"SALT LAKE CITY — Two Salt Lake police officers were placed on leave Friday and a criminal investigation was ordered after video of a veteran officer dragging a nurse out of a hospital when she refused to allow a blood draw from an unconscious patient was broadcast across the country.
The Salt Lake Police Department announced Friday afternoon that the officer involved in the startling video had been placed on paid administrative leave — hours after Chief Mike Brown announced that the officer had still been working on duty but in a limited role since the incident occurred more than a month ago.
The statement from the department does not name the officer, but police officials made no effort to dispute that it is the same individual seen arresting the nurse in the video — detective Jeff
The change in status halts Payne's policing powers and requires that he hand over his badge and any department equipment while the Unified Police Department conducts an independent investigation into they controversial July 26 arrest.
KSL made repeated inquiries into the status of Salt Lake Police Lt. James Tracy, the watch commander at the time of the incident who, according to a police report, instructed Payne to arrest the nurse. Department officials confirmed that a statement was being prepared about those inquiries.
In a tweet sent Friday evening, the department announced that a second officer had also been placed on leave in light of the criminal investigation, but would not confirm the name of that officer or what role the officer played in the incident.
In addition to being the supervisor over the department's officers during that shift, Tracy also came to the scene and was recorded in the video exchanging sharp words with the handcuffed woman.
Payne also works as a paramedic for Gold Cross Ambulance Service and was even dropping off patients at University Hospital Friday morning.
Mike Moffitt, Gold Cross president, said Payne was also placed on paid leave from that company Friday based on his statements in the video in which the detective talks to another officer about transporting homeless patients to University Hospital while "good" patients are taken elsewhere.
Moffitt said Payne is a longtime employee with the company and a "great paramedic."
"He doesn't have anything like this in his history," Moffitt said.
Relieved nurse
Video captured by an officer's body camera was first released to the public Thursday and shows Payne dragging a screaming charge nurse, Alex Wubbels, out of University Hospital's burn unit, handcuffing her and stuffing her into his squad car.
The recording spread nationwide in a matter of hours, and Wubbels' account of the harrowing arrest was the top story on several national news outlets Friday, as hashtags of #AlexWubbels and #FireJeffPayne spread widely on social media.
Wubbels, a two-time Olympian in alpine skiing, released the video and pushed for better training of police officers in hopes of preventing "harassment," as she called it, of hospital doctors and nurses.
In an interview with NBC Friday, Wubbels said she feels relieved after sharing the details of her experience.
"Now that its been released to the public, I will say that I feel a little bit less of a burden that I was holding for a long time, and the outpouring of support has been more than I could have ever, ever, ever imagined and I'm very, very, very grateful for that," Wubbels said.
Though Brown confirmed during midday Friday that the department began taking action within hours of the incident in July, Payne had been allowed to remain at work but was suspended from the blood draw program. He was not placed on leave until Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill saw the video and called for the criminal investigation.
Gill called the video "concerning" Friday, noting that Wubbels is clear and articulate in the video as she insists she is following hospital policy.
"The question is if that behavior is not reasonable and is subject to police action, then under what context? And that's exactly what I would like to be investigated," Gill said."
What kind of really annoys me that this poor nurse had backup from a row of superiors, but when that LEO didn't get what he wanted, he simply arrested the person talking to him basically the poor middlewoman, probably knowing that he'd rather get away with arresting a nurse than arresting her bosses...
Okay, so I have been following this a few days and I have noticed some things. Most people get very confused by the article for some reason. Here is the rundown:
The person they are wanting blood draws from is the victim, not the suspect. The suspect died in the wreck, therefore he does not fall under the state's implied consent laws.
The nurse is obligated by law to keep this officer from illegally drawing blood from this man.
I just wanted to point that out, I guess there were a few issues with articles stating he was the suspect, not the victim. Which is false.
Relapse wrote: The person they wanted to draw blood from was not even suspected of anything. He was just a motorist the man fleeing from the police happened to hit.
The question we should ask then is "why would the officer even want a blood test?"
At least over here, when there is a traffic accident and police on the scene, they will routinely test all involved parties for blood alcohol (sometimes drugs too) even if only one driver is the obvious cause. They can do that as part of their normal traffic control duties, and if you don't consent they will ask you to come along to a hospital for a blood test. If they don't they leave a possible line of investigation open - it might look 100% sure to them but a judge might not think so even if police testimony is generally regarded as more weighty than some random civilian's testimony.
So, in this particular US state, would police be expected to get tests from all parties involved in a crash?If so I can see how the officer would be upset at not getting that, and even if a paramedic he might not know all the rules the hospital follows.
Edit: Ah, there:
" The request for the blood draw came from the Logan Police Department, which was called on by the Utah Highway Patrol to investigate the chase and the crash, Logan Police Capt. Curtis Hooley said Friday. Though police do not suspect that Gray was impaired in any way, Hooley said the department's policy is to request blood tests of all drivers involved in such crashes. "
Still, dragging a nurse away in the middle of her shift was a bad call. He had her name, he had her explanation. If he thought she broke some law he could let her carry on with her (pretty important) job and filed a complant along with his report. Arresting a screaming nurse on the scene was not necessary, no one else there was going to do it anyway and he made the department look bad.
Unless they have a warrant, he is under arrest, or has given consent, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to draw blood from a person.
The reason they wanted the blood was to prove he was not under the influence in the crash. But, the law still applies even in cases where it is benificial to the person. This is to protect the patient as well as the caregivers.
Additionally the question arises on what authority do they have to arrest the nurse. This must be some Constitutional grant from a different constitution than the one in Washington DC.
Dreadwinter wrote: Unless they have a warrant, he is under arrest, or has given consent, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to draw blood from a person.
The reason they wanted the blood was to prove he was not under the influence in the crash.
Very doubtful.
The driver's only involvement in the crash was being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the suspect in a high speed chase plowed into him. There's no legitimate reason for detective dip gak to be demanding a blood draw without consent.
My best guess on why they REALLY wanted the blood was to cover their own rear-ends. Many times when the police chase someone and it leads to a fatality or injury, especially to innocent third parties, there is a lawsuit regardless of the police's liability.
This looks really bad against the police, so they usually settle and someone gets a smudge on their record. If they could prove the victim was impaired, well then it is his fault for being on the road.
Whatever the officer's reason for it, his execution of his duties were flawed. I'm glad their are now investigating him criminally.
Then again, what do you expect? The courts have ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect anyone, nor are they ever expected to actually know the laws they are supposed to enforce.
Relapse wrote: The person they wanted to draw blood from was not even suspected of anything. He was just a motorist the man fleeing from the police happened to hit.
The question we should ask then is "why would the officer even want a blood test?"
At least over here, when there is a traffic accident and police on the scene, they will routinely test all involved parties for blood alcohol (sometimes drugs too) even if only one driver is the obvious cause. They can do that as part of their normal traffic control duties, and if you don't consent they will ask you to come along to a hospital for a blood test. If they don't they leave a possible line of investigation open - it might look 100% sure to them but a judge might not think so even if police testimony is generally regarded as more weighty than some random civilian's testimony.
So, in this particular US state, would police be expected to get tests from all parties involved in a crash?If so I can see how the officer would be upset at not getting that, and even if a paramedic he might not know all the rules the hospital follows.
Edit: Ah, there:
" The request for the blood draw came from the Logan Police Department, which was called on by the Utah Highway Patrol to investigate the chase and the crash, Logan Police Capt. Curtis Hooley said Friday. Though police do not suspect that Gray was impaired in any way, Hooley said the department's policy is to request blood tests of all drivers involved in such crashes. "
Still, dragging a nurse away in the middle of her shift was a bad call. He had her name, he had her explanation. If he thought she broke some law he could let her carry on with her (pretty important) job and filed a complant along with his report. Arresting a screaming nurse on the scene was not necessary, no one else there was going to do it anyway and he made the department look bad.
There was an agreement made years ago between the SLCPD and the area hospitals that the conditions for the blood draw the nurse spoke with the cop about needed to be met before she could legally do so.
OK I want to say that cop should not have cuff the nurse. I think the reason they wanted a blood sample is what I believe is the unconscious patient is a truck driver with a CDL. When a CDL driver get into major accident they have to get test within 24 hour after the accident . I think it a Fed law for all CDL driver.I know because I' am CDL A driver which is a Tractor trailer. I also know that 3 of my fellow driver that were in major accident had to submit to testing regardless if you at fault or not. The gray area is the driver (patient) is unconscious. I hope this help you all .
Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Dreadwinter wrote: Unless they have a warrant, he is under arrest, or has given consent, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to draw blood from a person.
The reason they wanted the blood was to prove he was not under the influence in the crash.
Very doubtful.
The driver's only involvement in the crash was being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the suspect in a high speed chase plowed into him. There's no legitimate reason for detective dip gak to be demanding a blood draw without consent.
There is no reason for the detective to demand the blood draw. But that doesn't mean they didn't try to come up with one.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Well, I would guess that many people are misunderstanding the situation. The reporting initially made it seem like the unconscious guy was the suspect in the crash. In which case getting a blood sample when he's unconscious is both legal and justified. So under that information, it would seem like the Nurse was obstructing an investigation.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Well, I would guess that many people are misunderstanding the situation. The reporting initially made it seem like the unconscious guy was the suspect in the crash. In which case getting a blood sample when he's unconscious is both legal and justified. So under that information, it would seem like the Nurse was obstructing an investigation.
If he were the suspect in the crash, then the detective could have gone before a judge to obtain a warrant/compelling order for the blood draw.
Putting it bluntly, the detective in question was overstepping and he knew it. I hope his ass gets nailed to the wall over this.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Well, I would guess that many people are misunderstanding the situation. The reporting initially made it seem like the unconscious guy was the suspect in the crash. In which case getting a blood sample when he's unconscious is both legal and justified. So under that information, it would seem like the Nurse was obstructing an investigation.
No it wouldn't, not under any circumstance. The law across the U.S. is very clear in this regard, so we're left with the question - is Payne too stupid to know how to do his job, or does he think that the law doesn't apply to him?
No it wouldn't, not under any circumstance. The law across the U.S. is very clear in this regard, so we're left with the question - is Payne too stupid to know how to do his job, or does he think that the law doesn't apply to him?
Don't forget that Payne was also assigned to a special blood draw unit within the department; meaning his whole assignment was to get blood draws for cases.
Oh and to put a bit more context into things:
Over the years, it's been shown that police departments can be held liable if a fleeing suspect injures/kills other motorists. The reasoning is that police don't necessarily have to pursue a fleeing suspect.
Likely they wanted the blood drawn from the crash victim to try and see if they had anything in their system as it could be used as a mitigating circumstance("they were coming down from the effects of an energy drink" as an example) that would make it so that a case could reasonably be built that the victim's reflexes were impaired.
No it wouldn't, not under any circumstance. The law across the U.S. is very clear in this regard, so we're left with the question - is Payne too stupid to know how to do his job, or does he think that the law doesn't apply to him?
Don't forget that Payne was also assigned to a special blood draw unit within the department; meaning his whole assignment was to get blood draws for cases.
Oh and to put a bit more context into things:
Over the years, it's been shown that police departments can be held liable if a fleeing suspect injures/kills other motorists. The reasoning is that police don't necessarily have to pursue a fleeing suspect.
Likely they wanted the blood drawn from the crash victim to try and see if they had anything in their system as it could be used as a mitigating circumstance("they were coming down from the effects of an energy drink" as an example) that would make it so that a case could reasonably be built that the victim's reflexes were impaired.
Kan is right here...
I hope this officer is reprimanded harshly if not fired. My bro-inlaw is a po-po... and he think this is beyond the pale.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Well, I would guess that many people are misunderstanding the situation. The reporting initially made it seem like the unconscious guy was the suspect in the crash. In which case getting a blood sample when he's unconscious is both legal and justified. So under that information, it would seem like the Nurse was obstructing an investigation.
No it wouldn't, not under any circumstance. The law across the U.S. is very clear in this regard, so we're left with the question - is Payne too stupid to know how to do his job, or does he think that the law doesn't apply to him?
we are blaming pawn. His BOSS told him to arrest the nurse. Both should be terminated. The fact they haven't been (following contract union procedures) says novels.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembly I feel for your Bro in law. For all the Goodwill where officers help in Harvey, one of these just wipes out so much of that Goodwill.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Well, I would guess that many people are misunderstanding the situation. The reporting initially made it seem like the unconscious guy was the suspect in the crash. In which case getting a blood sample when he's unconscious is both legal and justified. So under that information, it would seem like the Nurse was obstructing an investigation.
No it wouldn't, not under any circumstance. The law across the U.S. is very clear in this regard, so we're left with the question - is Payne too stupid to know how to do his job, or does he think that the law doesn't apply to him?
we are blaming pawn. His BOSS told him to arrest the nurse. Both should be terminated. The fact they haven't been (following contract union procedures) says novels.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembly I feel for your Bro in law. For all the Goodwill where officers help in Harvey, one of these just wipes out so much of that Goodwill.
Yeah... this goes to show that in a large homogeneous group, there will always be bad actors... the police are no exceptions to that.
This ordeal seems to be that policy of "Cover Yo Azz All Da Time!"... which in a general sense, isn't all bad. It's just when it crosses the line (in the case) that'd make all rational people goes... What The Feth?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Well, I would guess that many people are misunderstanding the situation. The reporting initially made it seem like the unconscious guy was the suspect in the crash. In which case getting a blood sample when he's unconscious is both legal and justified. So under that information, it would seem like the Nurse was obstructing an investigation.
If he were the suspect in the crash, then the detective could have gone before a judge to obtain a warrant/compelling order for the blood draw.
Putting it bluntly, the detective in question was overstepping and he knew it. I hope his ass gets nailed to the wall over this.
This. When I was a cop, we had to get a court order or warrant to get blood samples, even if the suspect volunteered to give a sample. It was also the same when I was working in Corrections before I finally retired.
"Implied consent" is a tricky gray area that agencies here in North Carolina didn't want to venture into. Even if you win, lawsuits cost money. State, County, and local agencies usually, as part of their SOPs, just went ahead and implemented "CYA" polices across the board to avoid both legal headaches and possible abuse. You need blood? Go get a warrant from a magistrate or (depending on the situation) a district court order.
The nurse was in the right here. If she drew that blood, odds are that she would have lost her State nursing license and barred for practicing for life (according to my mother, who worked in nursing for thirty years).
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Well, I would guess that many people are misunderstanding the situation. The reporting initially made it seem like the unconscious guy was the suspect in the crash. In which case getting a blood sample when he's unconscious is both legal and justified. So under that information, it would seem like the Nurse was obstructing an investigation.
No it wouldn't, not under any circumstance. The law across the U.S. is very clear in this regard, so we're left with the question - is Payne too stupid to know how to do his job, or does he think that the law doesn't apply to him?
we are blaming pawn. His BOSS told him to arrest the nurse. Both should be terminated. The fact they haven't been (following contract union procedures) says novels.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembly I feel for your Bro in law. For all the Goodwill where officers help in Harvey, one of these just wipes out so much of that Goodwill.
So far, the cop, the one who told him to arrest the nurse, and another cop, are now all subjects of a criminal investigation. The mayor and police chief are apologizing again and again to the nurse, saying this shouldn't have happened. It'll be interesting to see how far the cops sink into that gak pile they stepped into with this, especially since the police were in on the defining of the legal circumstances over a year ago where a blood sample may be taken.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Well, I would guess that many people are misunderstanding the situation. The reporting initially made it seem like the unconscious guy was the suspect in the crash. In which case getting a blood sample when he's unconscious is both legal and justified. So under that information, it would seem like the Nurse was obstructing an investigation.
Even if he were a suspect I would hope a nurse would be well within their rights to refuse to draw blood, or perform any procedure, for whatever reason. The officer seemed to come from the Judge Dread/Eric Cartman school of policing, which is not the reality. The police should not be able to demand (or think they can demand) anything from anyone. After all the US is not a police state.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Well, I would guess that many people are misunderstanding the situation. The reporting initially made it seem like the unconscious guy was the suspect in the crash. In which case getting a blood sample when he's unconscious is both legal and justified. So under that information, it would seem like the Nurse was obstructing an investigation.
No it wouldn't, not under any circumstance. The law across the U.S. is very clear in this regard, so we're left with the question - is Payne too stupid to know how to do his job, or does he think that the law doesn't apply to him?
we are blaming pawn. His BOSS told him to arrest the nurse. Both should be terminated. The fact they haven't been (following contract union procedures) says novels.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembly I feel for your Bro in law. For all the Goodwill where officers help in Harvey, one of these just wipes out so much of that Goodwill.
