US Government kills another immigrant child

by Original Quill Tue Dec 25, 2018 7:25 pm

First topic message reminder :

Last time it was a 7-year old girl who died in the care of the US Border Patrol (management has removed story). This time, it is an 8-year old Guatemalan boy., with equally grim details.

Border Patrol officials were advised of the boy's illness, but dismissed his symptoms as a common cold. No special care, nor notice was given to him. Through the night his symptoms worsened, but still no help. In the morning he was declared dead.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:11 pm

Didge wrote:Is that why you have avoided all my points like the plague?

Pretty much, yes. If you cannot construct a sentence, you cannot express a thought. If you cannot express a thought, you cannot build an argument. If you cannot build an argument, you cannot conduct an exchange of ideas.

If you cannot conduct an exchange of ideas, I'm not interested.

by Guest Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Is that why you have avoided all my points like the plague?

Pretty much, yes. If you cannot construct a sentence, you cannot express a thought. If you cannot express a thought, you cannot build an argument. If you cannot build an argument, you cannot conduct an exchange of ideas.

If you cannot conduct an exchange of ideas, I'm not interested.

lol, so now your not interested, when basically stumped

Why bother with all the pretence babble, as you have since?

You had no idea in the first place and when got taken to task. Decided, now and only now you are not interested.

Happy with that. You keep using that Neville chamberlain agreed upon submission, through a blanket cheque.

All can see that you again bow out

by Raggamuffin Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:20 pm

Quill doesn't give a toss about these children. After all, he thinks of them as fingernail clippings.

In any case, you're just as dead when it's all said and done. The body, after life has passed out of it, is like fingernail clippings. Should be discarded and you move on.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:04 pm

I care more about preventing the next child death. Obviously, this administration will do nothing to prevent that.

This is one of a dozen or so controversies that this president has provoked. That is the best case for impeaching him. He, or his policies, are not going to stop killing children unless he is removed.

This is not a case of one touching a hot plate and learning it burns. Trump has no sensitivities that tell him to pull back. There's no lesson to be learned, except who he is. Removal of him is not for any consequential reasons...it's for, well, removing him so he won't do it again.

by Guest Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:I care more about preventing the next child death. Obviously, this administration will do nothing to prevent that.

This is one of a dozen or so controversies that this president has provoked. That is the best case for impeaching him. He, or his policies, are not going to stop killing children unless he is removed.

This is not a case of one touching a hot plate and learning it burns. Trump has no sensitivities that tell him to pull back. There's no lesson to be learned, except who he is. Removal of him is not for any consequential reasons...it's for, well, removing him so he won't do it again

jACKANORY

If your concern was the children and the migrants. You would understand what peril and the danger. The migrant parents place themselves and their children in.

This has nothing to do with the Presidency. It has everything to do with your desperation and paranoia. In the vain hope, this could bring down a Presidency

This has all the hall marks, of someone, like yourself. Who is an embarressment on such issues.

Its why rightly. There is no mass outrage

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:20 pm

Tbf, I am surprised at quill, ~~Katy Price~~ Katie Hopkins like, using the unfortunate death of this child to further a political agenda. ~~Katy Price~~ Katie Hopkins has an excuse, shes a dumb one, but Quill?????

by Raggamuffin Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:31 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Tbf, I am surprised at quill, Katy Price like, using the unfortunate death of this child to further a political agenda. Katy Price has an excuse, shes a dumb one, but Quill?????

Katy Price? What has she said?

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:46 pm

Ooops.....brain slip...corrected....duh Embarassed

by Original Quill Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:22 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Tbf, I am surprised at quill, ~~Katy Price~~ Katie Hopkins like, using the unfortunate death of this child to further a political agenda. ~~Katy Price~~ Katie Hopkins has an excuse, shes a dumb one, but Quill?????

