to punch holes in a piece of paper every four years and that seems to put their whole worldview into perspective somehow. It's chilling, actually.

Not condone in a way that may be approval of rape, but you're forced to accept it if it's state-sanctioned, because you can't change it. You're powerless to do so. But you won't admit it.

Yes, that is how we change things. It's slow, cumbersome, subject to corruption and lobbying and often the oppressors aren't punished and the victims don't live to see the changes.

But in the long run, it works.

120 years ago, women couldn't even vote.
60 years ago, it was considered perfectly fine to discriminate against ethnic minorities.
When I grew up, legalised gay marriage was unthinkable (hell, being gay was still a crime in many places until I was in my teens).

All these things were changed, through protest and democracy. They are all far from solved problems, and there have been a few steps back along the way (NSA, Guantanamo, etc) but for most people life is better now than it has been in the past.

There's a reason Churchill called democracy "the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” We've seen the other and they're way worse than this.

So no, I don't accept it and yeah, I punch my paper and eventually, shit gets done.

183 years ago, Native Americans used to own land east of the Mississippi. Until democracy.

I'm going to leave aside the highly dubious assertion that is was democracy and not rampant capitalism that stole the land from the Native Americans.

But you still don't get it. I am not required to condone or accept everything that is done in the name of "statism", any more than being an atheist makes me condone Stalins religious purges.

Once again, yeah, that is a terrible injustice and it should be righted. But on balance, "statism" has done far more good than harm.

Capitalism didn't write the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Government did. And it was Andrew Jackson who signed it into law, and he was the first Democratic president who believed in the power of popular votes. Also a huge racist. But if you want to blame capitalism for the ills of majority rule and statism, knock yourself out.

And I do find it amusing that you can mention Stalin in one sentence and then claim statism has done far more good than harm. I believe a basic knowledge of human government through history would easily disprove that assertion.

I think what's more apt is that statism tries to reform its past failings. Marriage shouldn't even be a government issue, in my opinion, gay or otherwise. I don't know you well enough, but I assume when the forty-year war on drugs finally ends in the US you'd chock that up to "See? In the long run government works!"

Even though it causes the very problems the people beg it to fix. Government is a sick cult.

What a pain in the ass.

People should be outraged even had the officers found drugs in his ass.

1st. The state is us, the citizens.
2nd. The government is the state government, an employee of the state, established by the state and for the state. The state government owns no property and has no authority, it only manages our public assets, and acts in our authority.

Those things you mention were changed by protest.
People exercising their 1st amendment right to assemble and petition the government, assembled, and were a royal PITA to a lot of other people.
In time, that forced the hand of those who had been elected to placate those that protested, to get rid of the nuisance.

Since then, the right to assemble has been 'interpreted' as a secondary right, and the right to petition the government is the primary.
This empowered the government to require permits for protests, and subsequently just remove protesters.
Now you can only write a letter asking for change. The right to petition has basically been neutered, by removing the one effective method of coercion that the state [common man] had over the government.

Elections are not democracy.
How you come up with your representative is irrelevant.
Elected, appointed, born, whatever. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Democracy = People's rule.
Representative democracy = People's rule by a representative 3rd party.

The representative is not a leader.
He is an agent obligated to represent (i.e. listen to and obey) his constituents.

So long as a representative is actively representing, then he is executing his office, then the state has democracy.

If the representative goes off and does what he wants, and ignores what the state wants, then the state has no democracy.

We in the U.S. have no "leaders".
We the people are the leaders.
The people we elect are employed by us to represent us, in a government of our creation.

Whether or not the people in government care to do their jobs or not, is a separate issue.

Right now, someone will get elected. Even if they only voted for themselves.
There is no requirement to have a positive rating from the people, in order to get elected.
Regardless who gets elected, they all get paid by the same lobbyists, and pander to the same financial interests.
The only way you get change for the common man, is when it incidentally aligns with what's good for the entrenched interests.

eg. If Obamacare works out in the end. Great. If not, oh well, another 'meh' program that in the end just provides state unemployment labor. Whatever.
Either way, it didn't happen for a love of the common man and his health. It happened because insurance companies were lobbying for it.





I would like to add that "the other" is generally a really poor propaganda based impression.
Every country on earth, it's not as great their media says it is, and it's not as bad as other's media says it is.

Here a cop will shoot a little old lady half a dozen times for picking a fight with a random other person (this just happened locally).
In a crap ton of ex-soviet countries that people love to grimace about 'how bad it is', you can argue with the cops till they let you go. And you don't have to assume they will beat you to a pulp for it.

People's impression of "police state" is what they imagine from movies. A 1984 caricature. But that's not what a police state look like in reality.
It's a place that's generally normal, unimposing, and only time to time when you step on the wrong person's toes, you end up 'going away for a while'.

Here in the U.S., 1 in 18 men is in jail or on parole.
Good luck finding another country that even comes close.
The policing is out of control. Way too much 'getting tough' on irrelevant things that shouldn't even be a bother, let alone be considered crimes.

-scheherazade