7-Year-Old Migrant Girl Dies Of Dehydration In Border Patrol Custody

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 19, 2004
22,864
184
126
That is a political response, because you are making this death a political referendum against Trump. I have no doubt that Trumpers feel no remorse over this death. A decent human being President would address this as a tragedy. But border crossing deaths have been happening at a steady pace since the late 80s. Desert crossings are treacherous and deadly no matter who occupies the White House.

Responsibility starts and ends with the father. The border patrol may be accountable if they denied aid, but its ridiculous to expect them to triage a medical situation that did not immediately manifest itself.

What we know is that the father claims she was healthy prior to crossing a fvcking desert, because that is what responsible fathers do. We also know the border patrol intercepted the group, and initially rendered what aid they could. Everything else is speculation.
You continue to miss the point about responsibility. At this point, there is no point in arguing a concept you don't understand. Does the parent have moral responsibility? Perhaps. Does the border patrol have legal responsibility? Yes!
 
Sep 5, 2000
24,911
321
126
You continue to miss the point about responsibility. At this point, there is no point in arguing a concept you don't understand. Does the parent have moral responsibility? Perhaps. Does the border patrol have legal responsibility? Yes!
becuase he is a horrible human being that would be happy to burn jews 80 years ago.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
5,756
78
106
There's also already changes to initial reports. The father is stating through lawyer and consulate that she did have food and water during the trip, and he's happy with efforts taking with treatment after she showed symptoms.

It is sounding more like a rapid crash from sepsis than maltreatment.

But, who knows if this is too will change as more information comes out

CNN: Father of Guatemalan girl who died in US custody has 'no complaints' about her treatment, consul says.

It seems nobody is listening. I was discussing this with my wife who is a retired ER and floor nurse. She has handled sepsis/septic shock cases and said that sepsis can turn into septic shock within a few hours, especially with small children, and that patients may look OK initially. So if the little girl was hydrated and had food at the border and the father and the agents did not see any distress then it was probably septic shock. Normal dehydration doesn't happen within a few hours if the person is hydrated. The initial article already said that septic shock and high fever were a factors in her death. I'm not sure why the MSM is pushing just the dehydration and shock (without the septic) narrative. The autopsy results will ultimately provide the exact cause of death. I feel bad for the little girl, the father and the family. I hope that a thorough investigation is done to determine what, if anything, can be done in the future so that it doesn't happen again.


EDIT: New articles from WaPo and others have now added liver failure as an additional cause of death. Dehydration does not directly cause liver failure but sepsis/septic shock does.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/acute-liver-failure/symptoms-causes/syc-20352863

WaPo is still pushing the dehydration and shock (with no septic) narrative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e-arrived-father-says/?utm_term=.f204577abadb
Nery Caal, who was granted provisional release from CBP custody according to consular officials, was not present at the briefing and has not spoken publicly about his daughter’s death Dec. 8 from dehydration, shock and liver failure.
 
Last edited:

Starbuck1975

Diamond Member
Jan 6, 2005
9,921
175
126
You continue to miss the point about responsibility. At this point, there is no point in arguing a concept you don't understand. Does the parent have moral responsibility? Perhaps. Does the border patrol have legal responsibility? Yes!
The parent “perhaps” has a moral responsibility? Yes, it is clear who doesn’t understand.
 
Jun 19, 2004
22,864
184
126
The parent “perhaps” has a moral responsibility? Yes, it is clear who doesn’t understand.
I'm glad you realize the border patrol has legal responsibility. Oh yes, let's completely ignore why they fled their country in the first place.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
3,126
53
136
The border patrol has legal responsibility. No different than say a police department has legal responsibility if there is a medical death during their custody. Yes the person may have broken laws to get placed in police custody but if the law enforcement will be detaining people they have to do it safely and humanely (otherwise they are violating numerous laws and amendments: cruel and unusual punishment laws, right to a fair trial, etc etc). The fact of the matter is being arrested by law enforcement should not be a death sentence and deaths that occur in their custody should be extremely scrutinized.
 

Starbuck1975

Diamond Member
Jan 6, 2005
9,921
175
126
I'm glad you realize the border patrol has legal responsibility. Oh yes, let's completely ignore why they fled their country in the first place.
Ah yes the game of semantics.