So far, the cop, the one who told him to arrest the nurse, and another cop, are now all subjects of a criminal investigation. The mayor and police chief are apologizing again and again to the nurse, saying this shouldn't have happened. It'll be interesting to see how far the cops sink into that gak pile they stepped into with this, especially since the police were in on the defining of the legal circumstances over a year ago where a blood sample may be taken.
it's all talk unless the dude and his boss are demoted or terminated.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further, the hospital should end any relationship it has with the police.
I have only ever had to decline a blood draw once from an officer.
Why?
The Judge didn't sign the court order. I explained this to the officer (who did not arrest me) and he got it fixed in about 15 minutes.
Barney Fife should have chosen a different career path. In the video he is asked by another officer why they just don't go ahead and get a warrant and he admits they have no probable cause to mandate the blood draw.
Both officers screwed up in the heat of the moment. It isn't good, but it happens. The hospital had an unlawful request, and rightly refused. In the wash up of this, the cops have been stood down and are under criminal investigation and the hospital and nurse have been vindicated.
Remember the system isn't about preventing any possible mistake, but in minimizing these mistakes by making sure other parts of the system prevent unlawful acts and punish such requests after the fact. The system worked fine in this instance.
All the stuff speculating about the police wanting the sample for nefarious reasons, or the hospital ending any relationship with the police... these are some pretty weird reactions you've come up with dakka.
sebster wrote: I don't really get the story here, to be honest.
Both officers screwed up in the heat of the moment. It isn't good, but it happens. The hospital had an unlawful request, and rightly refused. In the wash up of this, the cops have been stood down and are under criminal investigation and the hospital and nurse have been vindicated.
Remember the system isn't about preventing any possible mistake, but in minimizing these mistakes by making sure other parts of the system prevent unlawful acts and punish such requests after the fact. The system worked fine in this instance.
All the stuff speculating about the police wanting the sample for nefarious reasons, or the hospital ending any relationship with the police... these are some pretty weird reactions you've come up with dakka.
This wasn't in the heat of the moment. He knew this was going to happen. He had orders to arrest her if she did not comply to his commands that he knew she would not be able to comply with.
He was ordered to break the law by a superior officer and did it. To top it off, there was no criminal investigation or suspensions until after this was revealed at a press conference on Thursday. Kind of shows that the police had no intention to deal with this issue internally. Just sweep it under the rug. Kinda par for the course though.
sebster wrote: I don't really get the story here, to be honest.
Both officers screwed up in the heat of the moment. It isn't good, but it happens. The hospital had an unlawful request, and rightly refused. In the wash up of this, the cops have been stood down and are under criminal investigation and the hospital and nurse have been vindicated.
Remember the system isn't about preventing any possible mistake, but in minimizing these mistakes by making sure other parts of the system prevent unlawful acts and punish such requests after the fact. The system worked fine in this instance.
All the stuff speculating about the police wanting the sample for nefarious reasons, or the hospital ending any relationship with the police... these are some pretty weird reactions you've come up with dakka.
This wasn't in the heat of the moment. He knew this was going to happen. He had orders to arrest her if she did not comply to his commands that he knew she would not be able to comply with.
He was ordered to break the law by a superior officer and did it. To top it off, there was no criminal investigation or suspensions until after this was revealed at a press conference on Thursday. Kind of shows that the police had no intention to deal with this issue internally. Just sweep it under the rug. Kinda par for the course though.
Also it has to be seen in context. If this were a one off where an office had acted entirely inappropriately and been dealt with swiftly then, yes, there may be a case to say it is a screw-up. It would still be news, but not the same issue. This comes as part of an ongoing narrative of the US police acting in an authoritarian way, time and again choosing to use threats and power to force what they want. More often than not there as been an area of doubt or question. Did the officer have reasonable doubt that there was a risk to them? Did they act to aggressively, or did they make the wrong call in a stressful situation? This case however is clear. An officer in a safe environment, with time to think chose to escalate the situation beyond all reason and was supported in doing so by a superior. It is a clear abuse of power to a worrying extent, with the background of many more cases of similar actions which have some form of doubt.
sebster wrote: I don't really get the story here, to be honest.
Both officers screwed up in the heat of the moment. It isn't good, but it happens.
It wasn't a heat of the moment thing, they knew what they were doing was illegal. An illegal order was issued by a command level officer who was involved in the incident by phone and was made aware of the illegality of the request, and then traveled to the location to involve himself in person, and that order was voluntarily followed by an officer on the scene, two distinct individuals responsible for upholding the rule of law intentionally chose to ignore it and abused their authority to oppress a citizen doing nothing wrong so they could engage in an illegal seizing of property from an uncounscious person's body, while others stood by and allowed it to happen and did nothing to intervene.
The hospital had an unlawful request, and rightly refused. In the wash up of this, the cops have been stood down and are under criminal investigation and the hospital and nurse have been vindicated.
Remember the system isn't about preventing any possible mistake, but in minimizing these mistakes by making sure other parts of the system prevent unlawful acts and punish such requests after the fact. The system worked fine in this instance.
Hrm, I would dispute this, this incident occurred over a month ago. Nothing was done until the video went public and viral (and the former Olympian status of the nurse in question as well) and overwhelming public pressure was brought to bear, and only against the two officers who took direct action, not against those who stood by and did nothing despite knowing what was going on was wrong.
There also is no criminal investigation, at least as yet. There is only an internal police department investigation, essentially an HR matter, not a criminal matter, at least as far as I understand it.
What we have is a sadly iconic example that the police are not there to protect or serve, and should always be interacted with as little as possible and under the assumption that the police can and will violate the law at your expense for their own means and desires and that you will have little or no recourse, at least without post-facto overwhelming public backlash and the means to produce it. Police are neither required to know nor understand the law to enforce it as they see fit, and that the law will not necessarily defend you from them.
Take my earlier example of the police demanding to search your house without a warrant. You tell them they need one but they say if you don't comply they'll arrest you and search the place anyway, warrant be damned.
If you 'stand your ground' against a clearly illegal arrest/forced entry and shoot a policeman what happens then? What if they end up shooting you?
Or are they hoping that can of worms won't be opened? It's safe to treat an unarmed nurse like that, what if they fight back and people are injured? Are you allowed to resist an illegal arrest?
The only surprising thing about this is how quickly a miscarriage of justice was rectified. Also surprised we didn't see the usual smearing of the victim - where are the social media pictures of the nurse drinking, or maybe holding a gun, reminding us She Was No Angel?
Kinda funny how differently things pan out when the victim is a white woman
Howard A Treesong wrote: Take my earlier example of the police demanding to search your house without a warrant. You tell them they need one but they say if you don't comply they'll arrest you and search the place anyway, warrant be damned.
If you 'stand your ground' against a clearly illegal arrest/forced entry and shoot a policeman what happens then? What if they end up shooting you?
Or are they hoping that can of worms won't be opened? It's safe to treat an unarmed nurse like that, what if they fight back and people are injured? Are you allowed to resist an illegal arrest?
In theory? Yes.
In practice? No.
Such people typically get charged with capital murder and, if lucky, get it downgraded to manslaughter at some point. I know of only one case where someone got off, they grand jury no-billed a capital murder charge in Texas 3 or 4 years ago.
Vaktathi wrote: Such people typically get charged with capital murder and, if lucky, get it downgraded to manslaughter at some point. I know of only one case where someone got off, they grand jury no-billed a capital murder charge in Texas 3 or 4 years ago.
I remember that but man is that an outlier.
If you resist an unlawful arrest, you're lucky to get off with a beating.
Ouze wrote: The only surprising thing about this is how quickly a miscarriage of justice was rectified. Also surprised we didn't see the usual smearing of the victim - where are the social media pictures of the nurse drinking, or maybe holding a gun, reminding us She Was No Angel?
Kinda funny how differently things pan out when the victim is a white woman
Ouze wrote: The only surprising thing about this is how quickly a miscarriage of justice was rectified. Also surprised we didn't see the usual smearing of the victim - where are the social media pictures of the nurse drinking, or maybe holding a gun, reminding us She Was No Angel?
Kinda funny how differently things pan out when the victim is a white woman
A white woman who represented their county at the Olympics. You're going to be fighting uphill to smear her without looking filthy yourself.
I might be getting a bit personal here, but the officer in question looked like a complete sack of gak. Honestly he looked like the sort of person who'd be a meth head being bundled into a cop car himself.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems a bit worrying that you can be roughed up and arrested for not obeying a police officer who is making demands without having got required warrant first. Yet I've seen people defending it online, if you've nothing to hide why not just comply, he was just following orders, why was she blocking him trying to do his job, etc.
I hope anyone defending the cop one day has police come to their house demanding to search it without cause or a warrant, but tell them that not agreeing anyway will see them dragged down the station.
Well, I would guess that many people are misunderstanding the situation. The reporting initially made it seem like the unconscious guy was the suspect in the crash. In which case getting a blood sample when he's unconscious is both legal and justified. So under that information, it would seem like the Nurse was obstructing an investigation.
Being a suspect or not being a suspect doesn't have anything to do with it, and the story even makes that clear.
Blood gets drawn if he is arrested or they have a warrant, not because someone is a suspect.
Now if he was a suspect the police can use that to either arrest him or to get a warrant, and then they can use that to get a blood draw. But simply declaring "he's a suspect" doesn't make it a legal draw.
If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle? Neither of those questions is relevant here, unless you're trying to drag the discussion into the weeds because you (again) totally misunderstood the situation and posted, and look bad now.
Ouze wrote: The only surprising thing about this is how quickly a miscarriage of justice was rectified. Also surprised we didn't see the usual smearing of the victim - where are the social media pictures of the nurse drinking, or maybe holding a gun, reminding us She Was No Angel?
Kinda funny how differently things pan out when the victim is a white woman
Let's be clear. It has not been rectified.
She wanted an apology, and she got it. By her stated definition, it's been rectified.
Of course, there is the larger issue, but I'd be pretty surprised if we didn't hear about some kind of discipline, and probably within 30 days.
The standards for legal searches are not directly related to the issue of requirements for arrest.
Two issues:
1. Was it legal to draw the blood. In this case, nope. In that JD they need consent or a valid warrant.
2. Was it legal to force the nurse or hospital to perform a search (in this case blood test). Someone's going to have to show me the stare decisis thats passed SCOTUS that doesn't violate BASIC precepts of the Constitution here. In general you cannot legally force a third party to do something or face criminal proceedings (the arrest).
If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle? Neither of those questions is relevant here, unless you're trying to drag the discussion into the weeds because you (again) totally misunderstood the situation and posted, and look bad now.
Ouze wrote: The only surprising thing about this is how quickly a miscarriage of justice was rectified. Also surprised we didn't see the usual smearing of the victim - where are the social media pictures of the nurse drinking, or maybe holding a gun, reminding us She Was No Angel?
Kinda funny how differently things pan out when the victim is a white woman
Let's be clear. It has not been rectified.
She wanted an apology, and she got it. By her stated definition, it's been rectified.
Of course, there is the larger issue, but I'd be pretty surprised if we didn't hear about some kind of discipline, and probably within 30 days.
I'd be extremely surprised if: 1) we hear anything about it ever again; and even more 2) something meaningful actually happens. So far neither of these has occurred.
As an interesting aside, I wonder if the hospitalized victim themselves have a valid claim for action as wel, after all they were the victim of a potential illegal search.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also make no mistake, she has a lawyer. She will sue or negotiate a settlement presently. So the taxpayers will pay but nothing will happen to these bad apples.
If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle? Neither of those questions is relevant here, unless you're trying to drag the discussion into the weeds because you (again) totally misunderstood the situation and posted, and look bad now.
Geeze, you don't have to be so confrontational. Lay off the caffeine or something.
Again, people have obviously misunderstood the situation. I was going over possible reasons for that by other people.
I personally think this was appalling abuse by the police, and I said so in my first post in this thread.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Take my earlier example of the police demanding to search your house without a warrant. You tell them they need one but they say if you don't comply they'll arrest you and search the place anyway, warrant be damned.
If you 'stand your ground' against a clearly illegal arrest/forced entry and shoot a policeman what happens then? What if they end up shooting you?
Or are they hoping that can of worms won't be opened? It's safe to treat an unarmed nurse like that, what if they fight back and people are injured? Are you allowed to resist an illegal arrest?
The situation here though is totally different to that. If you give in you are not breaking the law. This nurse would have been breaking the law and her professional ethics and even if she had done what was asked she would likely have been struck off and possibly charged and the officer would at worst had a wrist slap.
That's seems very unreasonable, for hospital staff to be struck off if they've been intimidated and physically assaulted into doing something they shouldn't by a police officer.
sebster wrote: I don't really get the story here, to be honest.
Both officers screwed up in the heat of the moment.
So you're saying that the officer who works with the BLOOD DRAW UNIT is too stupid to do his job. Good to know.
He, as well as his boss and another cop that was there were too stupid to follow legal procedure. This is why the major and police chief here are crawling on their bellies in front of the nurse and a criminal investigation has been opened on the three cops here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: The only surprising thing about this is how quickly a miscarriage of justice was rectified. Also surprised we didn't see the usual smearing of the victim - where are the social media pictures of the nurse drinking, or maybe holding a gun, reminding us She Was No Angel?
Kinda funny how differently things pan out when the victim is a white woman
Not really. This happened in July, if I'm not mistaken and the nurse released the video to get things happening.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Did his parents consent to the blood draw?
No consent was given. In fact, the police department he works for in Idaho thanked the nurse for protecting his rights.
We are just hearing about it now because of the video.
No one was being investigated or anything until the video came out.
There was a six week window there and investigation was opened. If this sees a courtroom, the higher ups are going to have a hell of a time explaining why they waited six weeks.
Just a quick thing, because this is probably similar in German and US law - any medical procedure involving the faintest hint of invasiveness - even just poking a small needle into a vein to draw blood - is intentional bodily injury first and foremost, which is only negated by the patient's informed consent. In some criminal cases, for example to determine if a car crash suspect was drunk at the time of the crash, the suspect's rights can be overruled in the pursuit of justice, but again, these are exceptions.
So if the nurse had actually drawn blood from the victim, I'm somewhat sure @Frazzled she wouldn't just have performed a search, but actually committed intentional bodily injury, because the victim was not a viable exception to the law AND unconscious so he couldn't consent. I'm pretty sure she could've faced quite some charges based on that if she had been intimidated enough to do it, so I can understand why she was so adamant about her work ethics.
Dreadwinter wrote: This wasn't in the heat of the moment. He knew this was going to happen. He had orders to arrest her if she did not comply to his commands that he knew she would not be able to comply with.
It's within hours of the original incident. That's heat of the moment.
He was ordered to break the law by a superior officer and did it. To top it off, there was no criminal investigation or suspensions until after this was revealed at a press conference on Thursday. Kind of shows that the police had no intention to deal with this issue internally. Just sweep it under the rug. Kinda par for the course though.
And a good thing too, or this thug with a badge would be able to keep bullying people without repercussion.
Also, that it actually took said media attention to get anything done about it is indicative of a deeper problem with internal discipline in at least this particular police department.
Bran Dawri wrote: Also, that it actually took said media attention to get anything done about it is indicative of a deeper problem with internal discipline in at least this particular police department.
It is pretty standard for "closed" organisations like police or military - who rely on their authority and chain of command - that you don't disagree with superiors in public. You do what they say. In return those superiors will back you up against outsiders if possible. Even when you have the training and legal knowledge to know which orders should be questioned it's often you who gets punished for calling attention to it. Which means the cop was pretty much between a rock and a hard place to begin with. Follow stupid orders or tell your boss those are stupid orders? I wonder how long he'd been on the special unit after that?
So yes, if cops aren't allowed to think for themself (or too afraid of repercussions to refuse illegal orders) it is a problem with internal discipline of sorts.
Dreadwinter wrote: This wasn't in the heat of the moment. He knew this was going to happen. He had orders to arrest her if she did not comply to his commands that he knew she would not be able to comply with.
It's within hours of the original incident. That's heat of the moment.
He was ordered to break the law by a superior officer and did it. To top it off, there was no criminal investigation or suspensions until after this was revealed at a press conference on Thursday. Kind of shows that the police had no intention to deal with this issue internally. Just sweep it under the rug. Kinda par for the course though.
Public media attention is part of the system.
NO. That means the system has failed. Again nothing will happen. She will sue and the Yankees taxpayers will pay, but the PD supervisor and the fick wital get at most a slap on the wrist.
