It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Toddler Killed by LAPD Positive for Cocaine

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Toxicology reports based on a urine test show that little Suzie Pena had coc aine in her system in the hours or days before her tragic death. The mother's attorney is calling for a full federal investigation of the incident in the wake of the LAPD labeling the Penas a 'dysfunctional family', and Chief Bratton calling on child welfare authorities to investigate the findings.
 



www.latimes.com
A 19-month-old girl held hostage by her father during a gun battle with police had evidence of coc aine in her system when she was accidentally killed by a SWAT officer, a coroner's report released Thursday showed.

Toxicology tests found a trace amount of benzoylecgonine in Suzie Marie Peña's urine, coroner's officials said. The substance is produced when coc aine metabolizes in the body.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This situation sadly seems to be degenerating into the parties pointing fingers and assigning blame. Maybe a federal investigation will help get to the bottom of things and sort this out.




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
"Benzoylecgonine is the major metabolite of coc aine. It is formed by hydrolysis of coc aine in the liver, catalysed by carboxylesterases. It is found only in urine after being produced in the liver, the only known place it can be created."

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I am confused someone please help me. How exactly can you take a urine test after death?

Besides that I know that coc aine only shows up in urine for two days after you use it.

Please someone help me understand.




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
You take it from;
A) Blood.
B) Liver.
C) Stomach.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
And this still yeilds accurate results, even considering the relatively low time that the substance actually stays in your body?

Not trying to dispute what you say, it jsut makes no sense to me that somemthing that leaves the system soo quickly could be definitively tested for after death.

AS far of my understanindg of anatomy is concerned though-There is no urine in the blood or the stomach. As for the liver does that not filter blood? Once again just trying to understand without researching anatomy.

On a side note- What exactly is the point of the LAPD coming out to declare that a baby had an illegal substance in her system, if not to vilify the parents?

[edit on 8-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
"It is formed by hydrolysis of coc aine in the liver, catalysed by carboxylesterases"

It only exists, from coc aine from what I can tell and would be fairly easy to pick up. Especially if they are dead. Just like taking normal drug samples. They could have also taken tests from the kidneys as well.

And no reason I can see why they would print this, other then to paint themselves in a better light.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Interesting...
there is no other reason to release this info except to make the parents look bad...
the urine tests remind me of the italian river that they found extremly high levels of coc aine in... it was all from users urinating into the sewers, and then the sewers emptying into the rivers...
they could still test for the chemical there, so I wouldn't think that death would prevent them from getting it from a body...

but the interesting fact is this... no-one thought they would find it in the river, then they were convinced it wouldn't be very noticable... then they were astounded when there were approximately 3X the users in Italy than they estimated, and these chemicals stayed around much longer in the water...

Maybe this little girl, got it from exposure to fumes from a crack lab in the neighborhood (or house).
either way, the assumption they want us to make is that the little girl was fed drugs from the parents (or that she got second hand smoke)...
I am sure that they wont mention if most of the kids in that neighborhood have the chemical in their bodies also (and they wont ever test for it)...

But oh well... they covered themselves, so we wont hear anything more about it...

tragedys happen...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Anyone stop to consider that maybe the family is as crappy as the police are stating? A little girl was killed which is a tragedy, and the LAPD was involved which adds all the more ominousness to the situation, but look at it objectively for a second. The father is the one to blame, whithout his actions the whole thing couldn't have happened. The mother is to blame, without bringing a child into that kind of atmosphere this tragedy couldn't have happened. This wasn't a random drive-by by LAPD cops, it was a gunfight.

Most likely the little girl ingested some coc aine she found lying around the house. In order to find it in her urine someone would have had to continually blow the second hand smoke in her face, and besides, the paper didn't state whether it was smoked or powdered coc aine in the girls system.

At any rate, functional, healthy families don't have gunfights with police, hold their children as hostages with the police, or have children with coc aine in their systems. It's a tragedy that a child was killed, and the police should have some accountablilty for it, but there is no way any clear thinking person could consider this family anything but "dysfunctional". And if you think that that had no role in the the girls death than you are sooo sadly mistaken.

If the standoff had gone a different way and no harm had come to the little girl, would the authorities have left her in that family? If they had removed her from that situation and placed her in foster care, would they have been justified? I think so.