On the other hand, if you don't acknowledge the involvement of politics in this death, are you not doing a disservice to these children? After all, politics killed them...it's like promising to the children that you'll mend the problem, and instead sticking your head into the sand.

by nicko Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:45 pm

The Father killed that child by refusing further treatment and then taking the child away ! He was already ill when he was dragged 2 thousand miles from his home, by a "Father" who was looking after his own interests !You cannot blame Trump, that's just showing your hatred for the man !

by Original Quill Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:55 pm

nicko wrote:The Father killed that child by refusing further treatment and then taking the child away ! He was already ill when he was dragged 2 thousand miles from his home, by a "Father" who was looking after his own interests !You cannot blame Trump, that's just showing your hatred for the man !

The father was under arrest and in custody of the Border Patrol when the child died. So that makes the Border Patrol responsible, and I agree. The father was merely following orders from his custodial overseers.

Why was the Border Patrol involved? That's the part that makes this a political act. Tor Border Patrol was acting on political directives from above. You can't avoid politics.

by HoratioTarr Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:The Father killed that child by refusing further treatment and then taking the child away ! He was already ill when he was dragged 2 thousand miles from his home, by a "Father" who was looking after his own interests !You cannot blame Trump, that's just showing your hatred for the man !

The father was under arrest and in custody of the Border Patrol when the child died. So that makes the Border Patrol responsible, and I agree. The father was merely following orders from his custodial overseers.

Why was the Border Patrol involved? That's the part that makes this a political act. Tor Border Patrol was acting on political directives from above. You can't avoid politics.

The child could have been undernourished, or have underlying health issues that contributed to the death. This isn't actually the responsibility of anyone, just bad luck.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:Tbf, I am surprised at quill, ~~Katy Price~~ Katie Hopkins like, using the unfortunate death of this child to further a political agenda. ~~Katy Price~~ Katie Hopkins has an excuse, shes a dumb one, but Quill?????

On the other hand, if you don't acknowledge the involvement of politics in this death, are you not doing a disservice to these children? After all, politics killed them...it's like promising to the children that you'll mend the problem, and instead sticking your head into the sand.

They died of natural causes. Of course children don't normally die of flu, but some do, particularly if there are complications. Why do you think the flu jab is touted so much? Because some people die if they get flu.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/deaths-from-flu-2633829

by Original Quill Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

On the other hand, if you don't acknowledge the involvement of politics in this death, are you not doing a disservice to these children? After all, politics killed them...it's like promising to the children that you'll mend the problem, and instead sticking your head into the sand.

They died of natural causes. Of course children don't normally die of flu, but some do, particularly if there are complications. Why do you think the flu jab is touted so much? Because some people die if they get flu.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/deaths-from-flu-2633829

Irreversible natural causes? Because if the condition was reversible, then someone is responsible for allowing the child to die. People have the flu all the time, and it's rarely lethal. Even your own chart shows only 85 deaths in all of the US (325.7-million) over the 2015-16 year. It's pretty rare...usually associated with an extraneous sort of infection.

Your probabilities of an inevitable death in this case are even less because the boy actually made it to the hospital. The Border Patrol had to literally yank him out of proper health care, in order to get into the position where he died. Since the boy was in custody, his care and commitment was totally in the Border Patrol's hands.

Nope, the boy was killed either intentionally, or through gross negligence.

by HoratioTarr Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They died of natural causes. Of course children don't normally die of flu, but some do, particularly if there are complications. Why do you think the flu jab is touted so much? Because some people die if they get flu.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/deaths-from-flu-2633829

Irreversible natural causes? Because if the condition was reversible, then someone is responsible for allowing the child to die. People have the flu all the time, and it's rarely lethal. Even your own chart shows only 85 deaths in all of the US (325.7-million) over the 2015-16 year. It's pretty rare...usually associated with an extraneous sort of infection.

Your probabilities of an inevitable death in this case are even less because the boy actually made it to the hospital. The Border Patrol had to literally yank him out of proper health care, in order to get into the position where he died. Since the boy was in custody, his care and commitment was totally in the Border Patrol's hands.

Nope, the boy was killed either intentionally, or through gross negligence.

When a flu epidemic strikes it's often the young who die. They have no immunity so it takes them off. That's why kids always die from it first.

