Teen Dead After Alabama Police ‘Shoved Sharp Object Into Throat’ to Retrieve Drugs

We lived in Madison, which is right next to Huntsville, for most of the 1990s. Some of the cops were real d****. Lots of attitude. Others were wonderful. But for some reason most of the time, when I had to deal with them, I got the d****.

originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: Meee32

The sharp object they are being so vague about was more than likely an ink pen (my opinion only, of course).

Not really a great time for a movie reference but for those that have seen "Training Day", you might remember the scene where Denzel Washington takes out his pen and uses it to force the character Snoop Dogg is playing to cough up some crack.

I would imagine it is one of those "not in the manual" type of "teachings"....you know, the kind they teach in the field but don't write down in the manuals, that way us proles don't get all shocked and upset when we realize said tactic is "the norm"......

I know a few people that claim the cops have done this very thing to them.....how true it is in their actual cases, well...grain of salt, but nonetheless....

These pigs should be tried and hung for murder......period! (Along with MANY of their cronies and their controllers and so on and so forth until some of this corruption is under some kind of control)

At this point.....not sure what it is going to take to get us off the internet boards and into some real "action"....Hell, I'm not even sure what those "actions" (real solutions) would be......I see pitfalls in them all, at this point....Sadly.

A pen can't be described as "oblong" though can it? I'm thinking maybe a ruler...

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Ok, this is where I get to play devil's advocate. I am sure quite a few people are going to be mad at me but I really can't stand it when people are incited to anger about something that is not really the entire story. It is stuff like this that causes blind hatred...journalism used to be about reporting the truth, but that concept has no meaning in today's world. I'm probably going to have to type it in two parts, because it is a lot of information. So here goes:

If the story happened exactly the way the mother said it did, and they have concrete evidence to support it, they will win their suit against the officers who did this. There is no way they can justify cramming a "sharp object" down the throat of a subdued suspect...but according to the State of Alabama Medical Examiner, there was no indication of any "sharp object" having been in his trachea nor his esophagus. That is something that the mother told attorneys, and why the object was never identified...it simply didn't happen. From the autopsy report:

The findings included blunt force injuries and anoxic/hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which is when the brain does not receive enough oxygen.

Blunt force. Meaning nothing sharp caused any injuries. Anoxic ischemic encephalopathy is just a fancy way to say he suffocated and ultimately died from cardiac arrest due to lack of oxygen to his brain, which is how suffocation kills people. This is sourced in the OP article as being directly quoted from the ME report.

“Because of the circumstances of this event, it is difficult to discern if the decedent died from a drug overdose or an asphyxia event exacerbated by either the occlusion of the airway by the foreign object, a possible vascular occlusion associated with the neck restraint, or from a combination of all the events that transpired during this incident.”

OP article

They're saying the cause of death is asphyxiation (suffocation) and it cannot be determined if he asphyxiated due to occlusion (compressing or pinching shut) of his airway by whatever was introduced into the throat, asphyxiation due to the neck restraint he was placed in cutting off his arterial blood supply, or asphyxiation due to drug overdose which stopped his breathing, or a combination of all three. No cuts, abrasions or nicks that would be consistent with a sharp object. So it would seem that the entire article is embellished and states very little in terms of actual fact. The actual lawsuit is the same way, but that's typical...they have to prove whatever they are alleging or it will be thrown out. It's why I hate websites like that...you're not getting the true story, just an extremely biased variation of it.

In an effort to retrieve the alleged bag, the lawsuit says police had to shove a sharp object into the teenagers throat. Lawyers for the Smiths say drugs were never found in his throat or stomach.

The autopsy report confirms this, stating that there was no indication of anything unusual found in the teens body.

Huntsville Police have however admitted two pieces of evidence into the case. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences determined they were both zip-lock bags of MDMA, also know as Ecstasy, which were found on the teens person.

