Connect with us

U.S.

Black Hospital Patient Hooked to IV Drip Accused of Stealing Equipment While Going on a Walk

Published

1 year ago

on

  • A black man says he was racially profiled by police and security officers while being treated at an Illinois hospital for double pneumonia. 
  • Shaquille Dukes says he asked doctors if he could go on a walk, then went outside with his boyfriend and brother while still attached to his IV drip.
  • A guard then accused him of stealing medical equipment and called for police, who arrested the three men for disorderly conduct.  
  • The Freeport Police Department has defended its officers, but also appointed an independent investigator to look into the case. 

Shaquille Dukes Speaks Out 

A black hospital patient says he was racially profiled by police and security officers who accused him of trying to steal medical equipment from an Illinois hospital while on a walk with an IV drip still attached to his body. 

Shaquille Dukes, 24, wrote about the incident on Facebook in a post dated June 17. In it, he said that while on vacation in Freeport, he became sick and was treated at a hospital for double pneumonia. On June 9, his second day at Freeport Health Network Memorial Hospital, he began feeling better and asked doctors if he could go for a walk, according to CNN. 

He was accompanied by his boyfriend and brother, while still wearing his hospital gown and pushing a steroid and antibiotic IV drip, when a security guard approached. “After receiving orders to walk around, I was stopped by an overzealous, racist, security officer, who claimed that I ‘was trying to leave the hospital to sell the IV equipment on eBay,'” Dukes wrote in the post. 

Dukes says his boyfriend began recording the incident and the security guard eventually called the police. In an interview with CNN, Dukes said the guard told the police, “I have three black males attempting to steal medical equipment from the hospital.”

A police sergeant that Dukes identified as Jeff Zalaznik arrived and allegedly told Dukes he was being arrested for “attempted theft” of the equipment that was still attached to his arm. All three men were charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Two of them were also charged with resisting arrest, according to a Freeport Police Department press release. 

After Dukes and his brother were arrested, he says that “Under the direction of Sgt Zalaznik, officers stood by and watched while my IV was removed on the sidewalk, and it was NOT by a doctor.”

When he told police he was being treated for pneumonia and asthma, Dukes said an officer told him, “I don’t care why you’re here, you’re going to jail.”

Dukes wrote that his inhaler was also confiscated and he was transported to the police department. “While in transit I began to have a seizure, and subsequently am[sic] asthma attack, I pleaded with officers for almost 4 minutes to retrieve my inhaler from the transporting officer, and finally, when I became unresponsive, it miraculously appeared.”

He told CNN that he was kept in the back of the police vehicle until paramedics arrived and then was transported back to the hospital in handcuffs.

Police Respond 

On June 18, the Freeport Police Department issued a statement about the encounter. In it, they said they were called to the area by a Freeport Health Network (FHN) security employee who requested assistance.

They go on to dispute Dukes’ statement about having his IV removed by someone who has not a doctor, saying: “This statement is misleading, as the IV was removed at the request of the subject by FHN medical personnel (not security or police).”

In that same post, the department asked the public, “to reserve judgment while a complete review of the incident is performed.”

The incident then picked up widespread attention after ABC News aired a segment about what happened. The news report included an interview with Chief Todd Barkalow of the Freeport Police Department who said: “Our investigation revealed that at no time did any doctor or nurse give that patient or any patient permission to leave the hospital while still hooked to an IV machine.” 

“It was determined that he was likely not trying to steal any of the property. But the charges were supported for disorderly conduct with their actions toward the security guard,” Barkalow continued.

Freeport police also released body camera footage of the incident, which Barkalow says shows that his officers “handled it in the best way they could … given the situation that they had in front of them.”

However, Dukes told ABC News that he tried to tell the officers that hospital staff members were aware that he was outside. “I said, ‘I explained to you that Dr. Murphy and Jennifer were aware that I came outside — if you would call and verify with them.’”

He said officers responded with: “Well I don’t care what they told you. As far as I’m concerned, this is hospital equipment and you’re attempting to steal it.”

The department told CNN that Dukes filed a complaint with the city, “alleging unfair and biased conduct by responding officers.” 

The department also said it has obtained an outside, third-party investigator to “gather the facts, interview all parties involved, and determine whether officers conducted themselves in adherence to department policies and guidelines.”

That investigation will be lead by Mitch Davis, the chief of police in Hazel Crest, Illinois, who serves on the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (ABC News) (Fox News)


Advertisements
Related Topics:

U.S.