From 2010 to 2016, the flu-related death rate was between 12,000 and 56,000 That's just US figures.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/deaths-from-flu-2633829

by HoratioTarr Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:41 pm

Each year, around 50 percent of all children under 5 years old who die from the flu were previously healthy, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

by HoratioTarr Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They died of natural causes. Of course children don't normally die of flu, but some do, particularly if there are complications. Why do you think the flu jab is touted so much? Because some people die if they get flu.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/deaths-from-flu-2633829

Irreversible natural causes? Because if the condition was reversible, then someone is responsible for allowing the child to die. People have the flu all the time, and it's rarely lethal. Even your own chart shows only 85 deaths in all of the US (325.7-million) over the 2015-16 year. It's pretty rare...usually associated with an extraneous sort of infection.

Your probabilities of an inevitable death in this case are even less because the boy actually made it to the hospital. The Border Patrol had to literally yank him out of proper health care, in order to get into the position where he died. Since the boy was in custody, his care and commitment was totally in the Border Patrol's hands.

Nope, the boy was killed either intentionally, or through gross negligence.

You could be right...but again, so could the fact that the kid died because of flu. Children's immune systems overreact to the virus more than an adults, and this causes massive inflammation that affects the lungs. This causes lung damage. And I'm sure the report said the kid had breathing difficulties, and that might be why.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:48 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Irreversible natural causes? Because if the condition was reversible, then someone is responsible for allowing the child to die. People have the flu all the time, and it's rarely lethal. Even your own chart shows only 85 deaths in all of the US (325.7-million) over the 2015-16 year. It's pretty rare...usually associated with an extraneous sort of infection.

Your probabilities of an inevitable death in this case are even less because the boy actually made it to the hospital. The Border Patrol had to literally yank him out of proper health care, in order to get into the position where he died. Since the boy was in custody, his care and commitment was totally in the Border Patrol's hands.

Nope, the boy was killed either intentionally, or through gross negligence.

When a flu epidemic strikes it's often the young who die. They have no immunity so it takes them off. That's why kids always die from it first.

From 2010 to 2016, the flu-related death rate was between 12,000 and 56,000 That's just US figures.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/deaths-from-flu-2633829

Yes, the deaths are mostly among the very young and the elderly.

Your figures for the 7-year period are relatively humble...to put it into perspective, calculate them in percentages. There are 325.7-million people in the US.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:54 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Irreversible natural causes? Because if the condition was reversible, then someone is responsible for allowing the child to die. People have the flu all the time, and it's rarely lethal. Even your own chart shows only 85 deaths in all of the US (325.7-million) over the 2015-16 year. It's pretty rare...usually associated with an extraneous sort of infection.

Your probabilities of an inevitable death in this case are even less because the boy actually made it to the hospital. The Border Patrol had to literally yank him out of proper health care, in order to get into the position where he died. Since the boy was in custody, his care and commitment was totally in the Border Patrol's hands.

Nope, the boy was killed either intentionally, or through gross negligence.

You could be right...but again, so could the fact that the kid died because of flu. Children's immune systems overreact to the virus more than an adults, and this causes massive inflammation that affects the lungs. This causes lung damage. And I'm sure the report said the kid had breathing difficulties, and that might be why.

It's quite likely the child died from the flu. The real issue is that he received less than proper care while in the hands of authorities.

The fact that he made it into the hands of the Border Patrol should have meant that he had a better chance of living, not worse. Instead, they sent him back out into harm's way without caring for him. They literally prevented him from getting good and proper care.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They died of natural causes. Of course children don't normally die of flu, but some do, particularly if there are complications. Why do you think the flu jab is touted so much? Because some people die if they get flu.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/deaths-from-flu-2633829

Irreversible natural causes? Because if the condition was reversible, then someone is responsible for allowing the child to die. People have the flu all the time, and it's rarely lethal. Even your own chart shows only 85 deaths in all of the US (325.7-million) over the 2015-16 year. It's pretty rare...usually associated with an extraneous sort of infection.

