Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/25/2006 1:19:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 1:19:56 AM EDT by AZ-K9]

BY JEFFREY GAUTREAUX, SUN STAFF WRITER
Feb 24, 2006, 10:54 pm

A Yuma woman who allegedly was using methamphetamine when her 22-month-old son died could face a negligent homicide charge.

Claudia Contreras, who was arrested Thursday, made an initial appearance in Yuma Justice Court Friday. She was advised that the Yuma County Sheriff's Office is requesting she be charged with negligent homicide, child endangerment and use of dangerous drugs.

Contreras regularly put her seven children to sleep in one full-sized double bed, said YCSO Capt. Eben Bratcher. This is believed to be a contributing factor in the death, he said.

"She put seven kids between the ages of 6 months and 11 years to bed in one small bed, and then left them unattended while she used drugs," he said.

Justice of the Peace pro tem Yolanda Torok set Contreras' bond at $250,000. Her next court appearance is Tuesday at 1 p.m. Prosecutors have until then to file formal charges against her.

While informing Contreras about the conditions of her release if she posted the bond, Torok said she could not have any contact with the victims in the case.

"I can't have contact with my kids?" Contreras asked.

"No, you cannot have any contact with your kids," Torok said.

YCSO said that on the morning of Jan. 23, the 22-month-old boy was found dead, lying face down on the bed, in a trailer home at 400 N. Figueroa Ave. There were no immediate signs of foul play, but YCSO investigated.

"Whenever there is a death of a child, we pay particular attention to it and look at it from all angles. In this case, some evidence was uncovered," Bratcher said.

Bratcher said that a test of Contreras' blood that recently came back from the lab showed meth use. Deputies arrested Contreras Thursday and booked her into Yuma County jail, where she remains.

Bratcher did not know the current whereabouts of the children, but he believed Child Protective Services was involved in the case.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 1:22:03 AM EDT
those drugs turned a responsible woman into a killer!!!
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 1:23:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:
those drugs turned a responsible woman into a killer!!!


Made a shitbag worse.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 1:30:06 AM EDT
I think we need to split California in half. The southern half takes the name California. The northern half takes the name "Not California".

California (south) should then legalize all forms of drugs. This will free up the rest of the country, as much of the trash from the rest of the states with quickly migrate there. Once there, they'll kill each other off, or just die in blissful overdose.

(Apologies to the good Californians out there)
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 1:57:14 AM EDT
neglect and homocide are already crimes.

We dont need drug laws to punish this woman, we already have laws to deal with her kind.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 2:03:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
neglect and homocide are already crimes.

We dont need drug laws to punish this woman, we already have laws to deal with her kind.



+1



wonder how old she is and where papa/papas is/are? 7 children is a load.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 2:04:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
neglect and homocide are already crimes.

We dont need drug laws to punish this woman, we already have laws to deal with her kind.




Cute little simplistic look at the world you have totally devoid of any concept of how the courts and government entities like Child Protective Service work.


But hey, whats fucking reality have to do with high ideas and cute little Libertarian catch-phrases?
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 2:12:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
neglect and homocide are already crimes.

We dont need drug laws to punish this woman, we already have laws to deal with her kind.




Cute little simplistic look at the world you have totally devoid of any concept of how the courts and government entities like Child Protective Service work.


But hey, whats fucking reality have to do with high ideas and cute little Libertarian catch-phrases?



to hell with freedom. truth is, most people cant handle it.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 2:17:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Cute little simplistic look at the world you have totally devoid of any concept of how the courts and government entities like Child Protective Service work.


But hey, whats fucking reality have to do with high ideas and cute little Libertarian catch-phrases?



Sorry, I guess you are right, this woman's real crime was obviously that she was a meth head, and that is what she should really be punished for, not the fact that she let her child die of neglect.