Employers Can Opt-Out of Birth Control Coverage, SCOTUS Rules

Published

2 days ago

on

July 8, 2020

By

  • In a Wednesday ruling, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 that employers can opt-out of birth control coverage on religious grounds.
  • Under the Affordable Care Act, employers have been required to cover cost-free contraception to their employees. Exceptions had initially been made to houses of worship, but a 2018 Trump Administration rule expanded that to include most employers, ranging from large public businesses to universities.
  • The court sided with Trump, ruling that his administration had the authority to provide religious exemptions.
  • Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor cast the two dissenting votes, claiming it could harm healthcare access for women in the workforce.

SCOTUS Ruling

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Wednesday morning, ruling that employers can opt-out of providing birth control coverage on religious and moral grounds

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers have been required to cover cost-free contraception to their employees, though exemptions were made for houses of worship who could refuse for religious reasons. Exemptions grew in 2014 when Hobby Lobby won a Supreme Court case ruling that certain closely held corporations, like family businesses, could also refuse birth control coverage if it contradicted their religious beliefs. 

Wednesday’s ruling pertained to a 2018 Trump administration policy that would allow most employers – ranging from small private businesses, to universities, to large public companies – to opt-out of contraception coverage for religious reasons. That rule was challenged by the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which claimed they would have to cover contraception costs to those who lost coverage under the Trump administration. 

The court’s decision responded to two cases: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania. In a 7-2 ruling, they sided with Trump. The two dissenting votes came from Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. 

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion, said that the Trump administration “had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections.”

“It is clear from the face of the statute that the contraceptive mandate is capable of violating the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act],” he added.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a concurring opinion, claimed that the administration was “required by RFRA to create the religious exemption (or something very close to it).”

Ginsberg’s Dissent

This could leave as many as 126,000 women without access to contraception within a year. According to Planned Parenthood, nine out of ten women will seek access to contraception at some point in their lives. While birth control is often used as a contraceptive, it is also used for a variety of other health reasons, including regulating menstrual cycles, lowering risks for various forms of cancer, and managing migraines, endometriosis and other ailments. 

“This Court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets,” Ginsberg wrote in the dissent. 

Ginsberg claimed that the court’s usually balanced approach of not allowing “the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs” was thrown away. 

“Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests,” she added.

Responses to Ruling

She was not alone in critiquing the rulings. The National Women’s Law Center called it “invasive, archaic, and dangerous.” The Center fears the ruling could have a larger impact on low wage workers, people of color, and LGBTQ people. 

Dr. Daniel Grossman, the head of a research group at the University of California, San Francisco called Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health also condemned the decision.

“No employer is welcome into the exam room when I talk to patients about their contraception options, why should they be able to dictate the method from their corner office?” he asked. 

On the other side, Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council applauded the Supreme Court. 

“It should be common sense to allow a religious group to conduct themselves according to their religious convictions, and yet government agents have tried to punish them with obtuse fines for doing just that,” Perkins said in a statement. “We are pleased to see the Supreme Court still recognizes religious freedom.”

See what others are saying: (NPR) (Associate Press) (New York Times)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

Tech CEO Apologizes After Racist Rant Against Asian-American Family Goes Viral

Published

2 days ago

on

July 8, 2020

By

  • Viral video shows a man in a California restaurant spewing racist remarks at an Asian American family, including “Trump’s gonna f–k you…You f–kers need to leave,” and “Asian piece of sh-t.”
  • Many have expressed support for the family and praised a restaurant employee who immediately demanded that the man leave the premises. 
  • The man was later identified as a San Francisco tech CEO named Michael Lofthouse, and big names even shared his identity including Chrissy Teigen and Patton Oswalt. 
  • Lofthouse has apologized, saying he “lost control” and will work to better understand inequality.

Viral Video 

A California tech CEO apologized Tuesday after he was caught on camera making racist and offensive remarks towards an Asian American family.

“Woah, okay, say that again,” the person recording the now-viral video says. “Oh, now you’re shy? Say it again.”

In response, the man at a table a short distance away raises his middle finger to the camera, adding, “That’s what I’m saying.”

As people off camera tell him that he needs to leave the restaurant, he says, “Trump’s gonna f–k you…You f–kers need to leave.”

“Asian piece of sh-t,” he adds as he gets up from the table to put on his jacket.

“You do not talk to our guests like that. Get out now!” a restaurant staff member shouts at him. 

“Who are these f–kers?” the man asks, to which the staff member responds, “They are valued guests.”

The employee then repeatedly screams at him to leave, saying he’s never allowed to enter the restaurant again. The man continues to make remarks, laughing while gathering his belongings before the clip ends. 