Your probabilities of an inevitable death in this case are even less because the boy actually made it to the hospital. The Border Patrol had to literally yank him out of proper health care, in order to get into the position where he died. Since the boy was in custody, his care and commitment was totally in the Border Patrol's hands.

Nope, the boy was killed either intentionally, or through gross negligence.

A virus is not curable by outside means Quill - don't you know that?

I'll just draw your attention to this bit:

Reports have shown that about half of the children who die from the flu each year have no known risk factors for flu complications.

They had no underlying conditions but they died anyway. Children do die of flu - why can't you accept that? It was 85 children who died of flu that year, that doesn't include adults. Last year, it was 179 children. Do you think all of those children were killed or died through gross negligence? As I said, there is no cure for a virus.

There is no evidence at all that the border patrol "yanked" him out of hospital. The hospital released him - why don't you ask them why? Your view that the border patrol are responsible for everything that happened to him naturally is mistaken.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:13 pm

Yes, but your article also says:

Children who have asthma, diabetes, or other chronic medical conditions are more susceptible to acute respiratory difficulties resulting from a flu infection.

We don't know enough about this boy's condition to say. Unfortunately, the little girl's cadaver was sent home.

But we needn't delve too much into the nuances of influenza, to figure out that a boy with a 103° should not be released from a hospital. He was in the custody of the Border Patrol and they are responsible for what happened to him. Absent a cause, they have some explaining to do.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:Yes, but your article also says:

Children who have asthma, diabetes, or other chronic medical conditions are more susceptible to acute respiratory difficulties resulting from a flu infection.

We don't know enough about this boy's condition to say. Unfortunately, the little girl's cadaver was sent home.

But we needn't delve too much into the nuances of influenza, to figure out that a boy with a 103° should not be released from a hospital. He was in the custody of the Border Patrol and they are responsible for what happened to him. Absent a cause, they have some explaining to do.

He was under the care of the hospital. Have the hospital managers said that they were forced to release him? If not, then you're just inventing things.

by HoratioTarr Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

You could be right...but again, so could the fact that the kid died because of flu. Children's immune systems overreact to the virus more than an adults, and this causes massive inflammation that affects the lungs. This causes lung damage. And I'm sure the report said the kid had breathing difficulties, and that might be why.

It's quite likely the child died from the flu. The real issue is that he received less than proper care while in the hands of authorities.

The fact that he made it into the hands of the Border Patrol should have meant that he had a better chance of living, not worse. Instead, they sent him back out into harm's way without caring for him. They literally prevented him from getting good and proper care.

They gave him back to his father. Which is the normal and correct thing to do. The hospital sent him home because they'd done all they could....103 temp is not life threatening. A fever of 38.9°C (102°F) or higher for 3 to 4 days is common with the flu. So, what the hospital did is probably run of the mill. People get sent home with far worse symptoms than a 103 temp.

Are they going to do an autopsy? It'll be interesting to see if the poor kid had other things going on.

It's very sad. No child should die of anything, but they do.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:46 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's quite likely the child died from the flu. The real issue is that he received less than proper care while in the hands of authorities.

The fact that he made it into the hands of the Border Patrol should have meant that he had a better chance of living, not worse. Instead, they sent him back out into harm's way without caring for him. They literally prevented him from getting good and proper care.

They gave him back to his father. Which is the normal and correct thing to do. The hospital sent him home because they'd done all they could....103 temp is not life threatening. A fever of 38.9°C (102°F) or higher for 3 to 4 days is common with the flu. So, what the hospital did is probably run of the mill. People get sent home with far worse symptoms than a 103 temp.

The father was in custody, so it doesn't matter. If the boy was given over to his father's custody, and the father was in the Border Patrol's custody, the boy was in the Border Patrol's custody.

My father was a physician...taught medicine at Harvard University and Berkeley School of Public Health. And my daughter is a physician. I was raised around hospitals. A patient with a 103° is put in the Infectious Disease Unit, not sent along his way. The agent responsible should be prosecuted for dereliction of duty.