She should obviously spend years in prison because she did drugs.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 2:38:54 AM EDT
Good point. We must maintain prohibition in order to protect the lives of innocent non-users who may be disastrously affected by the behavior of people who are users. If we don't keep prohibition in place, we could end up in a situiation where (for example) a mother of small children gets whacked out of her skull on meth and becomes so negligent that she causes the death of a baby.

Oh, wait. . . .

Prohibition prevents none of the evils associated with drug use, and it compounds those evils by imposing on individuals and society at large the extraneous monetary and nonmonetary costs which attend the prohibitory scheme.

We have been fighting the War in Drugs (under that name, at least) for about 35 years. With the exception of brief and infrequent moments of local shortage, anyone anywhere in the US (including inmates in prison) can get any drug he wants, on demand.

35 years is a long time, and we've spent a lot of money on interdiction of the drug trade and on incarceration of the buyers, sellers, users, transporters, and financiers of the trade. How would you say the "War" is going?

Drugs = (one degree or another of irresponsible and dangerous behavior over and above the degree of irresponsible and dangerous behavior that results from innate human stupidity) + (lost productivity due to intoxication and longer-term effects of drug use).

Drugs + Prohibition = (one degree or another of irresponsible and dangerous behavior over and above the degree of irresponsible and dangerous behavior that results from innate human stupidity) + (lost productivity due to intoxication and longer-term effects of drug use) + (lost productivity due to incarceration for possessory or for-profit drug activity) + (lost productivity due to "convict" status) + (transactional trafficking-related violence over and above the degree of violence attributable to human nature).

Link Posted: 2/25/2006 3:08:21 AM EDT
Should treat it the same way as if she had been drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes and the same thing happened. It shouldn't be any more or less of a crime based on the nature of the substance involved.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 3:17:19 AM EDT
Solutions are available for drug dealers.

Link Posted: 2/25/2006 3:38:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By long-rifle-tactical:
Solutions are available for drug dealers.

www.morguefile.com/imageData/LOWREZ/gallows-071004-03.jpg



+1. I personally feel that drugs should be regulated and taxed and sold through qualified dealers, much the same as guns or alcohol (except I don't like regulating/taxing guns). I think the illegal dealers should be hung.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 3:49:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:
those drugs turned a responsible woman into a killer!!!



libtards say the same thing about guns...
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:18:34 AM EDT
I have mixed feelings about this.
I am strongly against the use of drugs, but at the same time, I dont like that the government in involved in telling people what they can and cannot do. I dont really have a problem with the person who sits at home in their living room on the couch smoking a joint watching movies. My issue is with the gang activity, organized crime, and violence that occurs to get the drugs onto the market in order for the above hippie to get his fix.

We do already have laws that deal with the actions people take; robbery, DUI, disorderly conduct, etc. The problem as I see it, there is about a 99% chance that when a person uses drugs they are going to be committing some other crime already on the books. In reality, there are very few people that come home, put their car keys away, get high, and dont leave the house until they are completely sobered up.....most get in the car and go out at some point. Also, this all assumes that a person is single and alone. If you have a spouse, or even more pressing, children, you have no business being drunk or high...ever. Being an adult has responsibilities, life is tough...deal with it.

Still, Im not crazy about having laws to curb behaviour.
I am a Darwin kinda guy, and I'm a fan of natural selection.
For a long time I have held the thought that if we just legalized everything, it would only take a few generations for all the addict to kill themselves off. Eventually, things would even out...might take 20-30 years, but it would happen.

I realize that a lot of innocent people would be hurt if we didnt have the laws we have.
That doesnt mean I agree with laws that suggest what behaviours are acceptable.
There are no easy answers to this....if there were it wouldnt always be in debate.

