Sustainable resource and human rights advocate
Newspapers have two responsibilities...at least.
One, keep watch on government abuses of the citizenry.
Two, keep watch on government abuses of the citizenry.
Here, the newspaper writer appears to be very one-sided in her reporting style. Probably listens to the scanner and calls the Chief for the "scoop" and then, either intentionally or unwittingly, becomes the public cheerleader of police force action instead of investigating, on behalf of citizen rights to be free from any and all police action unless reasonably justified, the facts of this specific, alleged incident, instead of what she did, which was to heap on, like the Police Chief told her, the man's alleged record.
There is a fine line between so-called verbal harassment on the one hand, and freedom of speech on the other ... the freedom to publicly speak one's opinion as loud as one wants to against anyone without infringing the right of the other person to respond equally loudly...provided neither resort to violence or threaten violence against the other, which would be an agreed upon crime.
Looks a little like the girls are picking on the boys here.
A record of harassing? A push? Thats easy to allege against a male when you're a female these days. Isn't it? Too easy, especially when the female is wearing a police uniform, to boot.
I mean, the female officer absolutely "had" to include the word, "push" in her resisting arrest allegation, now. Didn't she?
I am not suggesting she created the circumstances, caused a confrontation, even, in order to prompt or provoke the man into resisting arrest with the alleged "push", rather than talk with the man in order to de-escalate the situation.
Because there is no talk about it, I can only assume that such an approach by the police was not taken nor, probably, even considered.
It raises obvious doubts in the constitutional-rights-loving mind of this Mainer, is all I'm saying. ... and a good reporter would have addressed those obvious doubts and interviewed the accused, or attempted to do so, and included the results of that interview in this report.
Again, pretty one-sided. Too bad.
But, it is somewhat sensational and, even, sexy... for those who prefer that kind of thing instead of real, investigative truth seeking and news reporting.
Thank you for your reply and encouragement. Susan.
We need to be more concerned about taking care of each other, than being concerned about how to get re-elected to public office, in my opinion.
If I am anywhere near accurate about the talk of prison privatization (and I think I am, but I could be wrong) in Maine, then we should all be watching how that idea is presented, whether or not it makes sense, and, if not, what means will the proponents use to achieve their nonsensical prison privatization scheme.
We all know this idea can be costly and, at the same time, very lucrative for developers and those who "help" them in the form of campaign financing, etc...
You can see the same strategy used by the casinos to maintain their gambling cartels here in the State of Maine... follow the money ... see who takes their campaign finance dollars and does all he can to protect their gambling cartel... eh, Senator Garrett Mason of Lisbon and Androscoggin County?
Turning his back on the disabled, elderly, mentally ill, medically needy, the poor Maine voter who, incidentally, represent the majority of voters in ALL political parties in this state by opposing minimum wage increases, healthcare for 70,000 additional needy Mainers, is heartless and politically unsustainable in an increasingly more informed Androscoggin County electorate.
Mason was and will likely always be, until he grows up, selfish self-promoter ... and when he gets hammered at the voting booth this fall, as I predict he will, he will be lucky to get his old sporty promoter job back at the Collisee', which is where he belongs, because he, and those of his ilk, are no friends of the needy.
His friends all have, you can almost bet, private health insurance, property and power ... (i.e. the "one percenters") ... and he has no empathy, according to his short voting record, for the majority who can't afford to give him campaign finance contributions.
I think a stint in the Army would do him a world of good ... give him some "perspective" ... some feeling for the common person...or even one weekend, alone in a Knox Street, unheated, unairconditioned, unlit, 3rd floor apartment in Lewiston.
It'd probably be a good start on his path to maturity, in my view. ... a damn good start.
I think a valid question for Judge Marden is, what'll we do when our infant children spill milk ...? According to your thinking, do we hit'em in the head?
In my view, your ruling does violence to the senses and to the cause of justice in Maine.
It seems to me that your job was to protect the rights of the accused during the trial ... the trial of a person diagnosed with multiple mental illnesses, which totally excuse him ... no matter what your non-medical opinion is... because this case was in the hands of licensed medical doctors where it belonged. Murphy was in the forensic unit, but was there without guards... Not his fault.
But, you blamed him and made him feel ashamed for it. In fact, he even apologized.
He told everyone he was sorry for who and what he is ... a person with severe mental health illnesses.
But, what did you do Instead? You became the head cheerleader at his mob lynching. If this weren't so serious, it'd be a joke. Instead, this is an insult... and it's a lie ... your entire reported statement is, in my view, nothing but legal bull crap and its as plain as the nose on Pinnochio's face.
The facts and the law are clear and no amount of double-speak is going to change them.
Ms. Hill-Spotswood is suing the State of Maine. She says "the attack by Mr. Murphy could easily have been prevented had DHHS taken reasonable security measures to prevent forseeable, grave harm to be visited upon its employees, like Ms. Hill-Spotswood,” Waxman stated, “DHHS’s conduct, in creating a dangerous situation, placing Ms. Hill-Spotswood directly into that dangerous situation, and failing to protect her from the grave danger it created, violates her civil rights and shocks the conscience.”