What Prompted the Incident? 

That video was recorded by one of the family members, Jordan Chan, on the Fourth of July at the Lucia Restaurant & Bar in Carmel Valley.

Chan later posted the video to her Instagram, writing in the caption that her family was there celebrating a birthday. She called the incident “unprovoked, unwarranted, and unconscionable,” explaining that her family was just singing “Happy Birthday” and taking pictures when the man started spewing his remarks. 

She also said more vulgar and racist language was not captured on film, including comments like, “Go back to whatever f–king Asian country you’re from.”

In the remainder of her post, she went on to talk about racism in America, criticizing President Donald Trump for amplifying “voices of hate.” However, she ultimately ended her post by calling for change and encouraging people to vote in the upcoming election. 

View this post on Instagram

❗️❗️❗️SHARE THIS POST❗️❗️❗️ Trigger warning: Racism, Vulgar Language (FYI he had a LOT more to say after I stopped recording) This is the face of the man who relentlessly harassed my family and I completely UNPROVOKED, UNWARRANTED, and UNCONSCIONABLE. We were celebrating my tita’s birthday, literally just singing happy birthday to her and taking pictures, when this white supremacist starts yelling disgusting racist remarks at us. (“Fuck you Asians” “Go back to whatever fucking Asian country you’re from” “You don’t belong here”) It is no coincidence that this man has the audacity to showcase such blatant racism on the 4th of July. White supremacy has a notorious habit of masquerading as patriotism! The fact that Donald Trump is our president (i.e. THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD) gives racists a platform and amplifies voices of hate. The surfacing of racists is so prevalent right now, even in such an ethnically/culturally diverse and liberal state like California, because Trump HIMSELF uses his position to incite racial tension and to promote aggression towards POC, foreigners, and immigrants. We need change! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE VOTE THIS UPCOMING RE-ELECTION. PROTECT ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF SKIN COLOR AND ETHNIC ORIGIN. ✊🏻✊🏼✊🏽✊🏾✊🏿

A post shared by @ jordanlizchan on

Chan’s recording spread like wildfire, especially after she asked one of her friends share it on Twitter. 

Responses to Family and Restaurant Employee 

In response, a ton of people online began praising the family and the employee for how they handled the situation.

Singer Kelly Clarkson, for instance, tweeted, “THANK YOU SO MUCH to this woman for speaking up and throwing this trash out! …Keep calling hate out! It’s unacceptable, ignorant, and disgusting! Change won’t happen if we’re sittin’ down so keep standing!”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, some even sent flowers and letters to the restaurant employee. A spokesperson for the Bernardus Lodge and Spa, where the restaurant is located, also said that others have even offered to pay for meals or lodgings for the family.

In an emailed statement to an ABC affiliate station, the vice president and general manager of the Lodge also said he was proud of his staff for keeping in line with the company’s core values. He noted that the man was “escorted off the property without further escalation,” and extended an apology to the family.  

Man Identified as Tech CEO Michael Lofthouse 

The reactions to the man in the video haven’t been as kind. Many, of course, began trying to figure out who the man was, and eventually, several journalists identified him Tuesday as Michael Lofthouse, CEO of Solid8, a cloud computing firm based in San Francisco.

Once people got that information, they continued to share it. Comedian Patton Oswalt, for example, did so by sarcastically writing, “Could everyone PLEASE stop sharing this video of Michael Lofthouse? He’s the founder & CEO of Solid8, a tech company based in San Francisco. If it goes viral it could hurt Michael Lofthouse and Solid8, his company. Let’s all be nice to Michael Lofthouse and Solid8.”

Model Chrissy Teigen retweeted a photo of his LinkedIn profile, simply writing, “Oops.”

Then people began bombarding Lofthouse with comments on his personal and company social media profiles.

On Monday night, Chan uploaded a screenshot of a response Lofthouse allegedly wrote to one user who called him “a trash human being” who deserves every bad thing that happens to him. 

That comment reads: “Great food [sic] for u – leave out planet. Asian f–k 

Come near me or my people a u r f–king dead

Do not start

U fucking piece of shot [sic]” 

However, no media outlets have confirmed whether or not that post is real and as of now, it appears that Lofthouse’s accounts were set to private or deleted.

Lofthouse Apologizes 

After all the backlash, Lofthouse and issued an apology to a local ABC station on Tuesday, saying: “My behavior in the video is appalling. This was clearly a moment where I lost control and made incredibly hurtful and divisive comments.”