To me, the mother's statements are just a symptom of the "victim" society so prevelant in drug ridden areas. Who else gives over their life to drugs other than someone who feels life is beyond their control. The thought of a multi-million dollar payoff trumps the idea of personal responsibility here.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
If this was a report suggesting that the father involved in the shooting was under the influence of any narcotic, perhaps I would agree. This however, is a blatant attempt to tarnish the reputation of the family involved. Think about it for one second. If they had ANYTHING on the father it would of been released within hours. They could not find anything though, other than his rampage, which I believe was over his Daughter to begin with.

SO we can't discredit the father actually, what do we do? Hey the child had coc aine in her system, they were obviously bad parents. No one is questioning the fact that this not only directs all attention away from the actions in question, but actually shifts blame once again from the police to the criminal. Somehow though lost in the B.S, is the fact that we give responsibility to our police in the hopes that they will act different from the criminals, which is why we give them such extensive training to begin with.

No, it is the criminal of course. Sorry folks but wake the F up. No one expects the criminal to act rational, that is why they are criminals. We do however expect the police to act rational. We assume that they have gone through rigorous training to help prepare the average human for the stresses that accompany being a cop. However, whenever these same trained individuals do not act according to their training, we as a society for the most part, rise up in arms against the accusers for second guessing these "noble defenders" of the state.

Well then let me ask you a question then...At what point do we actually hold these people, who in their full and thorough training have received the best advice on how to deal with stressful and streinusou situations accountable?When is enough enough? When do you actually take a step back and examine all the claims throughout the years that claim the same thing?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Here is the original post of what happened with this case here.


NEWS: Police Shoot a Baby Used as a Shield

I do find it interesting that they would release this at all, Its not our business what was going on with them..

I think they are trying to justify what happened I guess..



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Sorry phoenix, but that arguement is pathetic. How hard do you have to try to discredit someone who uses a child, his own child, as shield from police in a gun battle? Once again the problem is the police, not the criminal right? In your arguement you elude to the immense training the police undergo to deal with this type of problem, and that my friend is why you should rethink your position. Givin all that training it's more logical that the police were in the right rather than just plain trigger happy. Asking men and women to put their lives on the line everyday to protect the rest of us from men like the girl's father is one part, holding police to a very high standard is another, but telling those that serve us that they are always in the wrong when force is used is stupid and counter-productive. I can't imagine anyone coming to any other conclusion than it was a dysfunctional family and drug addiction that brought this tragedy about, not a desire by police to just go ahead and shoot somebody.

Let me step back for a second, I am not going to assume that the police made no errors in their shooting, but I think the real error was a man putting his own child in the line of fire. You can't ignore that in the attempt to place all blame on the police.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Urine can be obtained from a deceased individual by catheterizing the individual's bladder post mortem. If the bladder was full at the time of death and the individual was not incontinent of the entire bladder contents, there would still be urine in the bladder. As a former ER Nurse in a Pediatric Hospital, I have had to catheterize multiple deceased children. In response to the comments regarding the family, Many impoverished families are considered dysfunctional by those of us that are fortunate to be able to feed and clothe our children and provide ourselves and our families with the luxeries that those that are impoverished can only dream of. My heart goes out to the sweet little child's remaining family, but we cannot blame the police for this tragic, unfortunate event.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
looking4truth-

Thank you for your emotional and heartfelt response, if you could however focus on and address my point it would be most appreciated, thank you.

Your argument lays on the assumption that because they have received training, then they must have acted in everyones best interest. This is faulty beyond explanation, and I really do not feel like pointing out all the holees. Let me say this though.

I do not think, nor did I ever express the idea that the pigs are always to blame. I do however think that there are times when the police should be second guessed. When is that you ask? Is it when a crack head ends up with a bullet in his back, and the pigs claim self defense? IMHO-NO!

When do we actually second guess the pigs though?IMHO-When a toddler ends up dead, that's when! Call me kooky but I think that deserves some evaluation.

Does this automatically mean that they acted in error? No. Do we have the right to investigate though? Yes!

I will stand by the idea that the cops would of been better off letting the guy fleeing, and following him at a distance. That way even if he did end up offing his kid, at least it was not on the cops hands.