One thing I don't get about this. Why the constant referrals to the nurse's athletic history? I mean, good for her, but what does it have to do with the case at hand? Why would it matter?
I certainly think it shouldn't...
For the same reason other stories include the devious behavior of people getting roughed up by the police. It doesn't matter what the police did, it only matters if the victim was a good person or a bad person.
Question - why was the blood draw needed in the first place? Havn't seen that anywhere. I know it doesn't change the legal precedent but it might explain how this occurred. Perhaps the detective should have had a legal authority to draw blood here but didn't and that is why it went the way it did.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Take my earlier example of the police demanding to search your house without a warrant. You tell them they need one but they say if you don't comply they'll arrest you and search the place anyway, warrant be damned.
If you 'stand your ground' against a clearly illegal arrest/forced entry and shoot a policeman what happens then? What if they end up shooting you?
Or are they hoping that can of worms won't be opened? It's safe to treat an unarmed nurse like that, what if they fight back and people are injured? Are you allowed to resist an illegal arrest?
There actually is Constitutional law on this. Yes, you may legally resist an illegal arrest. In fact you may resist it while appropriately (and legally) escalating the situation if the police are escalating it too. You may in fact legally be able to kill the police officer if he escalates the situation to a point to fear for your physical safety. The catch is, you must KNOW that the arrest is illegal. If you kill a cop, then find out the arrest was illegal after the fact, that doesn't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: The only surprising thing about this is how quickly a miscarriage of justice was rectified. Also surprised we didn't see the usual smearing of the victim - where are the social media pictures of the nurse drinking, or maybe holding a gun, reminding us She Was No Angel?
Kinda funny how differently things pan out when the victim is a white woman
Well, on the flip side, neither did anyone post pictures of the Nurse in church Choir robes from 1998 when she was a 12 year-old. She was also following the letter of the law, not punching a cop through the window of his car. Not exactly a strait comparison there.
Xenomancers wrote: Question - why was the blood draw needed in the first place? Havn't seen that anywhere. I know it doesn't change the legal precedent but it might explain how this occurred. Perhaps the detective should have had a legal authority to draw blood here but didn't and that is why it went the way it did.
" The request for the blood draw came from the Logan Police Department, which was called on by the Utah Highway Patrol to investigate the chase and the crash, Logan Police Capt. Curtis Hooley said Friday. Though police do not suspect that Gray was impaired in any way, Hooley said the department's policy is to request blood tests of all drivers involved in such crashes. "
This is really sad.. even with a edited video you see that she is not just saying "no" she has her supervisor there and shows the police the paper work
with the regulations of why she is saying no. Another thing is the Mayor didn't acknowledge it until Friday when it went viral and the confrontation happened on
July 27th over a month ago.. That means its not an issue unless the public knows.
Police are people just like everyone else, I have known people in law enforcement all my life and over the past few decades the personalities that peruses
the line of work is kind of disturbing. Now the job is becoming low paying and very dangerous, what kind of person would go after that kind of job unless
they have a reason. The people that should be doing the job are going into another line of work, leaving a lot of less desirable people going into the field
for all the wrong reasons.
Actually its not very dangerous. Statistically there are a plethora of entire industries that are more dangerous, like construction.
I agree on the pay and conditions though. They have to deal with the scum of the earth, along with normal people. Additionally, with SCOTUS decisions on mental health, they have become the defacto first and second line for the mentally ill.
Xenomancers wrote: Question - why was the blood draw needed in the first place? Havn't seen that anywhere. I know it doesn't change the legal precedent but it might explain how this occurred. Perhaps the detective should have had a legal authority to draw blood here but didn't and that is why it went the way it did.
" The request for the blood draw came from the Logan Police Department, which was called on by the Utah Highway Patrol to investigate the chase and the crash, Logan Police Capt. Curtis Hooley said Friday. Though police do not suspect that Gray was impaired in any way, Hooley said the department's policy is to request blood tests of all drivers involved in such crashes. "
Interesting. So it's standard practice to collect blood samples after traffic accidents but they do it based on requests? Not sure how many people would ever consent to a blood draw if they have a choice. This seems like a busted system. I think it's totally reasonable for anyone being in a traffic accident (regardless of who caused the accident) be subjected to a sobriety test. Just like in a DUI case - you can refuse to take the test in the field - they arrest you and do blood work at the police station like it or not. If unconscious after an accident - there should be an implied consent. Seems in this case there isn't.
Bad laws - angry police - angry nurse - this is what happens. The police officer is obviously at fault here - he can't force someone to draw blood if they don't want to. However, you can't obstruct a police officers work even if you don't agree with it. You can of course...call the police and let the legal system work. Seeing as how this guy is also a paramedic (and assigned to a blood collection program) I am sure he is capable of drawing his own samples. If she interfered with that - she could be arrested for it.
How it should work. If the state has some accident blood draw division with the intent to collect blood for the purpose of sobriety testing after accidents (determined by an actual state law of some kind) - it should actually have the authority to say...collect blood...does that sound reasonable?
Bad laws - angry police - angry nurse - this is what happens. The police officer is obviously at fault here - he can't force someone to draw blood if they don't want to. However, you can't obstruct a police officers work even if you don't agree with it.
Please cite the part of the Constitution that gives the government the ability to force someone to perform a task? Where doers the Constitution permit the government to force a doctor/nurse to perform an activity without their consent?
As someone else has all ready pointed out, if the officer would have forcefully taken a blood sample himself, that would have been, technically, assault with a weapon.
Even if a person is a cop, you can legally stop them from doing that, even with force.
[MOD EDIT - US POLITICS DETECTED - AND REMOVED. - Alpharius]
Frazzled wrote: Actually its not very dangerous. Statistically there are a plethora of entire industries that are more dangerous, like construction.
I agree on the pay and conditions though. They have to deal with the scum of the earth, along with normal people. Additionally, with SCOTUS decisions on mental health, they have become the defacto first and second line for the mentally ill.
That's where you are wrong, bucky. There are jobs with higher potential risks (arctic deep sea fishing, corrections, underground mining, etc). But don't claim that police work isn't "very dangerous".
Xenomancers wrote: Question - why was the blood draw needed in the first place? Havn't seen that anywhere. I know it doesn't change the legal precedent but it might explain how this occurred. Perhaps the detective should have had a legal authority to draw blood here but didn't and that is why it went the way it did.
" The request for the blood draw came from the Logan Police Department, which was called on by the Utah Highway Patrol to investigate the chase and the crash, Logan Police Capt. Curtis Hooley said Friday. Though police do not suspect that Gray was impaired in any way, Hooley said the department's policy is to request blood tests of all drivers involved in such crashes. "
Interesting. So it's standard practice to collect blood samples after traffic accidents but they do it based on requests? Not sure how many people would ever consent to a blood draw if they have a choice. This seems like a busted system. I think it's totally reasonable for anyone being in a traffic accident (regardless of who caused the accident) be subjected to a sobriety test. Just like in a DUI case - you can refuse to take the test in the field - they arrest you and do blood work at the police station like it or not. If unconscious after an accident - there should be an implied consent. Seems in this case there isn't.
Bad laws - angry police - angry nurse - this is what happens. The police officer is obviously at fault here - he can't force someone to draw blood if they don't want to. However, you can't obstruct a police officers work even if you don't agree with it. You can of course...call the police and let the legal system work. Seeing as how this guy is also a paramedic (and assigned to a blood collection program) I am sure he is capable of drawing his own samples. If she interfered with that - she could be arrested for it.
How it should work. If the state has some accident blood draw division with the intent to collect blood for the purpose of sobriety testing after accidents (determined by an actual state law of some kind) - it should actually have the authority to say...collect blood...does that sound reasonable?
That is not reasonable at all, it's horrible. The State doesn't have a right to your body just because you were the victim of an accident. If the police want your blood they can get a warrant, if they don't have enough evidence or probable cause to justify a warrant then there isn't anything to support their belief that you were under the influence. The State can't just take your blood whenever they feel like it and test it for drugs as a fishing expedition because maybe you were under the influence.
Take the situation in the OP, a truck driver is driving, following all traffic laws with no sign of any impairment and a suspect involved in a high speed pursuit chase by the police violates numerous traffic laws and crashes into the truck. There's no reason to suspect that the truck driver was impaired but taking his blood to find out allows the police to see if he was because if the truck driver was impaired, however slightly, then the police department can dodge liability for the crash resulting from their pursuit. It has absolutely nothing to do with crime or public safety, it is solely for the department to CYA and avoid blame for the crash.
Implied consent is for allowing medical professionals to perform lifesaving or urgently needed medical procedures for the health of unconscious or unresponsive patients. Implied consent cannot be used to violate the 4th and 5th amendment rights of unconscious or unresponsive people.
Frazzled wrote: Actually its not very dangerous. Statistically there are a plethora of entire industries that are more dangerous, like construction.
I agree on the pay and conditions though. They have to deal with the scum of the earth, along with normal people. Additionally, with SCOTUS decisions on mental health, they have become the defacto first and second line for the mentally ill.
That's where you are wrong, bucky. There are jobs with higher potential risks (arctic deep sea fishing, corrections, underground mining, etc). But don't claim that police work isn't "very dangerous".
I am not your buckie, that's "old coot" to you.
Construction is more dangerous. That puts it in the " not as dangerous as building a house" category.
Frazzled wrote: Actually its not very dangerous. Statistically there are a plethora of entire industries that are more dangerous, like construction.
I agree on the pay and conditions though. They have to deal with the scum of the earth, along with normal people. Additionally, with SCOTUS decisions on mental health, they have become the defacto first and second line for the mentally ill.
That's where you are wrong, bucky. There are jobs with higher potential risks (arctic deep sea fishing, corrections, underground mining, etc). But don't claim that police work isn't "very dangerous".
Police work can be very difficult but the facts regarding how many officers are seriously injured or killed in the line of duty in comparison to the number of LEOs in the US, in a given time frame, shows that it isn't very dangerous compared to a host of other jobs.
Frazzled wrote: Actually its not very dangerous. Statistically there are a plethora of entire industries that are more dangerous, like construction.
I agree on the pay and conditions though. They have to deal with the scum of the earth, along with normal people. Additionally, with SCOTUS decisions on mental health, they have become the defacto first and second line for the mentally ill.
That's where you are wrong, bucky. There are jobs with higher potential risks (arctic deep sea fishing, corrections, underground mining, etc). But don't claim that police work isn't "very dangerous".
Police work can be very difficult but the facts regarding how many officers are seriously injured or killed in the line of duty in comparison to the number of LEOs in the US, in a given time frame, shows that it isn't very dangerous compared to a host of other jobs.
From what i understand of it. 80% of police work is actually just paperwork.
Bad laws - angry police - angry nurse - this is what happens. The police officer is obviously at fault here - he can't force someone to draw blood if they don't want to. However, you can't obstruct a police officers work even if you don't agree with it.
Please cite the part of the Constitution that gives the government the ability to force someone to perform a task? Where doers the Constitution permit the government to force a doctor/nurse to perform an activity without their consent?
Reread what I said. I agree with what you are saying there.
cuda1179 wrote: As someone else has all ready pointed out, if the officer would have forcefully taken a blood sample himself, that would have been, technically, assault with a weapon.
Even if a person is a cop, you can legally stop them from doing that, even with force.
r
[MOD EDIT - US POLITICS DETECTED - AND REMOVED. - Alpharius]
This would have to be a state law of some kind if there was any - what state? It's a pretty ill advised law too if you ask me. Your average persons idea of right and wrong is just not reliable enough to sign into law that people can resist police in certain situations.
Not to say there aren't situations you shouldn't resist a police officer (this would be a very dire situation) but just know - the law isn't on your side here. You would be pleading your case to a jury/judge/prosecuters good will at that point. Which is why no such law is needed. A jury will look at evidence and the situation and decide your fate that way. That is the way it works.
Prestor Jon wrote: Take the situation in the OP, a truck driver is driving, following all traffic laws with no sign of any impairment and a suspect involved in a high speed pursuit chase by the police violates numerous traffic laws and crashes into the truck. There's no reason to suspect that the truck driver was impaired but taking his blood to find out allows the police to see if he was because if the truck driver was impaired, however slightly, then the police department can dodge liability for the crash resulting from their pursuit. It has absolutely nothing to do with crime or public safety, it is solely for the department to CYA and avoid blame for the crash.
Sure, in this case it's mainly the police covering their own butts. In many other car crash cases it would probably be beneficial for anyone involved to have bloodwork done, showing they weren't DUI. A good expensive lawyer is able to shift a lot of blame on the other party with words alone so technical proof that there was no impairment is good for everyone.
All should still be handled in a legal way, ofc - that's also something police covering their own butts should think about.
Frazzled wrote: Actually its not very dangerous. Statistically there are a plethora of entire industries that are more dangerous, like construction.
I agree on the pay and conditions though. They have to deal with the scum of the earth, along with normal people. Additionally, with SCOTUS decisions on mental health, they have become the defacto first and second line for the mentally ill.
That's where you are wrong, bucky. There are jobs with higher potential risks (arctic deep sea fishing, corrections, underground mining, etc). But don't claim that police work isn't "very dangerous".
I am not your buckie, that's "old coot" to you.
Construction is more dangerous. That puts it in the " not as dangerous as building a house" category.
Most of construction's bad rep, and fatality rate, comes from heavy construction, not "building houses". Most house building fatalities comes mostly from professional roofers (a job that has a higher fatality rate than law enforcement) involved in falls, not ground level construction workers. If you think that police work is less dangerous than general contracting building a new house, I have some beautiful tropical beachfront property in Death Valley I want to sell you. For cheap.
And you're not the only grouchy old puke here, bro.
Prestor Jon wrote:Actually its not very dangerous. Statistically there are a plethora of entire industries that are more dangerous, like construction.
I agree on the pay and conditions though. They have to deal with the scum of the earth, along with normal people. Additionally, with SCOTUS decisions on mental health, they have become the defacto first and second line for the mentally ill.
I didn't say that there are not jobs that there are higher potential risks (the key word that you seem to have missed). But your (and others') claims that police work isn't "very dangerous", based on death and injury stats alone, is utterly ridiculous. Working as a patrol officer is in the top ten most dangerous jobs (especially in rural areas and inner cities) in the United States, based on risks involved.
Some of these jobs have higher potential risks than freakin' WARFARE, for christsakes. Are we going to claim that professional soldiery during wartime is "not very dangerous" because of that?
As a veteran, cop, and corrections officer (one of those jobs that is more dangerous, statistically, than working as a street cop), I find those notions laughable.
Desubot wrote:
From what i understand of it. 80% of police work is actually just paperwork.
Closer to 30 to 40 % for street cops, mostly incident reports that don't take very long to fill out (just don't let them pile up over the course of a night), fuel mileage (jurisdiction dependent), signing off on crap, and citations. Desk drivers, detectives, and dispatchers do far more.
Dreadwinter wrote: This wasn't in the heat of the moment. He knew this was going to happen. He had orders to arrest her if she did not comply to his commands that he knew she would not be able to comply with.
It's within hours of the original incident. That's heat of the moment.
He was ordered to break the law by a superior officer and did it. To top it off, there was no criminal investigation or suspensions until after this was revealed at a press conference on Thursday. Kind of shows that the police had no intention to deal with this issue internally. Just sweep it under the rug. Kinda par for the course though.
Public media attention is part of the system.
What the feth are you talking about? You are wrong. 100% wrong.
Own it. Move on.
Frazzled wrote: Actually its not very dangerous. Statistically there are a plethora of entire industries that are more dangerous, like construction.
I agree on the pay and conditions though. They have to deal with the scum of the earth, along with normal people. Additionally, with SCOTUS decisions on mental health, they have become the defacto first and second line for the mentally ill.
I need to find the study, but you are actually more likely to be attacked and/or killed as a nurse. There is a reason Nurses do not use lanyards without a breakaway piece. It is because people used them to strangle nurses.
I just got my supeana to testify at the trial for a guy that punched me while working in the ER last year. I was very surprised he was actually charged, he was far from the only person that attacked me during my 8 years working in that hospital.
d-usa wrote: I just got my supeana to testify at the trial for a guy that punched me while working in the ER last year. I was very surprised he was actually charged, he was far from the only person that attacked me during my 8 years working in that hospital.
"Just grin and bear it"
The actual nursing slogan, if you ask your supervisors.
oldravenman3025 wrote: [Most house building fatalities comes mostly from professional roofers (a job that has a higher fatality rate than law enforcement)
My dad was a professional roofer. While he never actually fell off a roof, it was indeed a supremely dangerous job and I remember him being injured fairly regularly over the course of my growing up.