The border patrol is responsible. I said earlier in the thread they are not liable, and the father is on record through the Guatemalan consulate stating that the border control was responsive and did what they could.

What should or could they have done differently?

Let’s also completely ignore that they left the safety of Mexico to risk a desert border crossing, for which dehydration is one of several fatal risks.
 

Starbuck1975

Diamond Member
Jan 6, 2005
9,921
175
126
The border patrol has legal responsibility. No different than say a police department has legal responsibility if there is a medical death during their custody. Yes the person may have broken laws to get placed in police custody but if the law enforcement will be detaining people they have to do it safely and humanely (otherwise they are violating numerous laws and amendments: cruel and unusual punishment laws, right to a fair trial, etc etc). The fact of the matter is being arrested by law enforcement should not be a death sentence and deaths that occur in their custody should be extremely scrutinized.
Scrutinized, yes. Politicized based on incomplete information, no.
 
Jun 19, 2004
22,864
184
126
Ah yes the game of semantics.

The border patrol is responsible. I said earlier in the thread they are not liable, and the father is on record through the Guatemalan consulate stating that the border control was responsive and did what they could.

What should or could they have done differently?

Let’s also completely ignore that they left the safety of Mexico to risk a desert border crossing, for which dehydration is one of several fatal risks.
What should or could they have done differently? Answered numerous times by others and myself. Safety of Mexico? Because the economy in Mexico is so much better than where they were. /s
Hindsight is 20/20. However, when children are involved, all institutions and government offices should and must be held to a higher standard.
 

Starbuck1975

Diamond Member
Jan 6, 2005
9,921
175
126
What should or could they have done differently? Answered numerous times by others and myself. Safety of Mexico? Because the economy in Mexico is so much better than where they were. /s
Hindsight is 20/20. However, when children are involved, all institutions and government offices should and must be held to a higher standard.
I should clarify. Realistically done. Mexico, while not ideal, is certainly better than Guatemala. Children should not be involved in border crossings, and we should hold our government accountable to do what it can to dissuade people from taking such risks.

You don’t hear anything anymore about the little boy that washed up in Europe. This little girl will unfortunately be forgotten as well.
 
Last edited:
Jun 19, 2004
22,864
184
126
I should clarify. Realistically done. Mexico, while not ideal, is certainly better than Guatemala. Children should not be involved in border crossings, and we should hold our government accountable to do what it can to dissuade people from taking such risks.

You don’t hear anything anymore about the little boy that washed up in Europe. This little girl will unfortunately be forgotten as well.
Responsibility to children in your custody is not limited by citizenship.
 
Oct 18, 2013
11,866
299
126
becuase he is a horrible human being that would be happy to burn jews 80 years ago.
I can't imagine how this forum got so hyperbolic. Maybe we need more claims that people would be willing to burn Jews. That will reestablish civility here.

Had a person from the Right said something like this, people would have called you out. Sad.
 

Viper1j

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2018
1,307
327
96
As of today. Trump has 700 virginal pussies to grab. DHS says these CHILDREN will NEVER SEE THEIR PARENTS AGAIN! EVER!

I'll give anyone here 25 to 1 odds that as soon as they're capable of working, you'll find them on a Trump property, either making bed, or mopping floors. The really cute ones will be left to service Donny and friends.

I can't imagine how this forum got so hyperbolic. Maybe we need more claims that people would be willing to burn Jews. That will reestablish civility here.

Had a person from the Right said something like this, people would have called you out. Sad.
What's even more sad, is the accuracy of the statement.

Ever heard of Sonderkommandos?
 
Last edited:
Oct 18, 2013
11,866
299
126
What should or could they have done differently? Answered numerous times by others and myself. Safety of Mexico? Because the economy in Mexico is so much better than where they were. /s
Hindsight is 20/20. However, when children are involved, all institutions and government offices should and must be held to a higher standard.
You literally made 1 post.


"Doesn't matter, their responsibility. Are you trying to say that none of the four agents had their own personal water with them? That they weren't carrying the required 5 gallon can of water in their vehicle? Our interpretation of "everything" may differ but, even if they thought they did "everything" they could do, it's STILL their responsibility."