I feel the same way about pursuits. Why do the cops feel the need to chase a suspect like they are playing cops and robbers? do we not have helicopters? Could we not theoretically follow someone until they reached their destination, and then send troops? Yes we could. We do not though because the people who are cops are in it for one reason and one reason only-For the action. No matter what they say, their actions betray their motives time and time again.

Tell me what you want but I have no coopmuction about questioning a pig when a baby ends up dead!



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   


And this still yeilds accurate results, even considering the relatively low time that the substance actually stays in your body?


It leaves your body after about 2 days of normal eating, drinking and urinating. It doesn't just magically "disappear" in 2 days. So if a dead guy was doing coke a day before he died, even if they test his remains a month later for the substance, it'll still be there (barring any extraordinary decomposition). That's my thoughts at least.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
.
Unless someone is claiming that the little girl held a rifle and was shooting at them or others, this is totally irrelevant.

If this is being used as some kind of rationale for the death of an innocent child, it is really sick.

I've said Ideally a sniper taking this father out would have been best, but reality what it is i understand that a man shooting at police and civilians has to be taken out right now. It is sad that he used his little girl that way.

I personally see no immorality in the responsible use of any chemicals an adult individual uses.

Criminal violence with or without drugs is the problem.
.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Interesting-just last night I read an article about this chemical being present in rivers where sewage drains-enough to get a rough estimate of consumption in a given area. The article was referencing a river that flows out of Milan....


It's a sad state of affairs that "dysfuntional" is the worst term the politically correct will allow to be used. It's even worse that of course ambulance chasing attorneys who do nothing but prey off of police actions are already lined up.

But hey, it's not the *criminal's* fault that the police had to act, is it? Gotta blame the cops. A guy runs from the police, it;s the cops fault for giving chase. A guy sets off a bomb, it's the cops fault for not stopping it. A guy runs a checkpoint..you get the idea.

And to top it off, the family was negligent, it was a family member who committed the hostage taking, and it's a *family* attorney trying to cash in?

I hate myself for saying this, but their daughter is better off. This family has absolutely *no* redeeming social or human qualities. Drug dealing, child abusing, bottom feeding...wonder how much in welfare, housing, food stamp and other taxpayer-funded programs these folks were draining off?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
If this was a report suggesting that the father involved in the shooting was under the influence of any narcotic, perhaps I would agree. This however, is a blatant attempt to tarnish the reputation of the family involved. Think about it for one second. If they had ANYTHING on the father it would of been released within hours. They could not find anything though, other than his rampage, which I believe was over his Daughter to begin with.


What? If i remember the story correctly the man himself was juiced up. I have many friends who are police officers who have told me stories of people who are on drugs that will continue to attack officers and others though shot in non-fatal areas. Also, if the child did have coc aine in her system this is an important lead that needs to be followed. All because it discredits the parents doesn't meant that they are trying to white wash the situation. It could be the truth.

But that last part phugedaboutit is off topic. The social status of the parents and how much federal and state aid they got has nothing to do with this. The point is that the child died because her father was posing a threat to the police and to others. The parents had no concern for the welfare of their child and that is why the child died.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by CAConrad0825]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
Unless someone is claiming that the little girl held a rifle and was shooting at them or others, this is totally irrelevant.

If this is being used as some kind of rationale for the death of an innocent child, it is really sick.


The salient points imo. Well said.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
The father was allegedly on coke and alcohol. I have seen nothing to corroborate this, as of yet. The daughter definitely had coc aine derivatives in her system, which can be detected via body (not head) hair for up to a year after use. The little girl was positive via a urine test postmortem, the method already stated.

Somebody really wants this story to go away, even here on ATS it was shuffled off to PTS via some kind of blind link that redirects to the story. I posted it, and I still had a hard time finding it.

I say again, the mother, older daughter, bodyshop and LAPD really need to be investigated by the feds on this one. That is, unless nobody cares about this innocent life being so tragically lost. How do we, the public, really know what was going on there in those fatal moments? The little girl and her father will never be able to tell their side of the story.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
How did some wanker with a shiny badge and a big gun manage to kill a small child? cocaion is nether here or there unless the cops were on it at the time! Morons, only in America!



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join