I 100% believe it would be in the top 10 most dangerous jobs.
oldravenman3025 wrote: [Most house building fatalities comes mostly from professional roofers (a job that has a higher fatality rate than law enforcement)
My dad was a professional roofer. While he never actually fell off a roof, it was indeed a supremely dangerous job and I remember him being injured fairly regularly over the course of my growing up.
I 100% believe it would be in the top 10 most dangerous jobs.
Steep Angles and the hot sun, exposed beams, nails and tar vapor.
I thank god i dont have to do that.
Though i was very close to becoming an underwater welder so eh :/
Also noteworthy, the hospital no longer has nurses interacting with cops at all anymore:
Payne's firing from his paramedic job comes a day after the University of Utah Hospital announced a new protocol: Nurses will no longer be allowed to interact with law enforcement agents.
"I need to make sure this never, ever, ever happens to another one of our care providers again," said Margaret Pearce, chief nursing officer at the hospital.
Instead of interacting with nurses, law enforcement officers will be directed to health supervisors "who are highly trained on rules and laws," and those interactions won't take place in patient care areas, officials said.
The new protocol was implemented two weeks after the incident, and so far, 2,500 nurses have been trained in it, Pearce said.
Of course not. Of course the ambulance service watched him after he threatened to bring only indigents to the nurse's hospital. That creates legal liability for the ambulance service. Still nothing has been done by the police department. Come back to me when he is fired or demoted.
I really doubt anyone is going to get fired. No one was hurt. D bag cop was following an order - his superior likely had no idea about the law. Both will be educated about how to never make this happen again. Women who was arrested in error is released - without injury. Shell get an apology. This is a big overreaction.
*She will sue and negotiate a six figure settlement.
*The taxpayers will lose.
*Good cops will lose as another example of criminal actions by bad police goes unpunished.
*Citizens will lose. Their rights will continue to be violated.
*The police involved will have no harm come to them.
Xenomancers wrote:I really doubt anyone is going to get fired. No one was hurt. D bag cop was following an order - his superior likely had no idea about the law. Both will be educated about how to never make this happen again. Women who was arrested in error is released - without injury. Shell get an apology. This is a big overreaction.
No, it's not, this was an extended encounter where the officers in question had been informed as to the illegality of their actions and chose to engage in using physical force to violate the rights of two distinct individuals, while others stood by and did nothing. It's not a learning experience, it's open abuse of authority that would have been swept under the rug were it not for the release of the video, and serves as a strong example of why no member of the public should ever trust the police nor welcome their presence.
Frazzled wrote:*She will sue and negotiate a six figure settlement.
*The taxpayers will lose.
*Good cops will lose as another example of criminal actions by bad police goes unpunished.
*Citizens will lose. Their rights will continue to be violated.
*The police involved will have no harm come to them.
Frazzled wrote: *She will sue and negotiate a six figure settlement.
*The taxpayers will lose.
*Good cops will lose as another example of criminal actions by bad police goes unpunished.
*Citizens will lose. Their rights will continue to be violated.
*The police involved will have no harm come to them.
So every time there is a wrongful arrest the police officer should be fired and a 6 figure settlement should be granted to the wrongful arrestee (we have to pay that bill)? Seems a bit out of proportion. I want a proportioned response. Suspension without pay, mandated retraining and an apology seems most reasonable to me.
Frazzled wrote: *She will sue and negotiate a six figure settlement. *The taxpayers will lose. *Good cops will lose as another example of criminal actions by bad police goes unpunished. *Citizens will lose. Their rights will continue to be violated. *The police involved will have no harm come to them.
So every time there is a wrongful arrest the police officer should be fired and a 6 figure settlement should be granted to the wrongful arrestee (we have to pay that bill)? Seems a bit out of proportion. I want a proportioned response. Suspension without pay, mandated retraining and an apology seems most reasonable to me.
Every time there is an intentional wrongful arrest when the officer knew or should have known it, and was in fact warned not to and admitted in public record that they did not have prob case, you betcha. Fire them, the supervisor, and other police on scene who let it happen.
We are moving towards a police state and that will only be stopped, if its stopped. EDIT: I shoot with cops. I have known cops on a friend basis. I know most cops are good people. Allowing this behavior to continue puts THEM in a dangerous position.
Civil Rights violations are always a big deal, period.
By arresting the nurse without cause and against regulations, the officer assaulted her.
By arresting the nurse without cause, and thereby removing the primary caregiver for her patients int he ICU, the officer placed her patients at risk of serious injury or death.
By arresting the nurse without cause, and forcing the rest of the staff to cover her ICU patients in addition to their own patients, the officer placed every patient in that ICU at risk of serious injury or death.
One thing is clear, and I say that as a law enforcement officer myself: LEOs don't give a gak about the punishments you are proposing. They don't work, because we would see a decrease of this kind of crap happening if they did.
So if you want the LEOs to change, you increase the penalties including firing them.
And if you want communities to expect more from their LEOs, you level fines against the department that hit the community as well, so that the community demands better from their LEOs.
People love to scream that the cops work for them and that we pay their salary, and that also means that we are ultimately responsible for their conduct, good or bad.
Ouze wrote: I feel like you're moving the goalposts pretty significantly from "I'd be surprised if we ever heard anything about this again".
I also think they both should be fired, FWIW, but I kinda doubt that's gonna happen.
So you'd fire the nurse for doing her job? for obeying the law? For following the agreement the hospital had made with that exact precinct the cop was from?
I imagine fire both means the cop who initially tried to pressure the nurse into the illegal blood draw and his supervisor who showed up and arrested/assaulted her, not the nurse
i'd also like to see hospital security and senior management who hired them go, why didn't they step in to protect the nurse from the assault and illegal arrest?
(well other than being scared of being shot or arrested which might be considered part of a security guards job)
Ouze wrote: I feel like you're moving the goalposts pretty significantly from "I'd be surprised if we ever heard anything about this again".
I also think they both should be fired, FWIW, but I kinda doubt that's gonna happen.
So you'd fire the nurse for doing her job? for obeying the law? For following the agreement the hospital had made with that exact precinct the cop was from?
Fire both officers involved at the scene, or the arresting officer and the superior who commanded the officer to make the arrest on the nurse he's saying.
Its the OT though, so I could be widely wrong. Never know what to expect. Thats what makes it so special.
Xenomancers wrote: I really doubt anyone is going to get fired. No one was hurt. D bag cop was following an order - his superior likely had no idea about the law. Both will be educated about how to never make this happen again. Women who was arrested in error is released - without injury. Shell get an apology. This is a big overreaction.
Nope, the arresting officer in this instance does Tbilisi deserve to get to keep wearing a badge and exercising authority over others. In a calm professional manner the nurse verbally explained the law and the hospital policy to the officer. In a calm and professional manner the nurse provides the officer with a printout of the explanation of the hospital policy that was consistent with the law. In a calm and professional manner the nurse called her supervisor put him on speaker phone and he then explained the law and the policy to the officers in a calm and professional manner. Following all of that the officer then arrested the nurse in the middle of the patient care area in front of multiple witness in a fit of rage because she had the audacity to not just shut and do what she was told to do by the cop. The cop left her handcuffed in a squad care removed from her patients for half an hour and then released her without ever filing a charge against her. That kind of willful deliberate abuse of power and abject failure to display a modicum of professionalism by the cop has betrayed the public trust in him so absolutely as to remove any possibility of trusting him to do the right thing in the future. Everybody makes mistakes, some mistakes are minor and can be moved on from but others are major and will cost you your job.
No one was hurt. I'm cool with him keeping his job. Maybe transfer him to another section, after some remedial training and changes to policy in his department.
Frazzled wrote: *She will sue and negotiate a six figure settlement.
*The taxpayers will lose.
*Good cops will lose as another example of criminal actions by bad police goes unpunished.
*Citizens will lose. Their rights will continue to be violated.
*The police involved will have no harm come to them.
Hasn't the nurse said that she has no intention of suing?
nels1031 wrote: No one was hurt. I'm cool with him keeping his job. Maybe transfer him to another section, after some remedial training and changes to policy in his department.
Which just sends the message to him that says "okay, just be a dick over there, and maybe not in a hospital".
If that nurse would have left without given report to anybody else and just sat in a car for 30 minutes she would be fired, and the state would take her license away from her, and every patient would be able to sue her for neglect and abandonment of the patients in her care. As a nurse I can tell you that a nurse, and even more so an ICU nurse, would be in career ending trouble if she pulled a stunt like that.
And what the cop did was to force her to abandon her patient for 30 minutes. The staff having to cover her patients, and spending less time with their own patients because of it, don't know what is going on with her patients. What drips are running, what the rates are, what titrations she has done since she got there, what the baseline status of her patients are, what meds need to be given right now.
The nurse could be fired from her job, have her license terminated for abandonment, and be sued by the families of her patients for leaving; there is no reason why the cop that abused his power and forcibly removed her from her patients should keep his badge for something that would cost the nurse her license if she did it herself.
nels1031 wrote: No one was hurt. I'm cool with him keeping his job. Maybe transfer him to another section, after some remedial training and changes to policy in his department.
why? His willingness to bully others behind his badge will not change after a transfer.
Frazzled wrote: *She will sue and negotiate a six figure settlement.
*The taxpayers will lose.
*Good cops will lose as another example of criminal actions by bad police goes unpunished.
*Citizens will lose. Their rights will continue to be violated.
*The police involved will have no harm come to them.
Hasn't the nurse said that she has no intention of suing?
nels1031 wrote: No one was hurt. I'm cool with him keeping his job. Maybe transfer him to another section, after some remedial training and changes to policy in his department.
Are you serious? So no long-term ramifications for a knowingly wrongful and illegal arrest?
No small wonder police feel they can get away with anything.
nels1031 wrote: No one was hurt. I'm cool with him keeping his job. Maybe transfer him to another section, after some remedial training and changes to policy in his department.
Did you miss the part of the video where the Nurse was screaming "You are hurting me!"?
Which just sends the message to him that says "okay, just be a dick over there, and maybe not in a hospital".
He can be a dick where he will never interact with civilians ever again and still aid the department/community.
d-usa wrote: If that nurse would have left without given report to anybody else and just sat in a car for 30 minutes she would be fired, and the state would take her license away from her, and every patient would be able to sue her for neglect and abandonment of the patients in her care. As a nurse I can tell you that a nurse, and even more so an ICU nurse, would be in career ending trouble if she pulled a stunt like that.
And what the cop did was to force her to abandon her patient for 30 minutes. The staff having to cover her patients, and spending less time with their own patients because of it, don't know what is going on with her patients. What drips are running, what the rates are, what titrations she has done since she got there, what the baseline status of her patients are, what meds need to be given right now.
The nurse could be fired from her job, have her license terminated for abandonment, and be sued by the families of her patients for leaving; there is no reason why the cop that abused his power and forcibly removed her from her patients should keep his badge for something that would cost the nurse her license if she did it herself.
So no nurse has ever had to leave their post due to a family emergency and left the others to cover for her? Nothing in place for a shorthanded crew for the arduous duration of around 30 minutes? Does that truly bring a nursing department to its knees, like you imply? No wonder so many folks die due to medical malpractice in America.
No one was hurt. Remedial training, some form of departmental discipline for all parties involved, department wide policy review, legal recompense to aggrieved parties and move on.
Which just sends the message to him that says "okay, just be a dick over there, and maybe not in a hospital".
He can be a dick where he will never interact with civilians ever again and still aid the department/community.
d-usa wrote: If that nurse would have left without given report to anybody else and just sat in a car for 30 minutes she would be fired, and the state would take her license away from her, and every patient would be able to sue her for neglect and abandonment of the patients in her care. As a nurse I can tell you that a nurse, and even more so an ICU nurse, would be in career ending trouble if she pulled a stunt like that.
And what the cop did was to force her to abandon her patient for 30 minutes. The staff having to cover her patients, and spending less time with their own patients because of it, don't know what is going on with her patients. What drips are running, what the rates are, what titrations she has done since she got there, what the baseline status of her patients are, what meds need to be given right now.
The nurse could be fired from her job, have her license terminated for abandonment, and be sued by the families of her patients for leaving; there is no reason why the cop that abused his power and forcibly removed her from her patients should keep his badge for something that would cost the nurse her license if she did it herself.
So no nurse has ever had to leave their post due to a family emergency and left the others to cover for her? Nothing in place for a shorthanded crew for the arduous duration of around 30 minutes? Does that truly bring a nursing department to its knees, like you imply? No wonder so many folks die due to medical malpractice in America.
No one was hurt. Remedial training, some form of departmental discipline for all parties involved, department wide policy review, legal recompense to aggrieved parties and move on.
If an emergency happens and a nurse needs to leave immediately, they still have to give report to the person taking over for them. Otherwise it is abandonment. Abandonment can result in loss of license, fines, and prison time. Nurses do not get to run out of a building without giving report. Ever. For any reason.
Again, did you miss the part of the video where she was yelling "You are hurting me!"?
curran12 wrote: Are you serious? So no long-term ramifications for a knowingly wrongful and illegal arrest?
The retraining, department wide policy review and transfers of wrong parties are pretty long term and ideally prevents a future occurrence like this from happening. .
curran12 wrote: No small wonder police feel they can get away with anything.
So every policeman feels they can break the law with no reprecussions? Really?
If I leave, for any reason, without giving report, I can be fired, sued, and have my license taken from me.
Patients always come before family, that is one of the things you have to accept if you want to become a nurse. They come first ethically and legally, and abandonment is abandonment.
I didn't see the cop handcuffing her and letting her give report to the staff covering her to ensure continuity of care for these patients.
He should be fired for making her do something she would be fired for.
d-usa wrote: If I leave, for any reason, without giving report, I can be fired, sued, and have my license taken from me.
Patients always come before family, that is one of the things you have to accept if you want to become a nurse. They come first ethically and legally, and abandonment is abandonment.
I didn't see the cop handcuffing her and letting her give report to the staff covering her to ensure continuity of care for these patients.
He should be fired for making her do something she would be fired for.
Well, from here, we agree to disagree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Again, did you miss the part of the video where she was yelling "You are hurting me!"?
What injuries did she suffer?
Everything I read said she returned to her job after the incident. If I'm wrong or ignorant of further developments, fill me in. I got no poblem take an L.
Nurses leave the profession because the duty they have for the patients comes before family, you can disagree about it and pretend we are exaggerating here. I know people who quit after the shift because of situations where they needed to go home but couldn't because they would be in legal trouble for abandonment. It's a very real issue.
d-usa wrote: If I leave, for any reason, without giving report, I can be fired, sued, and have my license taken from me.
Patients always come before family, that is one of the things you have to accept if you want to become a nurse. They come first ethically and legally, and abandonment is abandonment.
I didn't see the cop handcuffing her and letting her give report to the staff covering her to ensure continuity of care for these patients.
He should be fired for making her do something she would be fired for.
Well, from here, we agree to disagree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Again, did you miss the part of the video where she was yelling "You are hurting me!"?
What injuries did she suffer?
Everything I read said she returned to her job after the incident.
No, there is no agree to disagree here. That is a way out for people who have been proven wrong. She could have lost her job and faced serious consequences because of this man intentionally breaking the law. (He was a Paramedic and a trained Phlebotomist for the police department, please do not try and tell me that he did not know the law)
So if you return to your job you have not been injured?
If I pull a muscle, I can still work. Must not be injured.
If I break a finger, I can still work. Must not be injured.
If I am covered in bruises and scrapes from being assaulted and forcefully arrested illegally and against my wishes, I can still work. Must not be injured.
So if you return to your job you have not been injured?
If I pull a muscle, I can still work. Must not be injured.
If I break a finger, I can still work. Must not be injured.
If I am covered in bruises and scrapes from being assaulted and forcefully arrested illegally and against my wishes, I can still work. Must not be injured.
Again, no. It is not irrelevant. Just because something didn't happen while she was being arrested, such as one of her patients going in to cardiac arrest, doesn't mean that it is not an issue. If a patient had gone in to cardiac arrest and she was sitting in that police car handcuffed and had not given report(A nurse would have to come off the floor, out to the car, leaving their patients on the floor without a nurse covering, putting a second nurse at risk) she is still the patients primary care provider. Nothing here changes that.
Here is a quote from earlier in the thread that applies:
Dreadwinter wrote:What the feth are you talking about? You are wrong. 100% wrong.
Which just sends the message to him that says "okay, just be a dick over there, and maybe not in a hospital".
He can be a dick where he will never interact with civilians ever again and still aid the department/community.
