home

California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead Prisoner

By Jeralyn, Section Inmates and Prisons
Posted on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 11:33:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

28 year old Daniel Provencio had five months to go on his sentence to Wasco State Prison for violating parole on a repeat DUI offense. During an uprising, of which his role, if any, is not known, he was shot in the head with a foam projectile from a guard's gun. He was declared brain-dead and put on life support. Consistent with prison policy, he has been guarded 24 hours a day by guards at the hospital.

His family, hoping for a miracle, won't allow him to be taken off life support. Tired of paying the bills, the California Department of Prisons has granted him early release.

Provencio was shot after a fight broke out in a lounge area as about 40 inmates were being given dinner. Three prisoners were involved, and one tried to restrain guards who intervened. Officials have declined to say what Provencio's role was.

After officers ordered the inmates down on the floor, a guard in an elevated control room fired a large, foam pellet from a 40-millimeter launcher. The foam balls, which are used for riot control, are considered non-lethal and are meant to be fired at a person's extremities, prison officials said.

Provencio was taken to Mercy Hospital, where family members said doctors induced a coma to operate and relieve swelling on his brain. Since then, neurologists have declared him brain-dead, his family said.

If he was shot by a guard, California should keep paying for his medical care. But the policy of having guards at his bedside? Just stupid.

< Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget | Montel Williams: 'It's Time to Take Politics Out of the Debate' >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead Prisoner | 15 comments (15 topical)
    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#1)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    “If he was shot by a guard, California should keep paying for his medical care.” Don’t you mean that if the guard was found to be negligent Californian should keep paying for his medical care?