HT wrote:Are they going to do an autopsy? It'll be interesting to see if the poor kid had other things going on.

Me too. That's why I was surprised the body of the previous child (the girl) was shipped home to Guatemala post haste. I suspect they wanted to get her out of US jurisdiction before anyone got curious.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:13 pm

Original Quill wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

They gave him back to his father. Which is the normal and correct thing to do. The hospital sent him home because they'd done all they could....103 temp is not life threatening. A fever of 38.9°C (102°F) or higher for 3 to 4 days is common with the flu. So, what the hospital did is probably run of the mill. People get sent home with far worse symptoms than a 103 temp.

The father was in custody, so it doesn't matter. If the boy was given over to his father's custody, and the father was in the Border Patrol's custody, the boy was in the Border Patrol's custody.

My father was a physician...taught medicine at Harvard University and Berkeley School of Public Health. And my daughter is a physician. I was raised around hospitals. A patient with a 103° is put in the Infectious Disease Unit, not sent along his way. The agent responsible should be prosecuted for dereliction of duty.

HT wrote:Are they going to do an autopsy? It'll be interesting to see if the poor kid had other things going on.

Me too. That's why I was surprised the body of the previous child (the girl) was shipped home to Guatemala post haste. I suspect they wanted to get her out of US jurisdiction before anyone got curious.

It wasn't up to the agent how the hospital treated the boy, it was up to the hospital. The agent is not responsible for treatment. He noticed the boy was ill and took him to hospital. The boy was diagnosed at the hospital and released. The agent (or a different one) had him taken back to hospital later. They took great care of him. They didn't just dismiss it as a cold. You're being ridiculous.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:45 pm

Come on raggs... don't let the truth get in the way of the lies/spin/propaganda...

Quill and the rest of the "democrats" don't really care about a child dying... all they care about is making a big song and dance for political gain...

by HoratioTarr Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

They gave him back to his father. Which is the normal and correct thing to do. The hospital sent him home because they'd done all they could....103 temp is not life threatening. A fever of 38.9°C (102°F) or higher for 3 to 4 days is common with the flu. So, what the hospital did is probably run of the mill. People get sent home with far worse symptoms than a 103 temp.

The father was in custody, so it doesn't matter. If the boy was given over to his father's custody, and the father was in the Border Patrol's custody, the boy was in the Border Patrol's custody.

My father was a physician...taught medicine at Harvard University and Berkeley School of Public Health. And my daughter is a physician. I was raised around hospitals. A patient with a 103° is put in the Infectious Disease Unit, not sent along his way. The agent responsible should be prosecuted for dereliction of duty.

HT wrote:Are they going to do an autopsy? It'll be interesting to see if the poor kid had other things going on.

Me too. That's why I was surprised the body of the previous child (the girl) was shipped home to Guatemala post haste. I suspect they wanted to get her out of US jurisdiction before anyone got curious.

Then the hospital is to blame. Why are you blaming the agents with deliberating killing a child?

by Original Quill Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:23 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:Then the hospital is to blame. Why are you blaming the agents with deliberating killing a child?

Blaming the hospital is like blaming the janitor. Both are just a service.

I blame the Border Patrol because they are in charge. Not only do they have the sick boy in their custody, but they have the father in their custody. The hospital is an agent that the Border Patrol called upon to treat a person in their custody. As the agent the hospital, too, is subject to the dictates of their customer, the Border Patrol.

However you cut it--whether you look to the father, or look to the hospital--both were subject to the command and authority of the Border Patrol. You're going to have to face it...the Border Patrol was calling all the shots, hence they are responsible.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:23 am

Don't talk nonsense quill...

The medics were in charge of the medical care... And could have kept the kid under medical supervision if they had chosen to...

Do I have to remind you about the case of the cop trying to take an unauthorised blood sample from a patient, and was refused by the medics, but he then tried to arrest the doctor in handcuffs and put her in the back of his police car...?

And I seem to remember you arguing then that the medics were in charge...!

Funny how you change your arguments to suit your political agenda...