You know what? He sounds like he's helped the community enough. In fact, for a man of such impeccable class and character, I say they graciously allow him to take back from the community for a while, preferably at the end of the soup kitchen line.
I'm not trying to antagonize and be confrontational. We all agree that some sort of punishment should be meted out, its on the severity of the punishment where we disconnect. I'm right there with you all disgusted by this encounter.
Again, no. It is not irrelevant. Just because something didn't happen while she was being arrested, such as one of her patients going in to cardiac arrest, doesn't mean that it is not an issue. If a patient had gone in to cardiac arrest and she was sitting in that police car handcuffed and had not given report(A nurse would have to come off the floor, out to the car, leaving their patients on the floor without a nurse covering, putting a second nurse at risk) she is still the patients primary care provider. Nothing here changes that.
Again, hypothetical. It adds nothing. Stick to the facts.
Fact: a nurse that leaves without report to sit in a car for 30 minutes is subject to termination, loss of licensure, civil liability for neglect, and criminal liability for any damages that occur.
Fact: a nurse was forced to leave without report to sit in a car for 30 minutes by a police officer who had no legal authority to arrest her.
I'm not trying to antagonize and be confrontational. We all agree that some sort of punishment should be meted out, its on the severity of the punishment where we disconnect. I'm right there with you all disgusted by this encounter.
Again, no. It is not irrelevant. Just because something didn't happen while she was being arrested, such as one of her patients going in to cardiac arrest, doesn't mean that it is not an issue. If a patient had gone in to cardiac arrest and she was sitting in that police car handcuffed and had not given report(A nurse would have to come off the floor, out to the car, leaving their patients on the floor without a nurse covering, putting a second nurse at risk) she is still the patients primary care provider. Nothing here changes that.
Again, hypothetical. It adds nothing. Stick to the facts.
It would be great if the law saw it that way. "Well, nobody was injured here, I guess it was alright for you to abandon your patients for 30 minutes! Keep up the good work!"
You are completely missing the point here. At this point, I can only believe that you are doing this intentionally, because I don't think we can explain it to you any clearer. This law is built on hypothetical situations.
The fact that nobody was grievously physically injured is irrelevant. A police command level officer ordered another cop to do something they knew was illegal and employed physical violence (yes, illegally restraining someone is assault and battery) to do so.
Would a hospital really fire a nurse for being dragged out of a hospital in handcuffs during an illegal arrest? Any examples?
Yes, a hospital would really fire a Nurse for being dragged out of a hospital in handcuffs during an illegal arrest if the state took her license away for abandonment. Because you cant have an unlicensed Nurse on staff.
Would a hospital really fire a nurse for being dragged out of a hospital in handcuffs during an illegal arrest? Any examples?
Nobody argued that a nurse should be fired for being dragged out of the hospital in handcuffs during an illegal arrest.
But if an ICU nurse just left her patients for 30 minutes without giving report and sat in her car, she would be fired and the hospital would report her to her board of nursing for disciplinary actions against her license.
And if that's the punishment she would serve for abandoning her duty and placing her patients at risk if she did it willingly, then that is the punishment he should face for forcing her to abandon her patients and putting them at risk.
If you are sitting in a hospital, next to your sick family member in an ICU, and watch your nurse being dragged away while she is keeping your family member alive, would you still be posting here going "no big deal, I'm sure these vents and drips are just fine for 30 minutes, no harm done here"?
Would a hospital really fire a nurse for being dragged out of a hospital in handcuffs during an illegal arrest? Any examples?
It's not that she actually got fired that was the problem I necessarily see with the situation, because she hasn't. The problem here isn't that she was forced to do something she would get terminated for. The problem is that these rules exist for a reason. To reiterate, no one is saying, "Oh noes she might get fired and maybe lose her license." At least, not yet. What I see that people are trying to say is that "this is something so egregious, so despicable, so endangering to the wellbeing of many lives, that were she to have acted of her own free will, all of these repercussions would have been a very real possibility. If she were to lose her job for following this course of action, then the police officer (who knows better) and his superior (who issued the order) who illegally forced her to do so should suffer the consequences instead. That such people are clearly so irresponsible, dangerous, and showing of such poor judgement and yet still not gak canned creates a feeling of disquiet about the entire police force."
So if you return to your job you have not been injured?
If I pull a muscle, I can still work. Must not be injured.
If I break a finger, I can still work. Must not be injured.
If I am covered in bruises and scrapes from being assaulted and forcefully arrested illegally and against my wishes, I can still work. Must not be injured.
Hypothetical injuries don't count.
A civil court will disagree. That sounds is why the city will be very eager to settle and the mayor was groveling.
d-usa wrote: If I leave, for any reason, without giving report, I can be fired, sued, and have my license taken from me.
Patients always come before family, that is one of the things you have to accept if you want to become a nurse. They come first ethically and legally, and abandonment is abandonment.
I didn't see the cop handcuffing her and letting her give report to the staff covering her to ensure continuity of care for these patients.
He should be fired for making her do something she would be fired for.
As ya'll may be aware, d-usa and I don't usually agree eye-to-eye...
But, he's absolutely correct on this.
There's a defined transition when shift change occurs, and even when caregivers/providers has to hand off care to another.
This is done to absolutely ensure that patient safety is paramount, and all practicing institution does this.
Would a hospital really fire a nurse for being dragged out of a hospital in handcuffs during an illegal arrest? Any examples?
Nobody argued that a nurse should be fired for being dragged out of the hospital in handcuffs during an illegal arrest.
But if an ICU nurse just left her patients for 30 minutes without giving report and sat in her car, she would be fired and the hospital would report her to her board of nursing for disciplinary actions against her license.
And if that's the punishment she would serve for abandoning her duty and placing her patients at risk if she did it willingly, then that is the punishment he should face for forcing her to abandon her patients and putting them at risk.
If you are sitting in a hospital, next to your sick family member in an ICU, and watch your nurse being dragged away while she is keeping your family member alive, would you still be posting here going "no big deal, I'm sure these vents and drips are just fine for 30 minutes, no harm done here"?
My wife has been a nurse for over a dozen years and she can't even leave her floor to go on her lunch break without first giving report to whichever coworker will be covering her patients while she's eating. She can't just leave when her 12 hour shift is over either she has to wait until her relief shows up and takes report. If inclement weather or a family emergency or illness makes her relief late or call out and be substituted she has to keep working however long it takes for her relief to show up. If we had a family emergency my wife couldn't just leave work she would have to tell her supervisor get coverage sorted out and give report to nurse or nurses that would be taking her patients. That's the job, that's what is required, not following that policy will get her fired and her license revoked. I don't know exactly what kind of violation of that policy would get my wife fired on the spot but I know she'd never test it. There's been days when she won't get to go on lunch break or will take it hours later than she's dependent on giving report to her coverage and needing coverage to be available to leave the floor. No nurse can just leave the floor and their patients whenever they want for any length of time. My wife has had coworkers get fired for taking to many breaks or taking too long at lunch and straining the coverage of the other nurses so having a nurse suddenly and forcibly removed from the middle of her shift because a cop throws an illegal tantrum over not getting his way is a legitimate concern and a big deal.
whembly wrote: 'Tis why now, you'll only have facilities managment/security deal with the police, rather than the actual clinicians.
Yeah nurses can't take 5 minutes to get a cup of coffee without informing another nurse and ensuring there's coverage they really don't need to get caught up explaining policy and laws in triplicate to stubborn cops on a power trip.
For my last year at the hospital I had a desk job. I did case management for the emergency room to cover the hours outside of the regular 9-5 Monday to Friday hours that our regular case management department was there. I was the only person in my department that was there during those hours, and during that time I had absolutely zero patient care, absolutely zero clinical responsibility, and really nobody in charge of me or supervising me.
The hardest thing for me to get used to was the fact that I could just go and do stuff. I had my pager and department cell phone and was always able to be reached, but if I wanted to run to the convenience store to get a snack I could just run to the store and get a snack. If I wanted to pick up dinner I could just leave and pick up dinner. If I wanted to take my lunch and eat dinner somewhere, I could just go and eat dinner somewhere.
For the first three months I felt like I just had to tell our House Supervisor that I was leaving. There was no patient she had to cover for me, no responsibilities that needed to be handled, if the ER had a question for me they could call me on my department cell phone that was in my pocket. If I needed to look up some InterQual information it was on my licensed InterQual app on my cellphone. There was nothing the House would be doing for me while I was gone, and I didn't really report to the House anyway.
But the basic clinical nursing fact of "you cannot leave for any reason unless someone has gotten a face-to-face report and officially assumed responsibility for your assignment or else you are in a world of hurt" was so deeply ingrained that it physically felt wrong to leave without telling somebody that I was leaving.
We're going off on a tangent with the nurse abandonment thing.
A disagreement between myself and a number of other posters is occurring because they believe the officer(s) should be fired. I disagree. That is the fundamental disagreement.
I don't care about the reason why you want him fired. Potential Abandonment of patients, unprofessional conduct, gakky haircut, annoying voice, a Patriots fan could all be reasons you want him fired. Regardless of your reasoning, I disagree that he should be fired. Thats all.
The departments policy for blood draw wasn't updated to reflect recent Supreme Court rulings(until after this event). Its safe to assume he was trained to not need a warrant for blood draw, as well as his superior, who gave the order for detaininment, of what he beleived to be a belligerent party while his officer was going about his duty. He was wrong, no argument there.
[MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius] these guys is a bit harsh when the negligence of the department policy writers/administrators failed them so thoroughly by not bringing the department's policy's and training up to date with recent legal developments.
The state will certainly face a lawsuit at this point, from the nurse. Fire one or all the officers (unlikely), I guarantee the state will face 1-3 solid unlawful termination lawsuits, costing the taxpayers more money on top of whats paid out to the nurse. Transfer/reassign all involved officers, give them the opportunity to learn from it. Watch them like hawks and if they can't learn from it and they gak the bed again, you now have a legit and surefire reason to terminate them and face zero ($) blowback.
nels1031 wrote: We're going off on a tangent with the nurse abandonment thing.
A disagreement between myself and a number of other posters is occurring because they believe the officer(s) should be fired. I disagree. That is the fundamental disagreement.
I don't care about the reason why you want him fired. Potential Abandonment of patients, unprofessional conduct, gakky haircut, annoying voice, a Patriots fan could all be reasons you want him fired. Regardless of your reasoning, I disagree that he should be fired. Thats all.
The departments policy for blood draw wasn't updated to reflect recent Supreme Court rulings(until after this event). Its safe to assume he was trained to not need a warrant for blood draw, as well as his superior, who gave the order for detaininment, of what he beleived to be a belligerent party while his officer was going about his duty. He was wrong, no argument there.
[MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius] these guys is a bit harsh when the negligence of the department policy writers/administrators failed them so thoroughly by not bringing the department's policy's and training up to date with recent legal developments.
The state will certainly face a lawsuit at this point, from the nurse. Fire one or all the officers (unlikely), I guarantee the state will face 1-3 solid unlawful termination lawsuits, costing the taxpayers more money on top of whats paid out to the nurse. Transfer/reassign all involved officers, give them the opportunity to learn from it. Watch them like hawks and if they can't learn from it and they gak the bed again, you now have a legit and surefire reason to terminate them and face zero ($) blowback.
Thats where I'm coming from.
Did you read anything about this situation? The departments policy for blood draw was updated, they agreed to the new policy with the Hospital this occurred at. The Officer also had to be updated on this because he is a licensed Paramedic and Phlebotomist. (Fun Fact, if you work in healthcare, you have to do so many hours of continued education each year in order to keep your license. This includes new procedures, updated to procedures, tons of HIPPA updates, as well as updates to other laws)
Furthermore, this police officer violated her constitutional rights. How do you get unlawful termination lawsuits out of this?
You are trying really hard here. But you are still 100% wrong.
From what I read, policy changes happened after the incident.
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies on blood draws. Police spokeswoman Christina Judd said the new policy does not allow for implied consent for any party and requires a warrant or consent.
Judd also said the agency has met with hospital administration to ensure it does not happen again and to repair relationships.
Furthermore, this police officer violated her constitutional rights. How do you get unlawful termination lawsuits out of this?
.
Only because they felt she was impeding an investigation while they adhered to department policies that were not updated. Firing them for not adhering to policies that didn't exist until after the event would have every lawyer that likes money(all of them) lining up to help them sue their former employer.
Except that a) one of them was a paramedic and should have known this, and b) the updated law and hospital procedure were explained to them, calmly, rationally and professionally - by at least two separate people.
The only belligerent party here was the cops.
[MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius] these guys is a bit harsh when the negligence of the department policy writers/administrators failed them so thoroughly by not bringing the department's policy's and training up to date with recent legal developments.
If I can be fired, arrested, charged, and convicted for a crime despite not knowing the law, I see no reason why a police officer should not be subject to such either. The officers snapped when presented with a printed document explaining the policy and why they were in the wrong, they didn't want to be corrected, they weren't going to listen to anyone.
The officer in question also threatens to, as part of his paramedic gig, only bring in transients (usually problem patients) and take the others elsewhere, which has all sorts of implications for patient care nevermind the vindictive abuse of that position. That alone should be a serious enough violation of public trust to warrant being fired from a position of authority and responsibility.
nels1031 wrote: From what I read, policy changes happened after the incident.
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies on blood draws. Police spokeswoman Christina Judd said the new policy does not allow for implied consent for any party and requires a warrant or consent.
Judd also said the agency has met with hospital administration to ensure it does not happen again and to repair relationships.
Furthermore, this police officer violated her constitutional rights. How do you get unlawful termination lawsuits out of this?
.
Only because they felt she was impeding an investigation while they adhered to department policies that were not updated. Firing them for not adhering to policies that didn't exist until after the event would have every lawyer that likes money(all of them) lining up to help them sue their former employer.
No, again this is wrong. Did you watch the video at all? She says right in the video, while explaining the policy to the Officer that "this is something you guys agreed to." These policies were updated with the changes to implied consent laws. They did exist before the event, that is what the whole thing is about.
Please, please watch the video before you make crap up.
Here is the video, so you can watch it. Less than 20 seconds in to it. Come on man.
(CNN)The officer at the center of controversy over his treatment of a Utah nurse was told not to worry about obtaining blood from an unconscious car crash victim in the hospital, but tried anyway, Logan Police Chief Gary Jensen told CNN Wednesday.
...
Jensen told CNN his department had initially ordered the sample from the man, who was involved in a crash near Logan, Utah in Cache County.
...
At the hospital, Payne relayed his difficulty in getting the blood sample to a Logan detective, who was not at the hospital, Jensen said. According to Jensen, the detective then informed Payne the Logan department could get the blood through other means.
"He didn't tell him you must cease and desist, he simply said 'don't worry about it, we'll go another way,'" Jensen told CNN. "I just don't believe (Payne's) actions were in the best interest of the patient, the nurses or law enforcement, quite frankly.
...
Jensen said Logan police didn't pursue a warrant because they didn't initially realize the victim was unconscious. They had hoped to get the victim's consent, Jensen said.
...
"I don't know why he was frustrated," Jensen said of Payne. "I don't know why he acted the way he did."
It's "easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but I can't come up with a play that includes what happened," he said.
(CNN)The officer at the center of controversy over his treatment of a Utah nurse was told not to worry about obtaining blood from an unconscious car crash victim in the hospital, but tried anyway, Logan Police Chief Gary Jensen told CNN Wednesday.
...
Jensen told CNN his department had initially ordered the sample from the man, who was involved in a crash near Logan, Utah in Cache County.
...
At the hospital, Payne relayed his difficulty in getting the blood sample to a Logan detective, who was not at the hospital, Jensen said. According to Jensen, the detective then informed Payne the Logan department could get the blood through other means.
"He didn't tell him you must cease and desist, he simply said 'don't worry about it, we'll go another way,'" Jensen told CNN. "I just don't believe (Payne's) actions were in the best interest of the patient, the nurses or law enforcement, quite frankly.
...
Jensen said Logan police didn't pursue a warrant because they didn't initially realize the victim was unconscious. They had hoped to get the victim's consent, Jensen said.
...
"I don't know why he was frustrated," Jensen said of Payne. "I don't know why he acted the way he did."
It's "easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but I can't come up with a play that includes what happened," he said.
Wow, looks like they are throwing this guy under the bus. The story is changing very quickly here.....
nels1031 wrote: From what I read, policy changes happened after the incident.
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies on blood draws. Police spokeswoman Christina Judd said the new policy does not allow for implied consent for any party and requires a warrant or consent.
Judd also said the agency has met with hospital administration to ensure it does not happen again and to repair relationships.