They found nothing foreign in the body cavity, but the report is alleging a drug overdose so the preliminary toxicology must have come back positive for an illegal substance, and of course he had drugs on his person because contrary to what has been said here, the lawsuit itself states that the "informant" was set up to buy drugs from the deceased...not sell them to him. He was a drug dealer, so that kind of changes things a little...and he was dealing some seriously dangerous drugs at that.

Just because the lawsuit states that something happened does not mean it is fact...they have the burden of proof. Wrongful death suits are a civil matter, not a criminal case, so they can allege anything they want...but to win it, they have to have solid proof. Wrongful death suits are also a last ditch effort because the criminal case was either lost or no charges were filed and it was dismissed. Just like O.J. Simpson...he was acquitted in criminal court but they were able to gather enough concrete evidence to go after him for damages in civil court. Wrongful death suits are all about monetary compensation for damages.

From the lawsuit:

Upon information and belief,
Defendant Officers, without proper training or expertise, shoved a sharp oblong object into
Minor N.S.’s throat

"Upon information and belief" means it is hearsay and conjecture...not fact. The entirety of the lawsuit is peppered with that phrase, so they are alleging things based on nothing but the mother's testimony. It's a big gamble because her son was in fact dealing drugs, and the entire thing hinges on convincing a jury that (despite the fact that the ME couldn't confirm what exactly caused him to suffocate and the trachea was not cut by anything sharp as the lawsuit alleges) his death was directly a result of occlusion of his airway...not just a contributing factor among many...and that is going to be very difficult for them to pull off because what they're alleging is contradictory to the evidence.

At what point do we say that enough is enough?

I understand that all these small town police forces are not murderous thugs, but there seems to be evidence that there is a widespread attitude in police forces that they can do what they please... violating rights, including committing murder to find drugs.

This has gone on for way too long now.

a reply to: Meee32

Sure a pen could be described as "oblong"......A pill of a similar shape is termed "oblong". Take a look at one.
Obviously, intentionally vague. Just sounds less shocking to say "a sharp oblong object" than it does to say "an ink pen was jammed down his throat".......not so sure that would sit as well with us proles....not that it matters when all we do is bitch and whine on the net but that is besides the point.

Not sure why a cop would have a ruler on hand. A pen on the other hand, is readily accessible and I am sure they ALL know where they keep a pen. After all, primary job number one is revenue generation.....and that requires ink and a pen, aye.

Woah - if this is true then it's beyond messed up.
What the hell was wrong with these cops? What's wrong with an xray, stomach pump and just waiting until they were pooped out?
That's if there even were drugs but it seems there weren't.
The officers involved should be jailed.

originally posted by: Meee32
They didn't cut it open in the typical sense... They cut it open from the inside by shoving a sharp object down his throat... I wanna know what that object was! Why they being vague about it? Must be bad!!!

Since they were going on a raid or drugs bust, I'd imagine they had lock opening tools with them:

www.stun-ningsales.com...

A "Slim-Jim" or a "Big Easy Extend" would seem the most logical choice. These are designed to go down narrow spaces and hook out whatever is inside. Now attempt to do that with a human trachea or esophagus and you are more likely to tear the tissue, cause internal bleeding, swelling and in the worst case, asphyxia.

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: MarlinGrace

That is extremely disturbing.

I almost wish i haddnt read that or googled that but, thank you for posting anyway. Stay the # away from texas huh? lol

Very disturbing....
I think one of the incidents is going to cost them 6 million from a law suit. If this happened to me after a mistake by a drug sniffing dog, then they might have something to arrest me for.

Isn't it funny how the same officers went through the exact same scenario twice, that we know of... Traffic stop, drug dog (was it the same dog?), then off to the same hospital to rape them... Then they get the bill after... I would bet my life these are not the only times they did this! Someone should do a FOI request and find out exactly how many times this happens!

EDIT: Also worthy of note is how the hospitals went along with it just because the cops told em to... They said they would take responsibility and so the doctors/nurses raped away and conducted dangerous precedures for no medical reason...

