3 ms·

Are we reading the same Wikipedia page? Maybe I’ll save a full perusal of his statements for another day, but based on Wikipedia… yes, he has said some surprisi

by zzrrt 1y ago

Are we reading the same Wikipedia page? Maybe I’ll save a full perusal of his statements for another day, but based on Wikipedia… yes, he has said some surprisingly liberal things about Trump, immigration policy, the Republican party, and Black Lives Matter. On the other hand, he put some hospitals through lockdown, threats of violence, accusations of pedophilia conspiracy, and protesting outside of hospital workers’ homes, all because the hospital put his buddy’s infant grandson into protective care because it was about to die of malnourishment. That’s about what I expect based on his portrayal. I don’t know exactly how he’s escaped consequences, but I don’t think it’s because he’s actually reasonable and correct.

ty6853 1y ago
Take a look at the bodycam regarding the baby taken away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Du-jbE022I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Du-jbE022I "Not medically necessary." The baby was not about to die, in fact the doctor admits in the bodycam to manufacturing a story to take Cyrus away via a transfer for cover for removal to foster care. The baby was stable. The hospital then defamed Mr Bundy by lying about the circumstances. >about to die of malnourishment Why would a child be discharged straight to CPS foster care with a transfer only to obfuscate that, if the child were about to die? The child is stable, ready for foster care but simultaneously about to die? These are not simultaneously compatible in this context, someone is lying. And I think the end result thankfully bears this out, as the CPS case was ultimately cleared and charges dropped against the mother.
- zzrrt 1y ago
  Bundy misleadingly edited that video to support his claims. "Thomas’ conversations with police and the emergency medical service (EMS) report [Bundy] references both centered on whether the child was healthy enough to be transported, not whether the 10-month-old was healthy overall." https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article279120394.html https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/ar... The doctor was saying the baby was stable enough to transport to another hospital, which doesn't contradict the assessment that the baby needed prompt medical care that his caretakers were unjustifiably fighting against. (The baby may have received some immediate treatment that made him safe enough to transport, but not ready to leave hospital care.) I believe the references to CPS foster parents by the doctor were about the transportation and stay in the hospital, not to immediately discharging from the hospital into a foster home. So the child was stable enough for transportation, under the watch of CPS and also medical professionals, and there was reasonable concern that the child would not get the treatment it needed if discharged to the parents right away. I don't believe there's any contradiction here, in the actual statements, rather than the distorted versions from Bundy. The baby was returned to its family after approximately a week. That doesn't prove it was totally healthy all along and the parents did nothing wrong. It suggests CPS didn't have a strong case the parents would endanger the baby in the future. Maybe the employees didn't want Bundy followers stalking them at their house, like they did to hospital workers.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    >Bundy misleadingly edited that video to support his claims. "Thomas’ conversations with police and the emergency medical service (EMS) report [Bundy] references both centered on whether the child was healthy enough to be transported, not whether the 10-month-old was healthy overall." No this is the defamatory statement the hospital misleadingly made against Bundy, but in the video she clearly states the baby is being transferred to another hospital to release to the foster family and that the transport wasn't even medically necessary but rather was cover. The whole point of the conversation was removing the child from the hospital into foster care but under a fraudulent premise of medical necessity while distracting the family. >https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article279120394.html https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/ar... Lol you have the video cam right in front of you that contradicts the materially false and malicious defamatory statements against Bundy in this newspaper. I choose to believe the direct recordings of what happened over what an editor says happened, or the testimony the doctor said after the fact when she had months to rehearse with hospital lawyers.
    - zzrrt 1y ago
      > she clearly states the baby is being transferred to another hospital to release to the foster family She mentioned a foster mom, not that the purpose of the transfer was to get the baby to the foster mom. And why would it be anyway? You think the state couldn't have released the baby from the first hospital directly to a foster parent? The only thing stopping them was the protesters' presence and knowledge of which locked doors the baby was behind? The baby was already forcibly taken by the state at this point, right? So why does it matter whether it's police, social workers, or foster parents that currently have the baby? The deception made a safe transfer easier perhaps, but it didn't directly enable the transfer. > The whole point of the conversation was removing the child from the hospital into foster care but under a fraudulent premise of medical necessity while distracting the family. Sure, she did say the transfer wasn't medically necessary. She said it was to get away from the protesters. Sneaky, probably not illegal. I believe she later said it was a higher standard of care too, but I'll admit that may been said to better justify it as you allude to. Other things she said in the Idaho Statesman video: "Failure to thrive", lost 0.75lbs since last checkup. Not signs of a baby that was perfectly healthy at home, not something that surprises parents in a matter of hours, completely at odds with Bundy's attempts to say it was healthy. The state was going to move the baby from a hospital to foster care on the diagnosis and data alone, regardless of sneaky hospital transfers to try to defuse the protesters.