Furthermore, this police officer violated her constitutional rights. How do you get unlawful termination lawsuits out of this?
.
Only because they felt she was impeding an investigation while they adhered to department policies that were not updated. Firing them for not adhering to policies that didn't exist until after the event would have every lawyer that likes money(all of them) lining up to help them sue their former employer.
No, again this is wrong. Did you watch the video at all? She says right in the video, while explaining the policy to the Officer that "this is something you guys agreed to." These policies were updated with the changes to implied consent laws. They did exist before the event, that is what the whole thing is about.
Please, please watch the video before you make crap up.
Here is the video, so you can watch it. Less than 20 seconds in to it. Come on man.
Sure, they can agree with the hospitals policy, but until the actual departments policy is codified and training match with the hospitals, the officers thought they were being obstructed in their investigation. The departments policy review and training team dropped the ball.
The policy did not match the hospitals until after the event. Read the quote from the chicago tribune link I posted above, or this one :
In response to the incident, Judd said the department updated its blood draw policy last week to mirror what the hospital staff uses. She said officers have already received additional training but that they are still sorting out the department's response since the law changed.
"We want to know where something went wrong, what we didn't know, and why we didn't know it," Judd said.
These are quotes from people involved in this case.
More:
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies in line with the guidance Wubbels was following in the July 26 incident.
nels1031 wrote: From what I read, policy changes happened after the incident.
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies on blood draws. Police spokeswoman Christina Judd said the new policy does not allow for implied consent for any party and requires a warrant or consent.
Judd also said the agency has met with hospital administration to ensure it does not happen again and to repair relationships.
Furthermore, this police officer violated her constitutional rights. How do you get unlawful termination lawsuits out of this?
.
Only because they felt she was impeding an investigation while they adhered to department policies that were not updated. Firing them for not adhering to policies that didn't exist until after the event would have every lawyer that likes money(all of them) lining up to help them sue their former employer.
No, again this is wrong. Did you watch the video at all? She says right in the video, while explaining the policy to the Officer that "this is something you guys agreed to." These policies were updated with the changes to implied consent laws. They did exist before the event, that is what the whole thing is about.
Please, please watch the video before you make crap up.
Here is the video, so you can watch it. Less than 20 seconds in to it. Come on man.
Sure, they can agree with the hospitals policy, but until the actual departments policy is codified and training match with the hospitals, the officers thought they were being obstructed in their investigation. The departments policy review and training team dropped the ball.
The policy did not match the hospitals until after the event. Read the quote from the chicago tribune link I posted above, or this one :
In response to the incident, Judd said the department updated its blood draw policy last week to mirror what the hospital staff uses. She said officers have already received additional training but that they are still sorting out the department's response since the law changed.
"We want to know where something went wrong, what we didn't know, and why we didn't know it," Judd said.
These are quotes from people involved in this case.
More:
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies in line with the guidance Wubbels was following in the July 26 incident.
How can the policy have been in place if the policy didn't change until after the event?
How can you excuse the police department not already having a policy that complies with Utah state law as determined by the Utah state Supreme Court ruling in Stave v Rodriguez on 1/30/2007? That case established that blood draws without a warrant or patient consent are illegal more than 10 years ago.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1102466.html
The hospital had updated their policy to reflect the law as determined by the courts years ago and the hospital had done so with the cooperation of law enforcement at the time they updated their policies and also informed the police of their policies multiple times in this particular incident. The hospital has a powerful financial and legal motivation to stay informed of the laws that affect them and update policies accordingly. Apparently police departments in Utah don't feel the need to make sure their trained phlebotomists are informed of applicable blood draw laws in their state. Ignorance of the law, willful or otherwise, is never an excuse for breaking the law.
nels1031 wrote: No one was hurt. I'm cool with him keeping his job. Maybe transfer him to another section, after some remedial training and changes to policy in his department.
Which just sends the message to him that says "okay, just be a dick over there, and maybe not in a hospital".
I'd imagine he gets a little extra pay for being on the blood draw unit, and in addition he gets full pay for waiting in a hospital lobby every time he's on that duty. Taking him off the special duty would send him the message that being a donkey just cost him money and got him more work.
edit: and he already got fired from his paramedic job, btw. For threatening to use that as revenge if people didn't obey him.
Bran Dawri wrote: Except that a) one of them was a paramedic and should have known this, and b) the updated law and hospital procedure were explained to them, calmly, rationally and professionally - by at least two separate people.
The only belligerent party here was the cops.
But these people have no authority over the police. They don't have the authority to stop the police ether.
Shitcanning these guys is a bit harsh when the negligence of the department policy writers/administrators failed them so thoroughly by not bringing the department's policy's and training up to date with recent legal developments.
If I can be fired, arrested, charged, and convicted for a crime despite not knowing the law, I see no reason why a police officer should not be subject to such either. The officers snapped when presented with a printed document explaining the policy and why they were in the wrong, they didn't want to be corrected, they weren't going to listen to anyone.
The officer in question also threatens to, as part of his paramedic gig, only bring in transients (usually problem patients) and take the others elsewhere, which has all sorts of implications for patient care nevermind the vindictive abuse of that position. That alone should be a serious enough violation of public trust to warrant being fired from a position of authority and responsibility.
You sure can be convicted of a crime you don't know was a crime. You accidentally cheat on your taxes you don't go to jail. They give you a fine and have you pay the right amount. How about something more relevant? Your supervisor told you to do something you wern't sure about but you just did it - it ends up being wrong - you think the worker should be fired in this case? Unless someone got hurt or some kind of irreparable harm was done - I see no point - it can easily be corrected by fixing the problem (which is the not knowing).
nels1031 wrote: From what I read, policy changes happened after the incident.
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies on blood draws. Police spokeswoman Christina Judd said the new policy does not allow for implied consent for any party and requires a warrant or consent.
Judd also said the agency has met with hospital administration to ensure it does not happen again and to repair relationships.
Furthermore, this police officer violated her constitutional rights. How do you get unlawful termination lawsuits out of this?
.
Only because they felt she was impeding an investigation while they adhered to department policies that were not updated. Firing them for not adhering to policies that didn't exist until after the event would have every lawyer that likes money(all of them) lining up to help them sue their former employer.
No, again this is wrong. Did you watch the video at all? She says right in the video, while explaining the policy to the Officer that "this is something you guys agreed to." These policies were updated with the changes to implied consent laws. They did exist before the event, that is what the whole thing is about.
Please, please watch the video before you make crap up.
Here is the video, so you can watch it. Less than 20 seconds in to it. Come on man.
Sure, they can agree with the hospitals policy, but until the actual departments policy is codified and training match with the hospitals, the officers thought they were being obstructed in their investigation. The departments policy review and training team dropped the ball.
The policy did not match the hospitals until after the event. Read the quote from the chicago tribune link I posted above, or this one :
In response to the incident, Judd said the department updated its blood draw policy last week to mirror what the hospital staff uses. She said officers have already received additional training but that they are still sorting out the department's response since the law changed.
"We want to know where something went wrong, what we didn't know, and why we didn't know it," Judd said.
These are quotes from people involved in this case.
More:
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies in line with the guidance Wubbels was following in the July 26 incident.
How can the policy have been in place if the policy didn't change until after the event?
How can you excuse the police department not already having a policy that complies with Utah state law as determined by the Utah state Supreme Court ruling in Stave v Rodriguez on 1/30/2007? That case established that blood draws without a warrant or patient consent are illegal more than 10 years ago.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1102466.html
The hospital had updated their policy to reflect the law as determined by the courts years ago and the hospital had done so with the cooperation of law enforcement at the time they updated their policies and also informed the police of their policies multiple times in this particular incident. The hospital has a powerful financial and legal motivation to stay informed of the laws that affect them and update policies accordingly. Apparently police departments in Utah don't feel the need to make sure their trained phlebotomists are informed of applicable blood draw laws in their state. Ignorance of the law, willful or otherwise, is never an excuse for breaking the law.
Not sure how you are reading what I'm typing as excusing the police department. The crux of what I'm saying is that the police department is to blame for these officers not being trained/updated with the relevant policies. Hence why they shouldn't be fired. Not yet, at least.
I feel that whoever said, "Our blood draw policy was not up to date, but it is now", are goddamn liars.
There are probably dozens of blood draws per week. And we are supposed to believe that this super unique situation has never occurred before?
Nels, you sound like the usual cop apologists.
Are you or is someone from your family a LEO?
Retraining and all sounds good, but this chuckle feth is way past all of that. Cops in general get far too many breaks when the break the law. The bs police union ensures they get special treatment that the common citizen does not. Then paid administrative leave. The thin blue line all looking the other way. Then the department conducts an investigation that usually finds the culprit not responsible for their action.
If LEOs are in any way serious about earning the public's respect, they need to start cutting these donkey-caves from the team.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Except the problem was corrected and the officer went ahead and did it anyway.
THe story has changed now - the superior is now saying that he didn't tell the officer to get the blood after he called asking what to do about them interfering. If that's true it changes things.
nels1031 wrote: From what I read, policy changes happened after the incident.
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies on blood draws. Police spokeswoman Christina Judd said the new policy does not allow for implied consent for any party and requires a warrant or consent.
Judd also said the agency has met with hospital administration to ensure it does not happen again and to repair relationships.
Furthermore, this police officer violated her constitutional rights. How do you get unlawful termination lawsuits out of this?
.
Only because they felt she was impeding an investigation while they adhered to department policies that were not updated. Firing them for not adhering to policies that didn't exist until after the event would have every lawyer that likes money(all of them) lining up to help them sue their former employer.
No, again this is wrong. Did you watch the video at all? She says right in the video, while explaining the policy to the Officer that "this is something you guys agreed to." These policies were updated with the changes to implied consent laws. They did exist before the event, that is what the whole thing is about.
Please, please watch the video before you make crap up.
Here is the video, so you can watch it. Less than 20 seconds in to it. Come on man.
Sure, they can agree with the hospitals policy, but until the actual departments policy is codified and training match with the hospitals, the officers thought they were being obstructed in their investigation. The departments policy review and training team dropped the ball.
The policy did not match the hospitals until after the event. Read the quote from the chicago tribune link I posted above, or this one :
In response to the incident, Judd said the department updated its blood draw policy last week to mirror what the hospital staff uses. She said officers have already received additional training but that they are still sorting out the department's response since the law changed.
"We want to know where something went wrong, what we didn't know, and why we didn't know it," Judd said.
These are quotes from people involved in this case.
More:
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies in line with the guidance Wubbels was following in the July 26 incident.
nels1031 wrote: From what I read, policy changes happened after the incident.
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies on blood draws. Police spokeswoman Christina Judd said the new policy does not allow for implied consent for any party and requires a warrant or consent.
Judd also said the agency has met with hospital administration to ensure it does not happen again and to repair relationships.
Furthermore, this police officer violated her constitutional rights. How do you get unlawful termination lawsuits out of this?
.
Only because they felt she was impeding an investigation while they adhered to department policies that were not updated. Firing them for not adhering to policies that didn't exist until after the event would have every lawyer that likes money(all of them) lining up to help them sue their former employer.
No, again this is wrong. Did you watch the video at all? She says right in the video, while explaining the policy to the Officer that "this is something you guys agreed to." These policies were updated with the changes to implied consent laws. They did exist before the event, that is what the whole thing is about.
Please, please watch the video before you make crap up.
Here is the video, so you can watch it. Less than 20 seconds in to it. Come on man.
Sure, they can agree with the hospitals policy, but until the actual departments policy is codified and training match with the hospitals, the officers thought they were being obstructed in their investigation. The departments policy review and training team dropped the ball.
The policy did not match the hospitals until after the event. Read the quote from the chicago tribune link I posted above, or this one :
In response to the incident, Judd said the department updated its blood draw policy last week to mirror what the hospital staff uses. She said officers have already received additional training but that they are still sorting out the department's response since the law changed.
"We want to know where something went wrong, what we didn't know, and why we didn't know it," Judd said.
These are quotes from people involved in this case.
More:
The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies in line with the guidance Wubbels was following in the July 26 incident.
How can the policy have been in place if the policy didn't change until after the event?
How can you excuse the police department not already having a policy that complies with Utah state law as determined by the Utah state Supreme Court ruling in Stave v Rodriguez on 1/30/2007? That case established that blood draws without a warrant or patient consent are illegal more than 10 years ago.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1102466.html
The hospital had updated their policy to reflect the law as determined by the courts years ago and the hospital had done so with the cooperation of law enforcement at the time they updated their policies and also informed the police of their policies multiple times in this particular incident. The hospital has a powerful financial and legal motivation to stay informed of the laws that affect them and update policies accordingly. Apparently police departments in Utah don't feel the need to make sure their trained phlebotomists are informed of applicable blood draw laws in their state. Ignorance of the law, willful or otherwise, is never an excuse for breaking the law.
[/spoiler]
Not sure how you are reading what I'm typing as excusing the police department. The crux of what I'm saying is that the police department is to blame for these officers not being trained/updated with the relevant policies. Hence why they shouldn't be fired. Not yet, at least.
Ignorance of the law and just following orders aren't valid excuses for illegal behavior or losing your job with just cause. If my boss tells me to do something that is illegal and I do it, even if I didn't know it was illegal and my boss and my job training didn't inform me it was illegal, I can still get arrested and charged with a crime and consequently lose my job. My boss can also lose their job for telling me to do something illegal.
Inadequte job training, bad policies and ignorance don't make you impervious to consequences. NYPD used to do Stop and Frisk and it was challenged in court and the courts ruled against it. If NYPD officers continued to conduct Stop and Frisk searches then they'd be liable to lawsuits and possible criminal charges and job loss if the violation is egregious enough. Following bad policies that violate court decisions still results in unlawful actions that result in grave consequences.
Why was the nurse forcibly removed from the hospital, placed in handcuffs and put in a squad car? She didn't pose a threat or danger to anyone, she wasn't committing a crime, has not been charged with a crime, explained the law and hospital policy in a calm professional and respectful manner and even got her supervisor involved who respectfully explained everything to the cop. The cop responded with threats against the nurse and the hospital and then dragged the nurse away solely because he was angry and frustrated with her. That kind of unprofessional immature emotional and violent response is reason enough to kick him of the force. If you can't keep your cool then you can't keep your job as a cop. If that means we have to live in a society with a lot fewer cops but have better cops then I'm happy with that trade off.
Bran Dawri wrote: Except that a) one of them was a paramedic and should have known this, and b) the updated law and hospital procedure were explained to them, calmly, rationally and professionally - by at least two separate people.
The only belligerent party here was the cops.
But these people have no authority over the police. They don't have the authority to stop the police ether.
I don't know the US law, but I would bet good money that hospital staff do have significant authority over patients in their care and the access that the police can have to them, especially when the patient is not a suspect or under arrest. The police do not have absolute authority to do what they wish to who they wish or demand others to do so. I would also guess in this specific case that no officer has no right to take blood, and has no authority to demand a specific person do the sample. There may be a possibility that the officer, in limited cases (which may or may not apply here) has a right to get the hospital to take a sample, but no authority to demand a specific person do it. The issue would come if, in the correct circumstances, there was a request to take a sample, and a nurse were to stop another nurse doing it, and even then you would have to ask why. Clinical staff have quite wide responsibilities over the care of patients assigned to them.
Bill of rights only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. In this case there was some confusion about what is unreasonable i guess. In the end - no illegal search took place - no one was hurt.
Xenomancers wrote: Bill of rights only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. In this case there was some confusion about what is unreasonable i guess. In the end - no illegal search took place - no one was hurt.
Ouze wrote: The only surprising thing about this is how quickly a miscarriage of justice was rectified. Also surprised we didn't see the usual smearing of the victim - where are the social media pictures of the nurse drinking, or maybe holding a gun, reminding us She Was No Angel?
Kinda funny how differently things pan out when the victim is a white woman
We also didn't see pictures of her from middle school painting her as a sweet little innocent child.
your argument us irrelevant. Policy does not Trump the Bill of Rights.
The previous policy did in fact trump the Bill of Rights, and was rightfully struck as unconstitutional. Salt Lake City PD did not change their policy to reflect that ruling until after this incident.
Prestor Jon wrote: Inadequte job training, bad policies and ignorance don't make you impervious to consequences. NYPD used to do Stop and Frisk and it was challenged in court and the courts ruled against it. If NYPD officers continued to conduct Stop and Frisk searches then they'd be liable to lawsuits and possible criminal charges and job loss if the violation is egregious enough. Following bad policies that violate court decisions still results in unlawful actions that result in grave consequences.
