When I was a young man my friend joined the Metropolitan Police, he was taught, and they certainly enforced a higher standard on cops then civilians, a speeding ticket would get you suspended, any criminal conviction under any circumstance would get you fired immediately.
As it stands in the US right now the police are being held to a much, much, lower standard than the civilians they are supposed to be policing, this should have resulted in a instant dismissal and probable criminal charges, it doesn't matter what the cop thought the law was, there was no need to arrest a nurse who's just doing her job, she thinks she needs a warrant, even if she's wrong you make a call and get it sorted out above their heads
I don't disagree entirely.
However everyone is entitled to due process.
While we could what if this to death, if he felt the nurse was willfully obstructing him, she should be arrested. So in that sense, what he thought is all that matters - the arrest is what we are talking about afterall.
If he knew he wasn't lawfully placed and unlawfully arrested her, of course he should be found accountable and subject to whatever investigation/punishment necessary.
Edit - by willful obstruction, I mean he had legal standing and she was intentionally preventing him from following through.
Edit 2 - someone mentioned the lack of warrant was implied. Do we know for sure there was no warrant?
While we could what if this to death, if he felt the nurse was willfully obstructing him, she should be arrested. So in that sense, what he thought is all that matters - the arrest is what we are talking about afterall.
If he knew he wasn't lawfully placed and unlawfully arrested her, of course he should be found accountable and subject to whatever investigation/punishment necessary.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Huh? He knew exactly. He is informed of the procedure/protocol, multiple times, and then flips his lid and just does what he wants.
Also, what he "thinks" is irrelevant. He is required to KNOW the law, not just make it up as he goes along. Particularly after he is told and shown what the exact procedure and law is, and admits he has no grounds Ie. no arrest warrant, no warrant of any kind, the victim was not under arrest and the victim was in a coma and unable to give consent.
Last edited by Minnie; 09-01-2017 at 09:54 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Minnie For This Useful Post:
Huh? He knew exactly. He is informed of the procedure/protocol, multiple times, and then flips his lid and just does what he wants.
Huh? Forgive me because I haven't gone through all the links. He knew what exactly? My point is, a hospital may have procedure and or protocol but it's irrelevant IF he has lawful authority.
Thanks for your edit Minnie. If in fact, he acknowledges he has no legal authority to make the request he certainly has no legal authority to arrest the nurse. I agree,in this case,he should be dealt with accordingly.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to Enigma For This Useful Post:
Huh? Forgive me because I haven't gone through all the links. He knew what exactly? My point is, a hospital may have procedure and or protocol but it's irrelevant IF he has lawful authority.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
How many ways must this be explained to you or be told to you? If you watch the videos, she tells him/shows him the protocol for permitting the blood draw. She even says "since you have neither of those" (meaning no warrant, victim is not under arrest) he replies "so what you're telling me, is that I'm not going to get a blood draw" and the hospital admin on the phone tells him he's making a huge mistake because he doesn't have any of those things (nor does he have the victim/patient's consent to do the draw) - at this point, he flips his wig and it all goes to ####, which you'd see if you watched the videos, particularly the first video.
ETA: sorry for the snippy tone. It wasn't necessary.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Minnie For This Useful Post:
While we could what if this to death, if he felt the nurse was willfully obstructing him, she should be arrested. So in that sense, what he thought is all that matters - the arrest is what we are talking about afterall.
If he knew he wasn't lawfully placed and unlawfully arrested her, of course he should be found accountable and subject to whatever investigation/punishment necessary.
Edit - by willful obstruction, I mean he had legal standing and she was intentionally preventing him from following through.
Edit 2 - someone mentioned the lack of warrant was implied. Do we know for sure there was no warrant?
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Watch the video and/or read the article. All the information you're speculating on is provided there.
None of your hypotheticals happened. The facts are established.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to longsuffering For This Useful Post:
ETA: sorry for the snippy tone. It wasn't necessary.
Actually I think it is Enigma who should be apologizing. He weighed into the thread not having bothered to watch a linked video or read a linked news report then wastes everyone times trying to establish the facts that were fully established in the articles and videos.
Normal posters don't do that.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to longsuffering For This Useful Post:
Actually I think it is Enigma who should be apologizing. He weighed into the thread not having bothered to watch a linked video or read a linked news report then wastes everyone times trying to establish the facts that were fully established in the articles and videos.
Normal posters don't do that.
LOL.
Apologies. Didn't realize how truly valuable your time was. Not sure if your new to the intewebs or forums, but it just may be full of time wasting arguments, relevant or not. I welcome you.
I guess being clean / unimpaired would deter the suspect's estate from trying to allocate partial blame to him for not successfully avoiding the swerving suspect. Not that I think any court should buy an argument like that.
What exactly is your point Enigma if you haven't even bothered to get familiar with the facts of the story? Your posts make little sense in this thread.
And what's POS that cop is. America truly is a third world country in a lot of places.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to calgaryblood For This Useful Post:
This is just a guy who couldn't handle being wrong. His self esteem and identity is so tied up with being a cop it just freaked him out totally when a bunch of civilians of all things tried to teach him something. He took it as a threat to his identity and acted out. Happens all the time. No one likes being wrong. He needs a new job.
In a conversation with fellow officers, the Salt Lake City police detective who arrested a nurse when she followed hospital policy and refused to take blood from an unconscious patient commented that in the future he’d ”take good patients elsewhere.”
Detective Jeff Payne told another officer that he works a second job as a paramedic with Gold Cross Ambulance and brings patients to University Hospital, body camera footage obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune shows.
When the other officer tells Payne that the staff at the hospital probably won’t be very happy with him, Payne responds, ”I’ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere.”
“So why don’t we just write a search warrant,” the officer wearing the body camera says to Payne.
“They don’t have PC,” Payne responds, using the abbreviation for probable cause, which police must have to get a warrant for search and seizure. He adds that he plans to arrest the nurse if she doesn’t allow him to draw blood. “I’ve never gone this far,” he says.
Found this on FB - link to Twitter acct it came from at bottom.
Quote:
Ifyou watched that video of the nurse being arrested for refusing to pull blood from an unconscious victim of a car crash, check this thread out. It gets far, far worse. The levels of corruption and malice are incredible:
Quote:
"Turns out the patient was the victim of a head on car crash, instigated by a high speed police pursuit against department policy. The other driver--the suspect--died in the crash. So why did the cop want the victim's blood? To find something to disparage the victim and excuse the police from instigating the deadly car chase. This is not really uncommon, relatively speaking. Other cop on video saying no probable cause. It's not that they didn't want to go to effort of getting a warrant, they knew no judge would sign one. Also, the Supreme Court decision holding it unconstitutional to draw blood w/o consent or warrant came down last year. The cop is a trained phlebotomjist in the police blood draw unit. There is *no way* he was unaware of a SCOTUS case that directly controlled his work. So this is incredible in that its actually worse than the video shows--it's criminal abuse of power in at least three ways Oh, and dept reviewed video w/in 12 hrs, did nothing til it went viral. If you think he's just a rogue cop, you're not paying attention. Turns out, victim was off duty Idaho cop. Nurse Wubbels was arrested for protecting an unconscious officer from abuse by another officer."
Which recently banned user is Enigma? An account that has sat dormant for 15 years. Jumps right in, playing devil's advocate without even making himself aware of the story he's arguing.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