Ms. Hill-Spotswood lawsuit alleges that, at the time of the attack, there was no security on the floor where Hill-Spotswood worked, which housed forensic patients, and that there was no training for handling violent patients.
Unbelievably, in January of this year, a Kennebec County Superior Court judge disagreed with overwhelming medical evidence that Mr. Murphy’s mental state left him unaccountable for his actions.
He then, incedulously, ruled that, because Mr. Muphy couldn't control his anger, which the Judge found caused him to attack Hill-Spotswood, it was anger over lost privileges — not his medical condition — that caused him to attack Hill-Spotswood and, despite the overwhelming medical evidence, Judge Marden then found the patient guilty of three felony assault charges in January of this year.
Can you believe this?
Here the State cut funding for adequate staffing at Riverview, which created significant health and safety risks to occur at Riverview...according to the Governor's plan.
Reduced funding and capacity at Riverview furthers the Governor's case for privatized prisons in Maine.
It furthers the potentially very lucrative strategy to underfund Riverview, and to increase the likelihood that such understaffing will create a "Pearl Harbor" or "911" emergency incident. Which, once it occurs, can be used to push for an increase in the "body count" at the Maine State Prison ... even if these bodies are simply mental health patients that "must" be imprisoned there because their safety and that of other patients and staff at Riverview can not be assured any longer ... because the Governor intentionally created the circumstances that directly led to Ms. Hill-Spotswood injuries at the hands of an unsupervised patient.
Again, because DHHS (under orders, to be sure, to delay, mismanage, cut, etc... funding for adaquate Riverview staffing) is apparently goose-stepping to the tune of "prison privatization for corporate profits" ... no matter the risk of harm to patients or staff, and at the expense of Maine's tax-funded treasury ... just like their corporate cousins, the other big hospital profiteers, big Maine pharma profiteers with their lucrative overbilling of Mainecare and Medicare (millions and millions of dollars) with no enforcement by the Maine Governor for such fraud by the rich of Maine's tax-based treasury and United States federal funding... and, most importantly, at the expense of everyone's fundamental human and legal rights.
The staffer here clearly had no business working at Riverview in such dangerous conditions. In doing so, she knowingly and willingly put herself and her unborn child at grave risk ... knowlingly! In other words, she" volunteered" to put her baby at risk. ... and her claim is significantly reduced, in my view.
The management at Riverview and DHHS also knowingly put the staff person at risk... AND .. they also put the patient at risk, as well. If the strategy was to intentionally create circumstances to might lead to an incident such as this one, which allowed an unsupervised patient to harm a member of Riverview's staff due to underfunding and, therefore, understaffing, then the State is not only liable for that harm, but it may also be criminally culpable and should be properly and independently investigated.
The mental hospital ... again, THE MENTAL HOSPITAL...failed this patient by intentionally understaffing or improperly staffing the facility that it had the duty to properly staff in order to protect him and others while treating him.
Mr. Murphy should not be headed to prison when it is clear that, as the Judge said himself, his mental condition contributed to his lack of control. We simply do not put such patients in prison ... ever... and especially when, as the Judge also stated, part of the reason he is both finding Mr. Murphy "guilty" and sending him to prison is BECAUSE the Riverview facility is unable to safely keep him there.
This is, itself, insane! If I'm correct, Marden's insane, too.
Forensic units routinely house people in Maine who have killed other people.
No. This is wrong. No appeal Judge will agree with Marden's decision and his apparent reasons for rendering it. No way.
I hate false flag operations and schemes for profit...hate'em. You should too.
Stay alert. Stop'em when they rear their ugly heads...
Riverview lost accreditation because hired correctional officers (prison and jail guards no less) used hand cuffs and tazers on patients recently. They lost their accreditation under Governor Paul Lepage's leadership, because they deserved to lose it ... they were caught.
But, don't be fooled. Be alert.
Lepage wanted to be caught. He wanted Riverview to lose it's accreditation. He wanted Riverview to lose even more funding, and not just Maine state funding, but the 20 million dollars in federal funding it previously relied upon. Because, again, it seems ever more clear that, no matter what happens to the likes of Ms. Hill-Spotswood or her unborn baby, or how long the likes of one mental patient goes to prison at the hands of a Judge named "Marden" (of all names), Mr "re-elect me for Governor" Paul Lepage is apparently more concerned with helping certain, would be, "private prison profiteers" than to prevent such health and safety risks, and human and legal rights violations.
Riverview, if properly funded, is a fine healthcare facility that can and will provide for the safety and health needs of patients there.
Prisons are a seperate issue. Private prisons are, in my view, heartless and exist for profit only, and they lurk about hoping to seduce us and our representatives, senators and leaders to drop their guard, to sell out, or to conspire with them so that they can unnecessarily spring into existence to bilk our public treasury.