This goes back to the statement of 90% will do it and the video ted talk I posted. Really, if people haven't seen it yet, they should.

Yes I had forgotten about the hospital, they went along as well and hold a certain amount of culpability. All lawsuits have a little clause does 1 through 5 so you can add someone later, they would be number two. I guess if you see something report something only works when it's a citizen.

originally posted by: Expat888
So instead of waiting for nature to take its course to see what if anything the kid ingested those boneheads decided to practice surgery without a license ..

Hope they get sued for maximum damages then charged for murder along with practicing medicine without license or training ..

Truly bloody amazing ..

Sued?? At the very least they should be charged with manslaughter. How are police exempt from such charges when they have no right for such actions??

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Ok, continuing...

From the lawsuit:

Upon information and belief,
Defendant Officers, without proper training or expertise, shoved a sharp oblong object into
Minor N.S.’s throat

"Upon information and belief" means it is hearsay and conjecture...not fact. The entirety of the lawsuit is peppered with that phrase, so they are alleging things based on nothing but the mother's testimony. It's a big gamble because her son was in fact dealing drugs, and the entire thing hinges on convincing a jury that (despite the fact that the ME couldn't confirm what exactly caused him to suffocate and the trachea was not cut by anything sharp as the lawsuit alleges) his death was directly a result of occlusion of his airway...not just a contributing factor among many...and that is going to be very difficult for them to pull off because what they're alleging is contradictory to the evidence.

Before people start screaming about falsifying evidence, covering up, blah blah blah...keep in mind that drug "stings" such as the one in this case are videotaped and recorded, the "customer" wears a wire, and the State Medical Examiner performed the autopsy...not the county coroner. This was investigated by the state of Alabama, not Huntsville PD.

Here is a very good example of what I am talking about, from the lawsuit:

During the Defendant Officers’ unlawful arrest of Minor N.S., Defendant Officers
used such excessive and unnecessary force that Minor N.S. suffered at least two (2) broken ribs.
However, upon information and belief, Defendant Officers failed to inform the responding
Paramedics of Minor N.S.’s additional injuries.

Sounds horrific, right? But that is just additional allegations that are actually kind of silly when you really read what the document is saying...the mother is demanding reparations (money) for something that is completely outside of an officer's scope of practice...they are not qualified to ascertain whether or not a suspect has broken ribs. To know that, you'd have to see it on x-ray...unless the ribs have splintered and come out through the skin, even a physician would not be able to tell without radiological films of the chest. There are numerous things like this listed, all throughout the document.

The actual lawsuit


Another jewel from the lawsuit:

Minor N.S.’s family was not informed at the time that Minor N.S. had
suffered from a cardiac arrest and was rendered unconscious.

First of all, police officers are not physicians and cannot make the determination as to whether a person has suffered a cardiac arrest. If they do not find a pulse, they can assume that is what happened and administer CPR until EMS arrives. Asystole (flatline, or complete cessation of the heart beating) does not "render unconsciousness". Cardiac arrest is what kills everyone...it simply means the heart no longer beats. It is not a "shockable" rhythm either...because there is no rhythm. If he had suffered cardiac arrest, he would have been stone cold dead...not unconscious.

But they can allege whatever ridiculous things they want, as long as they are able to prove that the allegations are actually true. If they can't do that, they won't get their money. It'll be a lot of good media exposure for their attorneys though, so they took the case anyway.

So there you have it. I would really advise reading the actual lawsuit because it gives a far better chronology of events and shows a lot of underlying inconsistencies in the allegations that this "journalist" is pumping out over the internet. There is a lot more to the story than what this guy wants us to believe, and things are not at all what they seem once you cut through all of the hype and misinformation.

Ok, let the backlash begin!

a reply to: Bearack

perhaps you missed this part of his sentence:

then charged for murder along with [charged for] practicing medicine without license or training ..