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    maybe your a lawyer, maybe not, but a lot of your posts, and the reps in general, frequently take the legal/illegal position, what’s wrong with doing the right thing. and before that thought is morphed into something unrecognizable, doing the right thing, being that manner in which you would want to be treated if one of your family members or yourself were faced with a similar situation.
    ..During an uprising, of which his role, if any, is not known...
    wrong place (definitely), wrong time (apparently) compassionate conservatism, sounds good as a sound bite. a little bit harder to transfer to reality.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#3)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 12:51:55 PM EST
    “doing the right thing, being that manner in which you would want to be treated if one of your family members or yourself were faced with a similar situation.” I was speaking in terms of right and wrong. Your general sense of nepotism isn’t just; it isn’t reasonable to hold me responsible for another’s bad decisions and I would hardly ask to have others held responsible for mine. Rather I would hope they feel compassionate and charitable.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    Hmmm.....a classic case of bad things that could happen when you violate the opportunity presented to you as a parolee. This poor guy got a 4 month early release. If he had nothing to do with the riot, than make those who did responsible for this turn of events, as their actions led to this tragedy. Manslaughter charges for the lot of them.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    I was speaking in terms of right and wrong...
    this is your version of right/wrong:
    “If he was shot by a guard, California should keep paying for his medical care.”
    who else would have weapons in a prison uprising? the possibility that he was shot by someone other than a guard i grant is in the realm of possibility, but the real of probability, not.
    Rather I would hope they feel compassionate and charitable
    i believe that to be the gist of the post, that there was no compassion, and no charity. i hope there are some other legal issues, which would prevent the state from doing this, but it is after all CA.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    correction this is your version of right/wrong:
    Don’t you mean that if the guard was found to be negligent Californian should keep paying for his medical care?
    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#7)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    “i believe that to be the gist of the post, that there was no compassion, and no charity.” The state takes my money under the threat of imprisonment and violence. Compassion and charity cannot be done on my behalf by the state; charity is something I do in spite of the state pilfering my paycheck. So, talking about compassion in this fashion, ‘California should keep paying for his medical care”, is nonsense.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#8)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 01:35:26 PM EST
    I wrote the above with the understanding that you were suggesting, given that the injury was no-fault and unavoidable, the (charitable) responsibility of California to take care of this man. Correct me if I am mistaken.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 02:03:58 PM EST
    Hardleft, there is nothing prohibiting you from donating to the man's well being. If 50 people here would donate $10 a week (2 coffees at Starbucks) then the family would get $500 a week to help them out. Should be pretty easy to do. I'm putting you in charge.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 02:38:41 PM EST
    I wrote the above with the understanding that you were suggesting, given that the injury was no-fault and unavoidable, the (charitable) responsibility of California to take care of this man. Correct me if I am mistaken.
    its really not even charity, the guy was a prisoner, under the care of the state, his safety was their responsibility. like i said, the family probably has some other legal recourse that i'm sure they'll be pursuing.
    Hardleft, there is nothing prohibiting you from donating to the man's well being. If 50 people here would donate $10 a week (2 coffees at Starbucks) then the family would get $500 a week to help them out. Should be pretty easy to do. I'm putting you in charge.
    being a tax paying citizen of the u.s., i already contribute to this mans (all prisoners, yes all receive federal funding) well being. if all you got is some asinine a$$ remarks, go back to your date with rosey and her four sisters.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#11)
    by cp on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 03:16:21 PM EST
    well, i'm not a lawyer, and i don't play one on tv. but, i do work in a legal realm, and watch all the "law & order" shows. seems to me the chain of potential civil liability stretches back to the manufacturer of the gun used to quell the riot. clearly, while "non-lethal", it is high risk. was that made clear to the state, prior to purchasing it? was the guard who fired it properly trained in its use? did the guard use it in the prescribed manner? there appear to be several possible "deep pockets" to explore, absent proof that the individual contributed to his own injuries, by being actively involved in the riot, and/or failing to follow the orders of the guards. oh, by the way, for pig and others who claim immunity, sorry guys, but you aren't. just because you didn't actually pull the trigger, the teflon ain't on you. the guard, as a state employee, acts on your behalf, your agent as it were. so, liability for any misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance inevitably accrues to his employer, you. that's the way it works in the real world.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#12)
    by wishful on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 03:50:51 PM EST
    There are many ways for a society to deal with crime. We chose the prison system as a mainstay of our criminal justice system. As such, and as hardLeft said, prisoners are then our responsibility. If we make them braindead, it is our problem. Unfortunately, the state chooses not to divulge the actions of this particular prisoner in the events leading up to the guard making him braindead. Interestingly, there was a post here not long ago about whistleblower CA prison guards being punished by their union and subsequently the prison system. Their punishable actions were reporting unprovoked beatings of inmates by guards. This kind of behavior tends to cast doubt on what if anything is eventually said by guards about this incident, especially if the facts indicate that guards will get in trouble if exposed.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#13)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 04:16:25 PM EST
    “oh, by the way, for pig and others who claim immunity, sorry guys, but you aren't. just because you didn't actually pull the trigger, the teflon ain't on you.” I refer you to my 2:53 post. If the guard was negligent then his employers should carry the financial burden. “seems to me the chain of potential civil liability stretches back to the manufacturer of the gun used to quell the riot.” I thought this was satire at first; sadly I think you are serious. "if all you got is some asinine a$$ remarks, go back to your date with rosey and her four sisters." How can I argue with this? Cogent, concise; bravo.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 02:33:03 PM EST
    pigwiggle, regardless of the negligence question, the state must provide medical care, in this case life support, to those it imprisons. I think what's objectionable here is that the state has decided to parole this particular prisoner so as not to have to pay the tab for the medical care he needs on account of a state employee shooting him in the head, rightly or wrongly. Since when do we base parole decisions on the relative cost to treat? As a winger, what would you say if a prisoner who victimized YOU were let out early, or never sentenced to begin with, because some "fiscal conservative" official did not want the state to pick up the medical tab? As a winger, you should be arguing the state should not pay for prisoners' medical care to begin with: like the parolee, or any other person, the prisoner pays for care/insurance out of his own pocket, or gets no care. Here, you should be arguing, the state should have denied parole AND yanked the tubes.

    Re: California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 04:16:27 PM EST
    The State didn't base thier decision to release Provencio upon cost. It was based upon the families request and in cases where an inmate has less than 6 months to live he was also eligible for a compassionate release.

    California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead Prisoner | 15 comments (15 topical)