Great example, but it differs in this case in that NYPD changed policy/training after the courts came out against stop and frisk.
Salt Lake City PD, in this case, with this particular issue, did not. Hence why an officer went into this situation untrained and ill-informed of current legal happenings regarding blood draw and a confrontation ensued.
Prestor Jon wrote: Why was the nurse forcibly removed from the hospital, placed in handcuffs and put in a squad car? She didn't pose a threat or danger to anyone, she wasn't committing a crime, has not been charged with a crime, explained the law and hospital policy in a calm professional and respectful manner and even got her supervisor involved who respectfully explained everything to the cop. The cop responded with threats against the nurse and the hospital and then dragged the nurse away solely because he was angry and frustrated with her. That kind of unprofessional immature emotional and violent response is reason enough to kick him of the force. If you can't keep your cool then you can't keep your job as a cop. If that means we have to live in a society with a lot fewer cops but have better cops then I'm happy with that trade off.
Everything I've saw and read seemed like he felt an investigation was being impeded and he removed the impediment briefly to take control of the situation. Might not like it, and the optics of it are rarely good, but its a common and legal tactic, just in this case the officer was in the wrong. You have to take into account that his training in blood draw policy was not up to date, hence the confrontation. Had the blood draw policy of Salt Lake City PD matched the guidance of the hospital (which it did not until after this event, Mayor and Police Chief on record essentially admitting as such ) I'd be all for booting this dude to the curb.
I'm also fine with officers losing their cool. They are human. If its a recurring theme, sure, drum them out, but from what I read, this is an outlier that took his paramedic boss by surprise, as well as his police chief. Mistakes happen.
Last I'll probably say on this, as its going round and round at this point:
I believe the officers involved should keep their jobs and be transferred/reassigned and be put on some form of retraining and probational evaluation. Feel free to disagree.
Shitcanning these guys is a bit harsh when the negligence of the department policy writers/administrators failed them so thoroughly by not bringing the department's policy's and training up to date with recent legal developments.
If I can be fired, arrested, charged, and convicted for a crime despite not knowing the law, I see no reason why a police officer should not be subject to such either. The officers snapped when presented with a printed document explaining the policy and why they were in the wrong, they didn't want to be corrected, they weren't going to listen to anyone.
The officer in question also threatens to, as part of his paramedic gig, only bring in transients (usually problem patients) and take the others elsewhere, which has all sorts of implications for patient care nevermind the vindictive abuse of that position. That alone should be a serious enough violation of public trust to warrant being fired from a position of authority and responsibility.
You sure can be convicted of a crime you don't know was a crime. You accidentally cheat on your taxes you don't go to jail. They give you a fine and have you pay the right amount. How about something more relevant? Your supervisor told you to do something you wern't sure about but you just did it - it ends up being wrong - you think the worker should be fired in this case? Unless someone got hurt or some kind of irreparable harm was done - I see no point - it can easily be corrected by fixing the problem (which is the not knowing).
We have armed agents of the state in positions of responsibility and authority abusing their power after having been made aware what they are doing is wrong, on camera acknowleding several points in fact (such as the fact that they don't have a warrant nor probable cause to get a warrant...), threatening punitive action not only as police officers but as paramedics as well, refusing to listen to why they are wrong, and others standing by doing nothing allowing this all to happen, while physical force is brought to bear against an innocent person.
Nope, sorry, there were way too many things wrong here. They weren't willing to listen to why they were wrong, they engaged in threats through multiple different avenues and roles, and used physical force.
That's not "I didn't know", that's "I'm gonna do whatever I want because I think I can get away with it". It's rank abuse of authority driven by ego and others stood by and allowed it to happen without intervention. Even if it was just "I didn't know", armed agents of the state should be held to a higher standard. If I attempted to arrest, detain, or restrain someone for doing something I think is illegal and I turn out to be wrong, you can absolutely bet I'm going to be arrested and charged.
Nope, dump the lot of them. There's a reason "I was just following orders" isn't generally accepted as a defense...
This is one of the biggest problems with policing today. Police aren't required to know the law (but that's no defense for you or I...), and people are entirely willing to let them off the hook when they end up being wrong, allowing abuses of power to happen and as a result we end up with the reality that the public has very little reason to trust the police or welcome their presence. Police can't be allowed to just say "sorry, we didn't know" as a get-out-of-jail-free excuse, especially when they're the ones responsible for policing themselves.
Xenomancers wrote: Bill of rights only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. In this case there was some confusion about what is unreasonable i guess. In the end - no illegal search took place - no one was hurt.
Aside from the fact that there was an illegal seizure...
Out of curiosity, nels, how exactly do you "retrain" for someone who on camera made multiple threats and an illegal arrest? What is the training for that and why in the flying feth is it not training for when you become a cop?
whembly wrote: 'Tis why now, you'll only have facilities managment/security deal with the police, rather than the actual clinicians.
best way forward.
I posted this earlier as "a good step forward" and have since slept on it. On reflection Whembly and I are sort of making a meaningless point: yeah, I guess it's OK that the hospital changed it's policies, but ultimately... they were already right to begin with. Nurse Wuebbels already complied with the law and policy, so nothing the hospital changes should be relevant.
your argument us irrelevant. Policy does not Trump the Bill of Rights.
The previous policy did in fact trump the Bill of Rights, and was rightfully struck as unconstitutional. Salt Lake City PD did not change their policy to reflect that ruling until after this incident.
Prestor Jon wrote: Inadequte job training, bad policies and ignorance don't make you impervious to consequences. NYPD used to do Stop and Frisk and it was challenged in court and the courts ruled against it. If NYPD officers continued to conduct Stop and Frisk searches then they'd be liable to lawsuits and possible criminal charges and job loss if the violation is egregious enough. Following bad policies that violate court decisions still results in unlawful actions that result in grave consequences.
Great example, but it differs in this case in that NYPD changed policy/training after the courts came out against stop and frisk.
Salt Lake City PD, in this case, with this particular issue, did not. Hence why an officer went into this situation untrained and ill-informed of current legal happenings regarding blood draw and a confrontation ensued.
Prestor Jon wrote: Why was the nurse forcibly removed from the hospital, placed in handcuffs and put in a squad car? She didn't pose a threat or danger to anyone, she wasn't committing a crime, has not been charged with a crime, explained the law and hospital policy in a calm professional and respectful manner and even got her supervisor involved who respectfully explained everything to the cop. The cop responded with threats against the nurse and the hospital and then dragged the nurse away solely because he was angry and frustrated with her. That kind of unprofessional immature emotional and violent response is reason enough to kick him of the force. If you can't keep your cool then you can't keep your job as a cop. If that means we have to live in a society with a lot fewer cops but have better cops then I'm happy with that trade off.
Everything I've saw and read seemed like he felt an investigation was being impeded and he removed the impediment briefly to take control of the situation. Might not like it, and the optics of it are rarely good, but its a common and legal tactic, just in this case the officer was in the wrong. You have to take into account that his training in blood draw policy was not up to date, hence the confrontation. Had the blood draw policy of Salt Lake City PD matched the guidance of the hospital (which it did not until after this event, Mayor and Police Chief on record essentially admitting as such ) I'd be all for booting this dude to the curb.
I'm also fine with officers losing their cool. They are human. If its a recurring theme, sure, drum them out, but from what I read, this is an outlier that took his paramedic boss by surprise, as well as his police chief. Mistakes happen.
Last I'll probably say on this, as its going round and round at this point:
I believe the officers involved should keep their jobs and be transferred/reassigned and be put on some form of retraining and probational evaluation. Feel free to disagree.
The nurse wasn't the impediment to the cop getting a blood sample the impediment was the law against it and the hospital policy that reflected the law. If the nurse was the impediment, then her removal would have resulted in the cop getting the blood sample he wanted. However that wasn't the result, the cop never got a blood sample because no nurse wasn't the problem. No hospital staff member was going to take a blood sample from an unconscious patient for the cops without a warrant. Whether the cop arrested that nurse or every nurse or no nurse at all the policy wasn't going to change and he wasn't going to get a blood sample. He didn't arrest the nurse because she was in the way he arrested her because he was mad. He clearly doesn't have the temperament to be a cop and therefore shouldn't be a cop. He can find another job for which he is better suited.
Shitcanning these guys is a bit harsh when the negligence of the department policy writers/administrators failed them so thoroughly by not bringing the department's policy's and training up to date with recent legal developments.
If I can be fired, arrested, charged, and convicted for a crime despite not knowing the law, I see no reason why a police officer should not be subject to such either. The officers snapped when presented with a printed document explaining the policy and why they were in the wrong, they didn't want to be corrected, they weren't going to listen to anyone.
The officer in question also threatens to, as part of his paramedic gig, only bring in transients (usually problem patients) and take the others elsewhere, which has all sorts of implications for patient care nevermind the vindictive abuse of that position. That alone should be a serious enough violation of public trust to warrant being fired from a position of authority and responsibility.
You sure can be convicted of a crime you don't know was a crime. You accidentally cheat on your taxes you don't go to jail. They give you a fine and have you pay the right amount. How about something more relevant? Your supervisor told you to do something you wern't sure about but you just did it - it ends up being wrong - you think the worker should be fired in this case? Unless someone got hurt or some kind of irreparable harm was done - I see no point - it can easily be corrected by fixing the problem (which is the not knowing).
We have armed agents of the state in positions of responsibility and authority abusing their power after having been made aware what they are doing is wrong, on camera acknowleding several points in fact (such as the fact that they don't have a warrant nor probable cause to get a warrant...), threatening punitive action not only as police officers but as paramedics as well, refusing to listen to why they are wrong, and others standing by doing nothing allowing this all to happen, while physical force is brought to bear against an innocent person.
Nope, sorry, there were way too many things wrong here. They weren't willing to listen to why they were wrong, they engaged in threats through multiple different avenues and roles, and used physical force.
That's not "I didn't know", that's "I'm gonna do whatever I want because I think I can get away with it". It's rank abuse of authority driven by ego and others stood by and allowed it to happen without intervention. Even if it was just "I didn't know", armed agents of the state should be held to a higher standard. If I attempted to arrest, detain, or restrain someone for doing something I think is illegal and I turn out to be wrong, you can absolutely bet I'm going to be arrested and charged.
Nope, dump the lot of them. There's a reason "I was just following orders" isn't generally accepted as a defense...
This is one of the biggest problems with policing today. Police aren't required to know the law (but that's no defense for you or I...), and people are entirely willing to let them off the hook when they end up being wrong, allowing abuses of power to happen and as a result we end up with the reality that the public has very little reason to trust the police or welcome their presence. Police can't be allowed to just say "sorry, we didn't know" as a get-out-of-jail-free excuse, especially when they're the ones responsible for policing themselves.
Xenomancers wrote: Bill of rights only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. In this case there was some confusion about what is unreasonable i guess. In the end - no illegal search took place - no one was hurt.
Aside from the fact that there was an illegal seizure...
There was no illegal seizure though...The blood was not drawn correct? Or if it was - why are we focused on the nurse and not the victim? Why is it not the victim speaking out about his civil rights being violated? It's because they weren't. Which is why I'm being more lenient to the cop (unless the sample was drawn illegally in which case we are following the wrong story). I also think the nurse was being foolish - right or not - you have no right to interfere with a police officer - NONE - doing so subjects you to arrest. We also - as is typical with phone videos - don't have the whole event on camera. There is no telling what happend leading up to this recording. I'm not righting off any possibilities. I know for a fact that a cop knowing hes being video taped wouldn't do what he did without something else going on. At this point it's been politicized and there is no telling what actually happened before that - at this point giving out more details will just look like an attempted cover up. It's damage control time.
Tell me - does nothing about this situation strike you as odd? Cops know they can't order people to do things unless you are under arrest - everyone knows that. So what was this cops plan to obtain the sample anyways? Why does Salt Lake City have a blood collection department that sends officers to hospitals to collect samples they legally can't obtain?
your argument us irrelevant. Policy does not Trump the Bill of Rights.
The previous policy did in fact trump the Bill of Rights, and was rightfully struck as unconstitutional. Salt Lake City PD did not change their policy to reflect that ruling until after this incident.
Prestor Jon wrote: Inadequte job training, bad policies and ignorance don't make you impervious to consequences. NYPD used to do Stop and Frisk and it was challenged in court and the courts ruled against it. If NYPD officers continued to conduct Stop and Frisk searches then they'd be liable to lawsuits and possible criminal charges and job loss if the violation is egregious enough. Following bad policies that violate court decisions still results in unlawful actions that result in grave consequences.
Great example, but it differs in this case in that NYPD changed policy/training after the courts came out against stop and frisk.
Salt Lake City PD, in this case, with this particular issue, did not. Hence why an officer went into this situation untrained and ill-informed of current legal happenings regarding blood draw and a confrontation ensued.
Prestor Jon wrote: Why was the nurse forcibly removed from the hospital, placed in handcuffs and put in a squad car? She didn't pose a threat or danger to anyone, she wasn't committing a crime, has not been charged with a crime, explained the law and hospital policy in a calm professional and respectful manner and even got her supervisor involved who respectfully explained everything to the cop. The cop responded with threats against the nurse and the hospital and then dragged the nurse away solely because he was angry and frustrated with her. That kind of unprofessional immature emotional and violent response is reason enough to kick him of the force. If you can't keep your cool then you can't keep your job as a cop. If that means we have to live in a society with a lot fewer cops but have better cops then I'm happy with that trade off.
Everything I've saw and read seemed like he felt an investigation was being impeded and he removed the impediment briefly to take control of the situation. Might not like it, and the optics of it are rarely good, but its a common and legal tactic, just in this case the officer was in the wrong. You have to take into account that his training in blood draw policy was not up to date, hence the confrontation. Had the blood draw policy of Salt Lake City PD matched the guidance of the hospital (which it did not until after this event, Mayor and Police Chief on record essentially admitting as such ) I'd be all for booting this dude to the curb.
I'm also fine with officers losing their cool. They are human. If its a recurring theme, sure, drum them out, but from what I read, this is an outlier that took his paramedic boss by surprise, as well as his police chief. Mistakes happen.
Last I'll probably say on this, as its going round and round at this point:
I believe the officers involved should keep their jobs and be transferred/reassigned and be put on some form of retraining and probational evaluation. Feel free to disagree.
The nurse wasn't the impediment to the cop getting a blood sample the impediment was the law against it and the hospital policy that reflected the law. If the nurse was the impediment, then her removal would have resulted in the cop getting the blood sample he wanted. However that wasn't the result, the cop never got a blood sample because no nurse wasn't the problem. No hospital staff member was going to take a blood sample from an unconscious patient for the cops without a warrant. Whether the cop arrested that nurse or every nurse or no nurse at all the policy wasn't going to change and he wasn't going to get a blood sample. He didn't arrest the nurse because she was in the way he arrested her because he was mad. He clearly doesn't have the temperament to be a cop and therefore shouldn't be a cop. He can find another job for which he is better suited.
Nurse can not impede an officer. If she can - please show me how she can. Cops enforce laws - not nurses.
Shitcanning these guys is a bit harsh when the negligence of the department policy writers/administrators failed them so thoroughly by not bringing the department's policy's and training up to date with recent legal developments.
If I can be fired, arrested, charged, and convicted for a crime despite not knowing the law, I see no reason why a police officer should not be subject to such either. The officers snapped when presented with a printed document explaining the policy and why they were in the wrong, they didn't want to be corrected, they weren't going to listen to anyone.
The officer in question also threatens to, as part of his paramedic gig, only bring in transients (usually problem patients) and take the others elsewhere, which has all sorts of implications for patient care nevermind the vindictive abuse of that position. That alone should be a serious enough violation of public trust to warrant being fired from a position of authority and responsibility.
You sure can be convicted of a crime you don't know was a crime. You accidentally cheat on your taxes you don't go to jail. They give you a fine and have you pay the right amount. How about something more relevant? Your supervisor told you to do something you wern't sure about but you just did it - it ends up being wrong - you think the worker should be fired in this case? Unless someone got hurt or some kind of irreparable harm was done - I see no point - it can easily be corrected by fixing the problem (which is the not knowing).
We have armed agents of the state in positions of responsibility and authority abusing their power after having been made aware what they are doing is wrong, on camera acknowleding several points in fact (such as the fact that they don't have a warrant nor probable cause to get a warrant...), threatening punitive action not only as police officers but as paramedics as well, refusing to listen to why they are wrong, and others standing by doing nothing allowing this all to happen, while physical force is brought to bear against an innocent person.
Nope, sorry, there were way too many things wrong here. They weren't willing to listen to why they were wrong, they engaged in threats through multiple different avenues and roles, and used physical force.