I do like how drug dealers are dealt with in Asia....gathered up, taken out to the soccer field, one by one, bullet to the back of the head. I would like to see that here...and add bankers that faciliate the big money transactions which facilitate the flow of funds. I also think DUI should be treated much more harshly.....getting a fine and losing a license is bullshit....I want to see beatings, flogging, severe punishment for putting the public at risk. (this one is real close to home, and there are people that I would like to see dead for the things they have done while drunk and high)

All this being said, knowing that certain laws, and more specifically certain penalties would help deal with the drug problems...at what cost would we enact them? Eventually we lose the right to decide things for ourselves...and that is no better in my opinion.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:40:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:
those drugs turned a responsible woman into a killer!!!


Made a shitbag worse.



So if she was on cheap wine instead of meth this would be ok? Meth didn't kill her baby, a dumbass did.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:51:18 AM EDT

I doubt that AZ-K9's pictured "Gang Unit" would even exist if it weren't for the "War on Drugs".
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:53:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
neglect and homocide are already crimes.

We dont need drug laws to punish this woman, we already have laws to deal with her kind.




Cute little simplistic look at the world you have totally devoid of any concept of how the courts and government entities like Child Protective Service work.


But hey, whats fucking reality have to do with high ideas and cute little Libertarian catch-phrases?



Freedom and limited government are "high ideas"
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:55:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
neglect and homocide are already crimes.

We dont need drug laws to punish this woman, we already have laws to deal with her kind.



+1

Prohibition was a blast wasn't it, that worked real well. Fact of life is some people are scum bags and always will be. If drugs are legal or illegal it makes no differance. What if she just got drunk on legal alcohol? Same end result.

Some people will always do drugs. Some will be addicts some will merely use it socially and some won't touch them.

Drugs are an object like a gun they do nothing on their own. Why gun owners can understand that a gun cannot pull its own trigger but think drugs - another object - is evil is beyond me. The war on drugs is merely a war on your rights.

I don't do drugs, never even tried pot, and I have no desire to do any wether theyare legal or not. But poloticians who infrindge MY rights with their so called war on drugs make me sick.

The whole debate is about PEOPLE CONTROL not DRUG CONTROL do you NOT SEE THE PARALLEL WITH GUN CONTROL?!?!?!?!?! Oh I forgot DRUG CONTROL is ok ITS FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

If you get high and kill someone then there are laws against that. If you neglect your kids and they die there are laws for that. Freedom over false safety ahem, "for the children". Sure we will have people that abuse the freedom and inocent people will get hurt and killed. If in the pursuit of your happieness you assult, negelct your kid, or inadvertantly kill someone we have laws and punishments for such. But if you want to be a pot head and smoke dope in your living room who the fuck cares.

Oh and when was the last time you saw the COORS driver gun down the MILLER driver?!?! Make drugs illegal and you end the majority of the violence and crime associated with it, AND restore your 1st and 4th ammendment rights among others.... But those poor DEA guys might have to find real work BOOO WHOOOO cry me a river.....
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:02:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
neglect and homocide are already crimes.

We dont need drug laws to punish this woman, we already have laws to deal with her kind.




Cute little simplistic look at the world you have totally devoid of any concept of how the courts and government entities like Child Protective Service work.


But hey, whats fucking reality have to do with high ideas and cute little Libertarian catch-phrases?



I've had a 15 day week and I'm tired as all hell so bear with me here....

But what the fuck did you just say??
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:04:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dread-pirate:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
neglect and homocide are already crimes.

We dont need drug laws to punish this woman, we already have laws to deal with her kind.



+1

Prohibition was a blast wasn't it, that worked real well. Fact of life is some people are scum bags and always will be. If drugs are legal or illegal it makes no differance. What if she just got drunk on legal alcohol? Same end result.

Some people will always do drugs. Some will be addicts some will merely use it socially and some won't touch them.

Drugs are an object like a gun they do nothing on their own. Why gun owners can understand that a gun cannot pull its own trigger but think drugs - another object - is evil is beyond me. The war on drugs is merely a war on your rights.

I don't do drugs, never even tried pot, and I have no desire to do any wether theyare legal or not. But poloticians who infrindge MY rights with their so called war on drugs make me sick.