Which proves my point in my earlier post... you don't really give a fuck about the dead kid... you just see it as a political opportunity for scoring points...!

And that is shameful of you!!!

by Original Quill Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:26 am

Tommy wrote:The medics were in charge of the medical care... And could have kept the kid under medical supervision if they had chosen to...

No, in any situation the police have control of the scene. This would be particularly true when the controlee is a prisoner, and he or she is already in custody.

Tommy wrote:Do I have to remind you about the case of the cop trying to take an unauthorised blood sample from a patient, and was refused by the medics, but he then tried to arrest the doctor in handcuffs and put her in the back of his police car...?

And I seem to remember you arguing then that the medics were in charge...!

And what happened? Only afterwards did the equities dictate that the nurse was correct. The cop was wrong on the equities, but no one questions that he is in charge on the scene. The cop won the situation on the scene, but lost his job by making the wrong call.

You've got to figure out your apples and oranges, tommy. The rule is, law and order on the scene, the rights can be sorted out in a court of law later.

So reading this situation, the Border Patrol were the primary authority, and the medical staff and prisoners were subordinate. That has to be the case otherwise there will be no authority on the scene. It would be chaos.

But...the caveat is, the cop has to be right in his decisions, otherwise he will be held responsible. In this case, as in the University of Utah hospital case, the police official didn't sort out his priorities correctly and he must pay. I believe he lost his job.

These guys spend a couple of years in the police academy. What do you think they learn? You've got a crucial job, don't fook up.

In both cases, they fooked up.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:30 am

No... the medics have control in the medical arena...

That is the law!

Thought you would have known that quill... poor show to try to argue otherwise...

by Original Quill Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:39 am

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the medics have control in the medical arena...

That is the law!

Not in this country, mate. We depend on law enforcement for order, but we depend on courts to sort things out according to law.

Occasionally, we get this dilemma where the cops get it wrong. In your University of Utah case, the nurse was correct on the law, but the cop still prevailed on the scene. He got his ass kicked afterwards.

In court, we get this all the time: cops get it wrong, prevail on the scene, then courts bust their ass because they didn't do it right. What do you think declaring something unconstitutional is, FFS?

The Chief then sometimes fires their booty, if they should have known.

by 'Wolfie Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:22 am

Tommy's totally full of shit -- as per usual...

Here in Oz, it's the same as the US -- where the police/border control/etc. have control of the scene, and the medics follow their directions..

Wouldn't surprise me if it's not actually the same with Britain's border controls nowadays, either (especially after they upgraded their own terrorism laws after '9/11'..); and good ol' Tommy is confusing normal "civvy street" behaviour with border protection laws..

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:31 am

In this case... the medics had control over whether to keep the kid in their care for further observation/investigation/tests etc to establish diagnosis and to then administer any treatments etc... for as long as they deemed necessary... And there would be nothing any border/immigration official could do otherwise, even if they wanted to...!

But you don't really care about the dead kid... you just want to use it as a means of trying to score some political points... And that makes you a sad sack of shit...!

Integrity honesty and decency are fundamental principles that should be beyond corruption from partisan political affiliations and opportunism using tragedies for political point scoring!

by Raggamuffin Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:14 am

The point is that Quill has absolutely no proof that the border people ordered the hospital to release the child. He's invented that. Unless he can come up with proof, it's just nonsense.

His assertion defies common sense. If the border patrol wanted the child to die, or they didn't care what happened, he would hardly have been taken to hospital at all, let alone twice.

by nicko Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:19 am

IT's no good Tommy, the hate for Trump is all consuming, it overrides all, and any sensible discussion about him. I tried several times to post the truth about this little boy but some just can't except it. And as for Wolfie's little intervention I can only say, rubbish !

by Original Quill Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:11 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:In this case... the medics had control over whether to keep the kid in their care for further observation/investigation/tests etc to establish diagnosis and to then administer any treatments etc... for as long as they deemed necessary... And there would be nothing any border/immigration official could do otherwise, even if they wanted to...!