The father said she was getting food and water, so there was no reason to force her to drink.

The initial screening revealed no evidence of health issues. During the screening, the father denied that either he or his daughter were ill. This denial was recorded on Form I-779 signed by the father,” the DHS account said, adding that they were offered food and water, and had access to restrooms.
You are assuming she died of dehydration, but, if the father is right that she appeared to be healthy, was offered water, then it could be something else.
 
Oct 15, 1999
13,013
247
126
You continue to miss the point about responsibility. At this point, there is no point in arguing a concept you don't understand. Does the parent have moral responsibility? Perhaps. Does the border patrol have legal responsibility? Yes!
Border control has a responsibility to render aid when they noticed the child was sick. They aren't responsible for the outcome unless they were grossly negligent.
I understand that it's a much more emotional narrative to pretend that they're a bunch of heartless monsters that watched a child die just for fun, but that doesn't make it true.
 
Sep 5, 2000
24,911
321
126
Border control has a responsibility to render aid when they noticed the child was sick. They aren't responsible for the outcome unless they were grossly negligent.
I understand that it's a much more emotional narrative to pretend that they're a bunch of heartless monsters that watched a child die just for fun, but that doesn't make it true.
border patrol isnt responsible for people in their legal custody - a nazi
 
Jun 19, 2004
22,864
184
126
Border control has a responsibility to render aid when they noticed the child was sick. They aren't responsible for the outcome unless they were grossly negligent.
I understand that it's a much more emotional narrative to pretend that they're a bunch of heartless monsters that watched a child die just for fun, but that doesn't make it true.
No one said they stood around and watched her die. Both you and Starbuck seem to have difficulty with the concept of responsibility. She was in their custody which make them responsible. She could have been struck by lightening and they would still be responsible. Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding her death aren't as clear cut as to whether there was negligence, gross or not.
 
Oct 18, 2013
11,866
299
126
No one said they stood around and watched her die. Both you and Starbuck seem to have difficulty with the concept of responsibility. She was in their custody which make them responsible. She could have been struck by lightening and they would still be responsible. Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding her death aren't as clear cut as to whether there was negligence, gross or not.
That is dumb. Responsibility has the implication of doing reasonable things to keep the person safe. If this child had an underlying medical issue, they are not responsible for that. Responsibility has attached to it liability culpability for what happened. You are either throwing around terms you don't understand, or arguing in bad faith. I see no other option.
 
Jun 19, 2004
22,864
184
126
That is dumb. Responsibility has the implication of doing reasonable things to keep the person safe. If this child had an underlying medical issue, they are not responsible for that. Responsibility has attached to it liability culpability for what happened. You are either throwing around terms you don't understand, or arguing in bad faith. I see no other option.
First, you might want to read the definition of responsibility. Second, their responsibility arises from having the girl in custody. I've said exactly the same thing at least 4 times now, even starbuck finally got it. There being or, not being, extenuating circumstances has no affect on their responsibility. You love to argue even if not very intelligently.
 

Starbuck1975

Diamond Member
Jan 6, 2005
9,921
175
126
That is dumb. Responsibility has the implication of doing reasonable things to keep the person safe. If this child had an underlying medical issue, they are not responsible for that. Responsibility has attached to it liability culpability for what happened. You are either throwing around terms you don't understand, or arguing in bad faith. I see no other option.
It’s a semantics game because later facts didn’t fit the original narrative.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
5,756
78
106
That is dumb. Responsibility has the implication of doing reasonable things to keep the person safe. If this child had an underlying medical issue, they are not responsible for that. Responsibility has attached to it liability culpability for what happened. You are either throwing around terms you don't understand, or arguing in bad faith. I see no other option.

Law enforcement does have a responsibility for people in their custody but it doesn’t mean that they caused the death or it is their fault if the person died under their custody in circumstances that this incident appears to be. For example, if one of the people in this caravan had a heart attack several hours after they were in custody and it was determined CBP did not cause it, could not reasonably detect the condition and they did everything they could reasonably do under the circumstances to save that person (AED, CPR, etc.) and the person died it would not be the agents fault. That still does not preclude someone from suing them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS