He was brought into custody. Apaprently they planned on releasing him relatively soon. I doubt we will ever get a competing narrative from the DEA (but we know the DEA (or US Attorney) can’t have determined that anything to diabolical took place, because no discipline nor any charges).
My analysis is mostly informed by the principle that “things usually occur in the way that they usually do.” And it is a lot more usual for a relatively well-to-do kid picked up at house with multiple firearms and controlled substances to react poorly to a DEA investigation than it is for the DEA to mistreat rich kids (who (LOL) “accidentally” consumed some meth that was “left by someone else” in the cell (remember that precious bullshit component of his narrative?!?)).
Who knows? At times I think Chong just chose not to leave (and wanted to dare the DEA to remove him bodily). Maybe he decompensated and was placed in some sort of involuntary custody. I acknowledge that this is the point foible of an otherwise compelling, exculpatory narrative.
But, at least the were kind enough to give him meth, eh?
What do you make of that? Do you think there was methamphetamine in the cell before he got there? And, supposing that it was a leave-behind, what do you make of his claim that he just ingested random substances he found in the cell? Plausible or implausible?
Right, but his account about how and why he came to take the methamphetamine suggests that we are not getting the straight story from him. He stated he found in the cell and took it to stay awake. Well, just how did he know it was going to keep him awake? If it really happened the way he stated, it could have been insecticide for all he knew and would put him in a coma. So, I decline to accept Chong’s account that he found this methamphetamine in the cell, which he certainly didn’t bring in himself.
Now, given that we see he is not above a little self-serving deception in recounting the events at issue, tell me why we should be so trusting on other, equally hard-to-believe points.
I’m not seeing where any of the other bits are particularly hard to believe. The DEA admits they forgot he was in there, which raises a pretty strong inference that they forgot to feed and water him.
Someone who’s experienced with meth would likely be able to identify it by color, texture, smell and/or taste (or so they tell me). So it’s not impossible, but I agree that it’s much more likely he brought it in himself. It just doesn’t seem particularly relevant.
We don’t need to trust the kid at all fucktard. The DEA admitted they forgot him. You are why people hate lawyers in general. And now you are giving Full House a bad name.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying “Because he took methamphetamine, he deserved whatever abuse came his way,” but rather, “Because he has not been forthright about his taking methamphetamine, we should not accept all of his allegations uncritically” and maybe also a little of “Because he took meth while in DEA custody, we should perhaps expect that more than a little poor judgment was exercised by Chong, which may have contributed to his predicament.”
Are you saying that the guy stayed in the cell on purpose? That he could have left at any time?
Lets just accept that the kid had the discipline to starve himself then. I have another question. Are people allowed to just hang out in US prisons if they want to?
Because surely if the kid just decided to not to leave, there would be a trail of DEA agent reports saying to their superior “hey, this kid won’t leave, what do we do now?” If you say that the DEA hadn’t forgotten about the kid, then surely there would be multiple times that somebody went to the cell and said “hey kid, seriously, you need to fuck off now?”
This is all just common sense Mr Dribbler, simple logic, if the kid had refused to leave do you not think the DEA would have said that, instead of admitting that they fucked up?
At this point, I assume he made a lot of assertions based on prejudices, assumptions, and a smug sense of superiority, and now is too embarrassed to back down.
ETA: I see you posted this in 2012, yeah… they totally did that back them but they don’t do it now.
I’m pretty sure that all you need for damages in this case is to prove taht they put him in a locked cell and didn’t give him food or water for 4 days. Is ANY of that in dispute? Why does any of that matter.
If they did that to a serial rapist like Ariel Castro, he should still win a civil suit.