There are two different kinds of authority. A military officer has command authority, where emphasis is on orders and obedience. A physician or engineer, etc., has expertise authority, where emphasis is on knowledge and skill. The two are different: you don't use expertise authority to create order; and you don't call on a police officer to perform open heart surgery.

So, you don't use surgeons and nurses to detain/release prisoners; and you don't use guards to cure a sick person. The person with command authority is always in charge, but he is informed by the person with expertise authority. Hopefully, they work together. But no one with command authority should remove a person in need of healthcare (with a 103° temperature) from any kind of care.

To do that reveals that the Border Patrol had nothing but disdain for the humane treatment of another human being. In a democracy, the voters should view such people as unfit for office, just as the Utah police officer was removed from his job. That's exactly what happened in November...voters have removed this trash from office.

Tommy wrote:But you don't really care about the dead kid... you just want to use it as a means of trying to score some political points... And that makes you a sad sack of shit...!

Um...I'm describing taking steps to do something about a wrong. You are taking steps to ignore callous treatment of a dying child. I certainly hope you are not permitted to have children.

Tommy wrote:Integrity honesty and decency are fundamental principles that should be beyond corruption from partisan political affiliations and opportunism using tragedies for political point scoring!

This is what I'm in favor of ↓

US Government kills another immigrant child - Page 3 Sick_child_in_hospital

Here, ultimately, is what your in favor of ↓

US Government kills another immigrant child - Page 3 MyLai

Let the record speak for itself.

by Guest Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:20 pm

Thor wrote:So yet again Quill uses the death of a child to score political points

The child died of flu.

Now, I know for a fact, that not only does Quill not understand a single thing about medical conditions. But again he is using the death of this child, to attempt to bring down Trump. I mean that is his intent, judged by the lunancy of his replies.

So in the hopsital, the child was diagnosed with a cold. In all likely hood the same would have been diagnosed in Guatemala. If of course they had access to health care. If not, then sadly the boy would again still have died. There is a high 10% death rate with influenza in Guatemala.

Which no doubt sadly effects more children and elderly. Placing them at further risk of complications. The chances are also as high. That on the first examination. No medical tests were done for flu. Which would be the case with many US citizens. Where though US children, would have a far higher survival rate. This boy, based on the number of deaths with influnenza. Means parents are yet again placing unecessarily placing children at risk. With the complications of medical conditions like Flu. So even if diagnosed with a cold. Medical staff would advise to seek further medical assistance. If the systmptoms did not improve or got worse. This would have been the same with also US citizens. The only difference being that many of these migrants will be in many cases suffering from Malnutrition. So unless the US is willining to spend hundreds of Millions building more hospitals and paying for more doctors. In these areas. Then based again on the massive influx of migrants. Then of course sadly the risk will remain high. That some will sadly die, from medical conditions. As there is not enough facilities or trained people to cope. Where many are already at higher risk, based on their weaker immune systems, based on a poor diet, due to poverty.

There is very little that could have been done for this boy. If he had not have been taken into custody, he would have sadly died from the Flu. The view to automatically cast blame. When the US border Patrols are inundated with migrants. Where even more so they are not going to clearly be in as good health as American citizens. Means also this places an unworkable burden on the Hospital facilities. To cope with such a high number of immigrants.

I refer back to my facts, which Quill avoided like the plague

by Raggamuffin Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:49 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:In this case... the medics had control over whether to keep the kid in their care for further observation/investigation/tests etc to establish diagnosis and to then administer any treatments etc... for as long as they deemed necessary... And there would be nothing any border/immigration official could do otherwise, even if they wanted to...!

There are two different kinds of authority. A military officer has command authority, where emphasis is on orders and obedience. A physician or engineer, etc., has expertise authority, where emphasis is on knowledge and skill. The two are different: you don't use expertise authority to create order; and you don't call on a police officer to perform open heart surgery.

So, you don't use surgeons and nurses to detain/release prisoners; and you don't use guards to cure a sick person. The person with command authority is always in charge, but he is informed by the person with expertise authority. Hopefully, they work together. But no one with command authority should remove a person in need of healthcare (with a 103° temperature) from any kind of care.