by zzrrt 1y ago

ty6853 1y ago

Take a look at the bodycam regarding the baby taken away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Du-jbE022I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Du-jbE022I "Not medically necessary." The baby was not about to die, in fact the doctor admits in the bodycam to manufacturing a story to take Cyrus away via a transfer for cover for removal to foster care. The baby was stable. The hospital then defamed Mr Bundy by lying about the circumstances. >about to die of malnourishment Why would a child be discharged straight to CPS foster care with a transfer only to obfuscate that, if the child were about to die? The child is stable, ready for foster care but simultaneously about to die? These are not simultaneously compatible in this context, someone is lying. And I think the end result thankfully bears this out, as the CPS case was ultimately cleared and charges dropped against the mother.

zzrrt 1y ago
Bundy misleadingly edited that video to support his claims. "Thomas’ conversations with police and the emergency medical service (EMS) report [Bundy] references both centered on whether the child was healthy enough to be transported, not whether the 10-month-old was healthy overall." https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article279120394.html https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/ar... The doctor was saying the baby was stable enough to transport to another hospital, which doesn't contradict the assessment that the baby needed prompt medical care that his caretakers were unjustifiably fighting against. (The baby may have received some immediate treatment that made him safe enough to transport, but not ready to leave hospital care.) I believe the references to CPS foster parents by the doctor were about the transportation and stay in the hospital, not to immediately discharging from the hospital into a foster home. So the child was stable enough for transportation, under the watch of CPS and also medical professionals, and there was reasonable concern that the child would not get the treatment it needed if discharged to the parents right away. I don't believe there's any contradiction here, in the actual statements, rather than the distorted versions from Bundy. The baby was returned to its family after approximately a week. That doesn't prove it was totally healthy all along and the parents did nothing wrong. It suggests CPS didn't have a strong case the parents would endanger the baby in the future. Maybe the employees didn't want Bundy followers stalking them at their house, like they did to hospital workers.
- ty6853 1y ago
  >Bundy misleadingly edited that video to support his claims. "Thomas’ conversations with police and the emergency medical service (EMS) report [Bundy] references both centered on whether the child was healthy enough to be transported, not whether the 10-month-old was healthy overall." No this is the defamatory statement the hospital misleadingly made against Bundy, but in the video she clearly states the baby is being transferred to another hospital to release to the foster family and that the transport wasn't even medically necessary but rather was cover. The whole point of the conversation was removing the child from the hospital into foster care but under a fraudulent premise of medical necessity while distracting the family. >https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article279120394.html https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/ar... Lol you have the video cam right in front of you that contradicts the materially false and malicious defamatory statements against Bundy in this newspaper. I choose to believe the direct recordings of what happened over what an editor says happened, or the testimony the doctor said after the fact when she had months to rehearse with hospital lawyers.
  - zzrrt 1y ago
    > she clearly states the baby is being transferred to another hospital to release to the foster family She mentioned a foster mom, not that the purpose of the transfer was to get the baby to the foster mom. And why would it be anyway? You think the state couldn't have released the baby from the first hospital directly to a foster parent? The only thing stopping them was the protesters' presence and knowledge of which locked doors the baby was behind? The baby was already forcibly taken by the state at this point, right? So why does it matter whether it's police, social workers, or foster parents that currently have the baby? The deception made a safe transfer easier perhaps, but it didn't directly enable the transfer. > The whole point of the conversation was removing the child from the hospital into foster care but under a fraudulent premise of medical necessity while distracting the family. Sure, she did say the transfer wasn't medically necessary. She said it was to get away from the protesters. Sneaky, probably not illegal. I believe she later said it was a higher standard of care too, but I'll admit that may been said to better justify it as you allude to. Other things she said in the Idaho Statesman video: "Failure to thrive", lost 0.75lbs since last checkup. Not signs of a baby that was perfectly healthy at home, not something that surprises parents in a matter of hours, completely at odds with Bundy's attempts to say it was healthy. The state was going to move the baby from a hospital to foster care on the diagnosis and data alone, regardless of sneaky hospital transfers to try to defuse the protesters.