The whole debate is about PEOPLE CONTROL not DRUG CONTROL do you NOT SEE THE PARALLEL WITH GUN CONTROL?!?!?!?!?! Oh I forgot DRUG CONTROL is ok ITS FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

If you get high and kill someone then there are laws against that. If you neglect your kids and they die there are laws for that. Freedom over false safety ahem, "for the children". Sure we will have people that abuse the freedom and inocent people will get hurt and killed. If in the pursuit of your happieness you assult, negelct your kid, or inadvertantly kill someone we have laws and punishments for such. But if you want to be a pot head and smoke dope in your living room who the fuck cares.

Oh and when was the last time you saw the COORS driver gun down the MILLER driver?!?! Make drugs illegal and you end the majority of the violence and crime associated with it, AND restore your 1st and 4th ammendment rights among others.... But those poor DEA guys might have to find real work BOOO WHOOOO cry me a river.....



Although the grammar needs work, the point is made and valid. People are always going to do drugs, it's just like trying to put a end to prostitution. Governments have been trying for thousands of years, but it hasn't worked other than giving people a false sense of security. My opinion on most of this stuff is that it should be legalized, taxed and regulated, with plenty of inspections and oversight. Criminals would then be unable to profit off of activities that are currently legal, making them have to move on to something else in order to make money. Who knows, the smarter ones might actually turn around and get into a legal line of work because that's where the money would be. Seriously, follow the money.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:10:45 AM EDT
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that Claudia Contreras needs to spend a very long time behind bars, assuming she is convicted of the crimes she is charged with.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:11:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that Claudia Contreras needs to spend a very long time behind bars, assuming she is convicted of the crimes she is charged with.



No argument here. Hell, in some of these neglect cases, I might even be tempted to suggest capital punishment is a good idea.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:19:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By C-4:
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that Claudia Contreras needs to spend a very long time behind bars, assuming she is convicted of the crimes she is charged with.



No argument here. Hell, in some of these neglect cases, I might even be tempted to suggest capital punishment is a good idea.



The weird thing is that the law doesn't allow involuntary sterilization as part of the sentence. Sems like that would be step 1 when somebody proves they are unfit to care for children.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:30:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 6:35:25 AM EDT by Paul]
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:42:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By C-4:
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that Claudia Contreras needs to spend a very long time behind bars, assuming she is convicted of the crimes she is charged with.



No argument here. Hell, in some of these neglect cases, I might even be tempted to suggest capital punishment is a good idea.



The weird thing is that the law doesn't allow involuntary sterilization as part of the sentence. Sems like that would be step 1 when somebody proves they are unfit to care for children.



Yeah, unfortunately. However, it does occasionally happen with the criminally insane. My mom is a nurse and she had to do a rotation at a facilty by the name of Clifton T. Perkins, it's a prison for the criminally insane. There was a female inmate there who kept bitching about her gyn problems so she'd get taken to a hospital and would then try to escape. After the third time she tried this, they took her to the hospital and had her sterilized. Since she was a ward of the state, it was perfectly legal to do this. If they can find an excuse to do it, they'll do it. I'm all for it.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 7:22:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jblachly:
I doubt that AZ-K9's pictured "Gang Unit" would even exist if it weren't for the "War on Drugs".


ummmmmm, I'm certain it would. My dog however, prolly not.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 7:26:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mikejohnson:

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:
those drugs turned a responsible woman into a killer!!!


libtards say the same thing about guns...


Sar-casm.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 7:31:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sagus:
I think we need to split California in half. The southern half takes the name California. The northern half takes the name "Not California".

California (south) should then legalize all forms of drugs. This will free up the rest of the country, as much of the trash from the rest of the states with quickly migrate there. Once there, they'll kill each other off, or just die in blissful overdose.

(Apologies to the good Californians out there)




If you do that, please annex San Francisco into the southern half, "Not California" doesn't need their kind if you know what I mean.
Top Top