To do that reveals that the Border Patrol had nothing but disdain for the humane treatment of another human being. In a democracy, the voters should view such people as unfit for office, just as the Utah police officer was removed from his job. That's exactly what happened in November...voters have removed this trash from office.

Tommy wrote:But you don't really care about the dead kid... you just want to use it as a means of trying to score some political points... And that makes you a sad sack of shit...!

Um...I'm describing taking steps to do something about a wrong. You are taking steps to ignore callous treatment of a dying child. I certainly hope you are not permitted to have children.

Tommy wrote:Integrity honesty and decency are fundamental principles that should be beyond corruption from partisan political affiliations and opportunism using tragedies for political point scoring!

This is what I'm in favor of ↓

Here, ultimately, is what your in favor of ↓

Let the record speak for itself.

What did you expect the agent to do? Insist that the hospital was wrong and the child needed to stay there? If he was told that the child had a cold he's not going to argue with them is he? The agent was not in a position to decide if the child was fit enough to stay or leave, and you have no proof that the hospital was told to release him.

Oh, and you're out of order telling someone you hope they're not permitted to have kids. It's not the first time you've said it either.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

There are two different kinds of authority. A military officer has command authority, where emphasis is on orders and obedience. A physician or engineer, etc., has expertise authority, where emphasis is on knowledge and skill. The two are different: you don't use expertise authority to create order; and you don't call on a police officer to perform open heart surgery.

So, you don't use surgeons and nurses to detain/release prisoners; and you don't use guards to cure a sick person. The person with command authority is always in charge, but he is informed by the person with expertise authority. Hopefully, they work together. But no one with command authority should remove a person in need of healthcare (with a 103° temperature) from any kind of care.

To do that reveals that the Border Patrol had nothing but disdain for the humane treatment of another human being. In a democracy, the voters should view such people as unfit for office, just as the Utah police officer was removed from his job. That's exactly what happened in November...voters have removed this trash from office.

Um...I'm describing taking steps to do something about a wrong. You are taking steps to ignore callous treatment of a dying child. I certainly hope you are not permitted to have children.

This is what I'm in favor of ↓

Here, ultimately, is what you're in favor of ↓

Let the record speak for itself.

What did you expect the agent to do? Insist that the hospital was wrong and the child needed to stay there? If he was told that the child had a cold he's not going to argue with them is he? The agent was not in a position to decide if the child was fit enough to stay or leave, and you have no proof that the hospital was told to release him.

A temperature of 103° is extreme enough to demand diagnosis and care. The agent is in charge, and he should demand answers just like anyone in charge. His failure to get answers was a dereliction of duty. He will probably have to answer to Internal Affairs charges.

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh, and you're out of order telling someone you hope they're not permitted to have kids. It's not the first time you've said it either.

[/quote]

I think anyone who treats a child so callously, should never have one. It displays a lack of parental responsibility. It's the same thing I would say about a person who failed to 'child-proof' his/her home. They shouldn't have children in.

Is having children some sort of reward for you? I believe it's a responsibility.

by nicko Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:04 pm

Your off your nut and wont admit your wrong, I expected more from you Quill !

by Raggamuffin Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:

I think anyone who treats a child so callously, should never have one. It's the same thing I would say about a person who failed to 'child-proof' his/her home. They shouldn't have children in.

Tommy hasn't treated a child callously. What makes you such an expert anyway?

by Original Quill Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:09 pm

nicko wrote:Your off your nut and wont admit your wrong, I expected more from you Quill !

If I were wrong, I would change what I say. I'm not wrong...hence, I don't change.

I've never understood that argument. Should you say what you don't believe, and what you know is wrong, just to show you are capable of "admitting you're wrong"?

That would be stupid.

by nicko Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:10 pm

I rest my case !

by Original Quill Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:11 pm

nicko wrote:I rest my case !

Precisely.

by nicko Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:20 pm

There you go again, you'v got the wrong "end of the stick" --sigh .

by Sponsored content