Charges dropped against woman who drank own urine when authorities left her in a temporary holding cell over the weekend
Johnathon Williams says: "The story that Boing Boing previously covered about the Arkansas woman who was left in a holding cell for four days without food or water when a bailiff forgot about her now has a somewhat happy ending. The prosecutor has dropped the charges against her."
Adrianna Torres-Flores, 38, will not face prosecution for unauthorized copying or sale of recordings because prosecutors have verified her alibi, 4th Judicial District deputy prosecutor Mark Booher said Monday.Oddly enough, the bailiff responsible for her ordeal has returned to duty. LinkTorres-Flores said that she agreed to watch a booth for someone else for about 20 minutes on Dec. 1 when police raided Pleasant Street Flea Market in Springdale, Booher said. Springdale police arrested five adults and four juveniles, and seized thousands of pirated compact discs and digital video discs.
the latest
latest episodes
But is she bringing up a civil suit? I'm no fan of excessive litigation, but surely if the courts are there for anything, they're there for this sort of thing.
I see Florida is getting some competition from Arkansas.
I know you guys have had enough off-topic static for one day, but to me that title implies: It is a crime to drink your own urine! Good to know...
It doesn't say anything about whether she will still be deported, though, and this Boing Boing article says nothing about her immigration status which is a really important part of this story. Another case where migrants are suffering in detention.
But is she bringing up a civil suit?
She might not because of her immigration status.
Yeah, Mr. Carroll, I agree, but I think that may be something of the point.
"somewhat happy ending"?! "Oddly enough"?!
"forgot about her"?!
What the hell, seriously? This is my worst nightmare, here and there, to end up in a cell for something I didn't do. Sadly, this will all be forgotten in a week.
Oh well. What can you do, right?
...The fact that the bailiff was returned to duty shouldn't surprise anyone at all. This is Arkansas, where the bailiff's uncle *and* father was probably the judge in this case.
We need a new word for a phobia to describe fear of being left trapped, when people in control go home for the weekend. Think of the elevator guy, and now this.
I can't piece anything together from the latin translator but I was going for " Panopticon blind-spot phobia"
This story won't have a "happy ending" until the woman wins a MASSIVE lawsuit and the baliff responsible is fired and hounded out of town on a rail.
What has to happen is this: the country/city prosecutor must suspect someone guilty enough to charge with a crime. The guard or building administrator, someone needs to be guilty of criminal neglect. That's not a crime that needs to be enforced in civil court, but in criminal court. But if this does not happen the ACLU should be called.
@jeff #12: i think it's a criminal matter if you can prove that the bailiff *intended* to leave the woman in the cell either through malice of forethought or, say, a drug/alcohol binge. if he really, honestly forgot, it's a civil matter. but, INAL, so i could be wrong.
ultimately, however, if she wasn't here ILLEGALLY she wouldn't have had to drink her own pee.
I'll be selling "Real Pirates Drink Their Own Urine" t-shirts if anybody wants one.
if she wasn't here ILLEGALLY she wouldn't have had to drink her own pee.
That's true. Also, if she hadn't been locked in an isolation cell for days she wouldn't have had to drink her own pee. Or if the cell had had a drinking fountain in it. Come to think of it, there's a lot of things which, had they been different, would've resulted in zero pee drinking.
But I sense that's not what you're getting at...rather you're suggesting that either:
A) If you break any law, it's reasonable that you would be treated worse than an animal
or
B) It's reasonable that immigrants without documentation would be treated worse than animals.
"A) If you break any law, it's reasonable that you would be treated worse than an animal"
no, here's what i'm saying:
i can't help but be reminded of situations where a s.w.a.t. team takes a sniper shot at a bad guy but inadvertently hits an innocent. guess what? the bad guy gets charged with murder. why? because if he weren't doing his bad things, the situation would not have existed in the first place. his (or hers) actions started a chain of events that put innocent lives at risk.
all i'm saying is, she wasn't even supposed to be here.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080521/corrections_report_080521/20080521?hub=TopStories
This is a recent (today) report out of Canada where Prison Guards basically let a man die. Were getting up there in the stupidity chart too!
I don't know if this is in the criminal code in the States, but it is in Canada:
""omitting to do anything that it is his (or her) duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."
- The question is, how serious is this offense to be charged. She was left for 4 days without ANYTHING. In Canada, for something like this, you don't have to be able to show intent, if there is something that the bailiff *forgot* to do. IE - if it is his job to secure the building after everyone has left, and he fails to check the cells, he's failed to secure the building. This 'may' be the case, though I only used this scenario as a definition.
Shmengie,
Next time you run a red light, have I got a beverage for you.
antinous: as long as it's my own pee, and not yours, it won;t kill me. what will kill me, is stupid people who cannot form an intelligent rebuttal, so they start name-calling. or, in your case, pee-throwing.
thanks for playing!
Shmengie,
I am a lawyer, and crimes don't have to be intentional; this appears to be a potential case of criminal negligence.
because if he weren't doing his bad things, the situation would not have existed in the first place. his (or hers) actions started a chain of events that put innocent lives at risk.
Difference in the SWAT situation and this one; the SWAT officer discharges their weapon accordingly with the situation to stop the bad guy, and accidentally hits a civilian because it's a situation where you CAN'T ensure that you don't hit the civvie.
Here, if he'd CLEARED the building as he was supposed to do, the civilian would have been treated appropriately.
I'm a high-level cadet in my JROTC corps. This means I have an 'armory' to look after; it's full of pellet rifles which barely have enough kick to harm a fly. It's a decent sized room, and sometimes there's another person in it. If that person should, say, be cleaning rifles and pass out, or for some reason not be able to exit the room, and I locked them in there for the duration of a break / weekend / whatever, I'd be guilty of criminal neglect. The door does not open from the inside when the heavy gate is locked. Whether I meant to do it or not, I'd be an awful person. Whether that person was supposed to be in there or not (one time someone snuck in), I'd be an awful person. Because my responsibility is to secure the room.
madmolecule and tenn: like i said, i'm not a lawyer. BUT...thank you for presenting intelligent points of view. yeah, i can see where there'd be negligence. and, i'm not saying that the poor woman deserved to be shut in for four days and forced to drink her own pee. hell, this could have happened to anyone, illegal or not.
And thank you for listening, good sir. I'm not a lawyer either, I don't much like the taste of blood. (Just kidding, MadMolecule.)