Basically he is saying he wants them punished in every way possible.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Oh he had ecstacy? Defo deserved to die then, I take it all back! /s

I would take the mothers word over the police any day of the week... Drugs are a personal choice and I don't care if he was selling... They still beat him... They still knelt on his back... I've actually had this done myself, arms pulled up behind me while they kneel on me telling me to "stop struggling", they love that one, it's a classic... My crime? I was 14 and had ran away from home... I had been on the streets for a fortnight and went to the police to be put in touch with a social worker.

The police told me they would take me there... They took me home... I wasn't very happy with this deception and tried to leave but they wanted to trap me... I threw an ornament at the wall and that was that...

It's not the last time police lied to my face...

a reply to: Meee32

Oh he had ecstacy? Defo deserved to die then, I take it all back! /s

Because that's what I said, right? I said he deserved to die? And not only that, but that he deserved to die because he was selling X? Is that all you were able to fabricate in such a short time? Sorry, try again...maybe a little slower

a reply to: tigertatzen
"He was a drug dealer, so that kind of changes things a little..."

I read between the lines... You make all sorts of assumptions and try to pass them off as fact, then berate the papers for doing the same...

Shame there was no video with this one... But I seen enough of them to know how it goes down, perhaps you haven't? You assume the mother is lying and the lawyers took the case for the hell of it... Quite, quite ridiculous...

a reply to: Meee32

Police lie all the time. Even when it would be easier to tell the truth. I have been arrested more than once and it was not pleasant, to say the least. Had my shoulder dislocated by a cop and was kept in jail for almost 48 hours like that before I finally got medical attention. My crime? Skinnydipping. True story.

No one is disputing that they used excessive force. No one is saying they didn't kneel on his back. That is not even remotely what I said. Please stop putting words in my mouth. none of that is necessary.

www.nhlbi.nih.gov...

Please read here... cardiac arrest IS shockable ajd should be done immediately... So now ask yourself, what other assumptions are you wrong about???

a reply to: tigertatzen

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Meee32

Police lie all the time. Even when it would be easier to tell the truth. I have been arrested more than once and it was not pleasant, to say the least. Had my shoulder dislocated by a cop and was kept in jail for almost 48 hours like that before I finally got medical attention. My crime? Skinnydipping. True story.

No one is disputing that they used excessive force. No one is saying they didn't kneel on his back. That is not even remotely what I said. Please stop putting words in my mouth. none of that is necessary.

So my question is why give THEM the benefit of the doubt?

a reply to: Meee32

I read between the lines... You make all sorts of assumptions and try to pass them off as fact, then berate the papers for doing the same...

It was not an assumption in the least. I linked the actual lawsuit, which if you had bothered to read before you started talking smack, would have shown you that. It states in the lawsuit that he sold drugs to the "informant", and said that he attempted to flee from the officers. "Reading between the lines" suggests that you actually read it, when obviously you did not. Everything I said was sourced and the links were provided, so sorry but no. Try again. Maybe actually read the lines, instead of between them.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Meee32

I read between the lines... You make all sorts of assumptions and try to pass them off as fact, then berate the papers for doing the same...

It was not an assumption in the least. I linked the actual lawsuit, which if you had bothered to read before you started talking smack, would have shown you that. It states in the lawsuit that he sold drugs to the "informant", and said that he attempted to flee from the officers. "Reading between the lines" suggests that you actually read it, when obviously you did not. Everything I said was sourced and the links were provided, so sorry but no. Try again. Maybe actually read the lines, instead of between them.

So it says in there that the lawyer took the job cos he'd get publicity? It says that they found drugs in his system? I didn't say EVERYTHING was an assumption...

a reply to: Meee32

So my question is why give THEM the benefit of the doubt?

Because simply being a police officer does not in any way, shape or form make them automatically a bad person who abuses the badge. Would it be fair for people to just blindly despise you simply because of your chosen career? By doing that, you are no better than "THEM".