“I would like to deeply apologize to the Chan family. I can only imagine the stress and pain they feel. I was taught to respect people of all races, and I will take the time to reflect on my actions and work to better understand the inequality that so many of those around me face every day.”

But the family doesn’t seem to be totally buying it. Chan’s uncle, Raymond Orosa, who was also there for the incident said, “He’s just saving face. I think he really meant what he said and what he did.”

“I don’t believe his words because his actions speak louder than the words he’s saying,” he added, pointing to the social media comment allegedly written by Lofthouse. 

Still, he told reporters, “I can’t say what he did was acceptable or right, it isn’t, because a lot of people will probably disagree with me for saying I forgive him… but I do.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (ABC 7) (Heavy)  

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

Judge Orders Dakota Access Pipeline to Shut Down Pending Environmental Review

Published

3 days ago

on

July 7, 2020

By

  • The Dakota Access Pipeline must suspend operations pending an environmental review, according to orders from a U.S. District Court.
  • A judge claimed that while this may cause disruption to oil industries, the Army Corps of Engineers did not provide a needed environmental impact statement. They must now draft one and undergo a review process that could last 13 months.
  • This order is a big win for environmental groups and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who have been fighting for four years to shut down the pipeline. The tribe has long claimed that the pipeline is a threat to their main water supply in the Missouri River,
  • However, Energy Transfer Partners, which runs the pipeline, is vowing to appeal the ruling. 

Pipeline Ordered to Shut Down

A U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ordered on Monday that the Dakota Access Pipeline must halt operations within 30 days, pending an environmental review. 

The pipeline runs for over 1,100 miles between North Dakota and Illinois, transporting 570,000 barrels of oil per day. It has faced opposition from environmental activists and members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for several years over pollution concerns. Monday’s order is a victory for the pipeline’s critics. 

In his order, United States District Judge James E. Boasberg wrote that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which permitted the Dakota Access Pipeline, had violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it allowed a portion of the pipeline to be built under part of the Missouri River. 

“This was because the Corps had failed to produce an Environmental Impact Statement despite conditions that triggered such a requirement,” Boasberg wrote. 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is located just under a mile from the pipeline, and gets much of its water supply from the Missouri River. They feared that having a pipeline under their water source could lead to contamination should there ever be a leak or spill. 

The court acknowledged the potential consequences of shutting the pipeline down, including a disruption of North Dakota’s oil industry, as well as the oil industries of other states. However, Boasberg believed that the best path forward in this case was to shut the pipeline down.

“Yet, given the seriousness of the Corps’ [National Environmental Policy Act] error, the impossibility of a simple fix, the fact that Dakota Access did assume much of its economic risk knowingly, and the potential harm each day the pipeline operates, the Court is forced to conclude that the flow of oil must cease,” Judge Boasberg wrote. 

The court is asking the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reassess the environmental impacts of the pipeline and to prepare an impact statement. Judge Boaberg first ordered a review back in March. Per Monday’s ruling, the pipeline must shut down pending the review, a process that is expected to last 13 months. 

Responses to Order

The ruling could be appealed and only closes the pipeline temporarily. Still, it was cause for celebration for members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other activists who had been protesting against the Dakota Access Pipeline since 2016.

“Today is a historic day for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the many people who have supported us in the fight against the pipeline,” Mike Faith, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe said in a statement. “This pipeline should have never been built here. We told them that from the beginning.”

“It took four long years, but today justice has been served at Standing Rock,” said Jan Hasselman, an Earthjustice attorney representing the tribe. “If the events of 2020 have taught us anything, it’s that health and justice must be prioritized early on in any decision-making process if we want to avoid a crisis later on.”

Youth activist and founder of Fridays for Future Greta Thunberg also applauded the court’s decision on Twitter.

On the other hand, however, the decision was met with swift criticism from Energy Transfer Partners, which controls the pipeline. The company has promised legal action, and according to Hasselman, has already filed for an appeal. 

In a statement, Energy Transfer said the order is “not supported by the law or the facts of the case.”

“Furthermore, we believe that Judge Boasberg has exceeded his authority in ordering the shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been safely operating for more than three years,” it said. 

Energy Transfer claims that billions of dollars of tax and royalty revenue will be lost by local and tribal governments in several states. 

“The economic implications of the Judge’s order are too big to ignore and we will do all we can to ensure its continued operation,” the company stated, before maintaining that the Dakota Access Pipeline is environmentally safe and responsible. 

See what others are saying: (Axios) (Associated Press) (Wall Street Journal)

Advertisements
Continue Reading