That's not "I didn't know", that's "I'm gonna do whatever I want because I think I can get away with it". It's rank abuse of authority driven by ego and others stood by and allowed it to happen without intervention. Even if it was just "I didn't know", armed agents of the state should be held to a higher standard. If I attempted to arrest, detain, or restrain someone for doing something I think is illegal and I turn out to be wrong, you can absolutely bet I'm going to be arrested and charged.
Nope, dump the lot of them. There's a reason "I was just following orders" isn't generally accepted as a defense...
This is one of the biggest problems with policing today. Police aren't required to know the law (but that's no defense for you or I...), and people are entirely willing to let them off the hook when they end up being wrong, allowing abuses of power to happen and as a result we end up with the reality that the public has very little reason to trust the police or welcome their presence. Police can't be allowed to just say "sorry, we didn't know" as a get-out-of-jail-free excuse, especially when they're the ones responsible for policing themselves.
Xenomancers wrote: Bill of rights only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. In this case there was some confusion about what is unreasonable i guess. In the end - no illegal search took place - no one was hurt.
Aside from the fact that there was an illegal seizure...
There was no illegal seizure though...The blood was not drawn correct? Or if it was - why are we focused on the nurse and not the victim? Why is it not the victim speaking out about his civil rights being violated? It's because they weren't. Which is why I'm being more lenient to the cop (unless the sample was drawn illegally in which case we are following the wrong story). I also think the nurse was being foolish - right or not - you have no right to interfere with a police officer - NONE - doing so subjects you to arrest. We also - as is typical with phone videos - don't have the whole event on camera. There is no telling what happend leading up to this recording. I'm not righting off any possibilities. I know for a fact that a cop knowing hes being video taped wouldn't do what he did without something else going on. At this point it's been politicized and there is no telling what actually happened before that - at this point giving out more details will just look like an attempted cover up. It's damage control time.
Tell me - does nothing about this situation strike you as odd? Cops know they can't order people to do things unless you are under arrest - everyone knows that. So what was this cops plan to obtain the sample anyways? Why does Salt Lake City have a blood collection department that sends officers to hospitals to collect samples they legally can't obtain?
your argument us irrelevant. Policy does not Trump the Bill of Rights.
The previous policy did in fact trump the Bill of Rights, and was rightfully struck as unconstitutional. Salt Lake City PD did not change their policy to reflect that ruling until after this incident.
Prestor Jon wrote: Inadequte job training, bad policies and ignorance don't make you impervious to consequences. NYPD used to do Stop and Frisk and it was challenged in court and the courts ruled against it. If NYPD officers continued to conduct Stop and Frisk searches then they'd be liable to lawsuits and possible criminal charges and job loss if the violation is egregious enough. Following bad policies that violate court decisions still results in unlawful actions that result in grave consequences.
Great example, but it differs in this case in that NYPD changed policy/training after the courts came out against stop and frisk.
Salt Lake City PD, in this case, with this particular issue, did not. Hence why an officer went into this situation untrained and ill-informed of current legal happenings regarding blood draw and a confrontation ensued.
Prestor Jon wrote: Why was the nurse forcibly removed from the hospital, placed in handcuffs and put in a squad car? She didn't pose a threat or danger to anyone, she wasn't committing a crime, has not been charged with a crime, explained the law and hospital policy in a calm professional and respectful manner and even got her supervisor involved who respectfully explained everything to the cop. The cop responded with threats against the nurse and the hospital and then dragged the nurse away solely because he was angry and frustrated with her. That kind of unprofessional immature emotional and violent response is reason enough to kick him of the force. If you can't keep your cool then you can't keep your job as a cop. If that means we have to live in a society with a lot fewer cops but have better cops then I'm happy with that trade off.
Everything I've saw and read seemed like he felt an investigation was being impeded and he removed the impediment briefly to take control of the situation. Might not like it, and the optics of it are rarely good, but its a common and legal tactic, just in this case the officer was in the wrong. You have to take into account that his training in blood draw policy was not up to date, hence the confrontation. Had the blood draw policy of Salt Lake City PD matched the guidance of the hospital (which it did not until after this event, Mayor and Police Chief on record essentially admitting as such ) I'd be all for booting this dude to the curb.
I'm also fine with officers losing their cool. They are human. If its a recurring theme, sure, drum them out, but from what I read, this is an outlier that took his paramedic boss by surprise, as well as his police chief. Mistakes happen.
Last I'll probably say on this, as its going round and round at this point:
I believe the officers involved should keep their jobs and be transferred/reassigned and be put on some form of retraining and probational evaluation. Feel free to disagree.
The nurse wasn't the impediment to the cop getting a blood sample the impediment was the law against it and the hospital policy that reflected the law. If the nurse was the impediment, then her removal would have resulted in the cop getting the blood sample he wanted. However that wasn't the result, the cop never got a blood sample because no nurse wasn't the problem. No hospital staff member was going to take a blood sample from an unconscious patient for the cops without a warrant. Whether the cop arrested that nurse or every nurse or no nurse at all the policy wasn't going to change and he wasn't going to get a blood sample. He didn't arrest the nurse because she was in the way he arrested her because he was mad. He clearly doesn't have the temperament to be a cop and therefore shouldn't be a cop. He can find another job for which he is better suited.
Nurse can not impede an officer. If she can - please show me how she can. Cops enforce laws - not nurses.
No they don't. Cops enforce a small section of the law, and even within that they don it have absolute power. And anyway, this isn't about impeding anyone. This is about a cop telling someone to do something illegal. The world is not as black and white as you seem to think it is.
Shitcanning these guys is a bit harsh when the negligence of the department policy writers/administrators failed them so thoroughly by not bringing the department's policy's and training up to date with recent legal developments.
If I can be fired, arrested, charged, and convicted for a crime despite not knowing the law, I see no reason why a police officer should not be subject to such either. The officers snapped when presented with a printed document explaining the policy and why they were in the wrong, they didn't want to be corrected, they weren't going to listen to anyone.
The officer in question also threatens to, as part of his paramedic gig, only bring in transients (usually problem patients) and take the others elsewhere, which has all sorts of implications for patient care nevermind the vindictive abuse of that position. That alone should be a serious enough violation of public trust to warrant being fired from a position of authority and responsibility.
You sure can be convicted of a crime you don't know was a crime. You accidentally cheat on your taxes you don't go to jail. They give you a fine and have you pay the right amount. How about something more relevant? Your supervisor told you to do something you wern't sure about but you just did it - it ends up being wrong - you think the worker should be fired in this case? Unless someone got hurt or some kind of irreparable harm was done - I see no point - it can easily be corrected by fixing the problem (which is the not knowing).
We have armed agents of the state in positions of responsibility and authority abusing their power after having been made aware what they are doing is wrong, on camera acknowleding several points in fact (such as the fact that they don't have a warrant nor probable cause to get a warrant...), threatening punitive action not only as police officers but as paramedics as well, refusing to listen to why they are wrong, and others standing by doing nothing allowing this all to happen, while physical force is brought to bear against an innocent person.
Nope, sorry, there were way too many things wrong here. They weren't willing to listen to why they were wrong, they engaged in threats through multiple different avenues and roles, and used physical force.
That's not "I didn't know", that's "I'm gonna do whatever I want because I think I can get away with it". It's rank abuse of authority driven by ego and others stood by and allowed it to happen without intervention. Even if it was just "I didn't know", armed agents of the state should be held to a higher standard. If I attempted to arrest, detain, or restrain someone for doing something I think is illegal and I turn out to be wrong, you can absolutely bet I'm going to be arrested and charged.
Nope, dump the lot of them. There's a reason "I was just following orders" isn't generally accepted as a defense...
This is one of the biggest problems with policing today. Police aren't required to know the law (but that's no defense for you or I...), and people are entirely willing to let them off the hook when they end up being wrong, allowing abuses of power to happen and as a result we end up with the reality that the public has very little reason to trust the police or welcome their presence. Police can't be allowed to just say "sorry, we didn't know" as a get-out-of-jail-free excuse, especially when they're the ones responsible for policing themselves.
Xenomancers wrote: Bill of rights only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. In this case there was some confusion about what is unreasonable i guess. In the end - no illegal search took place - no one was hurt.
Aside from the fact that there was an illegal seizure...
There was no illegal seizure though...The blood was not drawn correct?
there was an illegal seizure of the Nurse...
Or if it was - why are we focused on the nurse and not the victim?
Because the Nurse was a victim in this situation...
Why is it not the victim speaking out about his civil rights being violated?
who knows, any number of reasons (is he even conscious yet? I dont recall). He may yet. Thats irrelevant however.
It's because they weren't.
Because hospital staff intervened to prevent it and in turn had their rights violated...
Also, its not for lack of trying, the Police in this case certainly attempted to.
Talk about moving goalposts...
Which is why I'm being more lenient to the cop (unless the sample was drawn illegally in which case we are following the wrong story).
I also think the nurse was being foolish - right or not - you have no right to interfere with a police officer - NONE - doing so subjects you to arrest.
Ah, so here we are. Cops can do anything they want, subject to no restraint. If theyre doing something bad, stand aside or simply let it happen, sit and watch or endure. Let the police investigate themselves later of there's an issue...that totally works...
If you cannot see how insanely, and absurdly, open to abuse that line of thinking is, I dont know what to say, nobody is going to change your mind.
For a prime example, look at the Van Dyke-Laquan shooting in Chicago, it took a court order to get the video released, and only then was action taken against the officer in question, and it took another two years to bring charges against officers for mucking about with the evidence.
We also - as is typical with phone videos
police body cam...
don't have the whole event on camera. There is no telling what happend leading up to this recording.
we have *twenty minutes* of video, and nothing from either side to indicate any sort of escalation or particularly hostile intent beforehand.
I'm not righting off any possibilities. I know for a fact that a cop knowing hes being video taped wouldn't do what he did without something else going on.
No, you dont know that for a fact, you werent there and we have gobs of evidence to the contrary, cops have been videotaped or done things in massive view of the public, with their full knowledge, doing terrible things before. Some of them have lost jobs or gotten prison time becausr of it. Theyre human. People do dumb things on camera all the time, particularly when they have been given authority and believe they can rely on the system to back them up.
Officer Payne also discussed abusing his paramedic gig to dump difficult to manage and potentially dangerous transients at the hospital and take other patients elsewhere, something which endangers patients (as he may not be taking them to the most appropriate location) and is fundamentally using that position in a retaliatory and completely inappropriate manner...
Tell me - does nothing about this situation strike you as odd? Cops know they can't order people to do things unless you are under arrest - everyone knows that.
Doesnt mean they dont sometimes do so anyway. Theres thousands of lawsuits and payouts in testament to such.
So what was this cops plan to obtain the sample anyways? Why does Salt Lake City have a blood collection department that sends officers to hospitals to collect samples they legally can't obtain?
So they can take blood from people when they have probable cause and a warrant or consent...?
whembly wrote: 'Tis why now, you'll only have facilities managment/security deal with the police, rather than the actual clinicians.
best way forward.
I posted this earlier as "a good step forward" and have since slept on it. On reflection Whembly and I are sort of making a meaningless point: yeah, I guess it's OK that the hospital changed it's policies, but ultimately... they were already right to begin with. Nurse Wuebbels already complied with the law and policy, so nothing the hospital changes should be relevant.
My point was that these nurses shouldn't be the gatekeeper here... it's too busy of a job to place that responsibility.
I double-checked my large institution's policy here in missouri. The police is supposed to get authority from either the hospital security detail and/or from nurse supervisor (who rarely sees patients).... once that is kosher, then the police can engage with the nursing staff onsite.
curran12 wrote: Out of curiosity, nels, how exactly do you "retrain" for someone who on camera made multiple threats and an illegal arrest? What is the training for that and why in the flying feth is it not training for when you become a cop?
You can't. Payne is literally too slowed to know how to do his job. Look at the video, and on top of his behavior there, then remember how the moron got his stupid ass fired from his other job.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: "Attempted [illegal seizure]? What is that, really? Can you win a Nobel prize in Attempted Chemistry?"
Personally I feel safe and secure in the knowledge that if I try to murder someone and fail, there was no crime
This is more akin to trying to steal someones mail and failing.
Mail fraud laws are purposefully written to cover attempts to defraud.
Your proposal that we should ignore blatant abuse of power simply because the person abusing their authority failed to achieve their main goal is asinine. Furthermore, it's not even relevant because not only did police attempt to do something outside their powers they did something else (false arrest) when they ran into a problem at the door. This scenario shows attempts to circumvent civil liberty at multiple levels of police command (EDIT: followed by an abdication of accountability that can only be wilful on the part of the department). I was just following order's isn't an excuse. Neither is ignorance of the law. These have never been accepted defenses and both are more sympathetic than you're "sure I tried to violate the civil liberties of one citizen and then violated the liberties of another when she stopped me but come on, no one was hurt" is a defense so out of touch it borders on brain dead.
Xenomancers wrote:There was no illegal seizure though...The blood was not drawn correct? Or if it was - why are we focused on the nurse and not the victim? Why is it not the victim speaking out about his civil rights being violated? It's because they weren't.
It wasn't, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the illegal seizure(Kidnapping) of the nurse. Furthermore, the victim didn't speak out because he is still in a fething coma. However, the police department he works for spoke out and thanked the nurse for protecting his rights. As did his wife.
Xenomancers wrote:But these people have no authority over the police. They don't have the authority to stop the police ether.
Actually, as a patient advocate they have supreme authority in this situation as they are acting in the interests of the patient, who cannot speak for themselves. What they say is to be interpreted as the patients will. This trumps the Police 100% in this situation. Learn the law before speaking on it please.
Xenomancers wrote:Bill of rights only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. In this case there was some confusion about what is unreasonable i guess. In the end - no illegal search took place - no one was hurt.
So what, Nurses are not people anymore and they can be illegally handcuffed and held against their will whenever the police want now? Are we ignoring this? This is a bad argument and you should feel bad about it.
The cop essentially kidnapped her. But he shouldn't lose his job? Because he is a cop? Because the policy is not updated?
I am pretty certain there are clear policies and laws in place about illegally arresting someone. In fact, you are the one that keeps bringing it up.
If it's someone's job to detain people that person needs to make damned sure he or she knows the reasons for detaining someone is legal or not. And watching the video it really looks like he was detaining the nurse to be a bully (add to that trying to use his job as a paramedic to be a bully).
I'd be happy to see him fired for this ludicrous display. It demonstrates that the person doesn't have the competency to do their job and is losing it for that reason.
If no one was harmed it's dumb luck, detaining a nurse is an insanely dangerous thing to do. At the very least the cops should have been having this discussion with the admin staff of the hospital not the nurse herself.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: "Attempted [illegal seizure]? What is that, really? Can you win a Nobel prize in Attempted Chemistry?"
Personally I feel safe and secure in the knowledge that if I try to murder someone and fail, there was no crime
This is more akin to trying to steal someones mail and failing.
Actually, it's more akin to a cop telling someone to sneak into and root around the house of someone not even suspected of a crime, then arresting anyone who refuses to do so for impeding an investigation.
The victim was heavily burned- wouldn't they have him on pain meds? That stuff would show up in a drug test right? I mean, this officer's department was partially responsible for this man being hit by a suspect. The cop was extremely adamant about obtaining the sample, going so far as to ignore the law explained to him and arresting the nurse.
On another tangent it infuriated me to no end when he exclaims, "She's the one who told me 'No'!" Like that's a valid reason to drag her out of the hospital. But I'm not surprised at all that a man with such a toxic mindset hasn't been fired yet.
Mitochondria wrote: Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?
feth that nonsense.
Nah I never said that. I said multiple times that civilians can't interfere with officers. Is this a point of contention?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sinful Hero wrote: The victim was heavily burned- wouldn't they have him on pain meds? That stuff would show up in a drug test right? I mean, this officer's department was partially responsible for this man being hit by a suspect. The cop was extremely adamant about obtaining the sample, going so far as to ignore the law explained to him and arresting the nurse.
On another tangent it infuriated me to no end when he exclaims, "She's the one who told me 'No'!" Like that's a valid reason to drag her out of the hospital. But I'm not surprised at all that a man with such a toxic mindset hasn't been fired yet.
Why should a police officer be swayed from his belief that he had a legal right to obtain the sample because a nurse is reading out of an employee handbook? Is she an expert at law? Does show have any legal authority over him? No. Does she know every possible exception to the rule? Nope. I'm not saying the nurse was wrong in her interpretation but I'm not sure why you think the officer should hold the nurses lecture in any kind of consideration.
Sinful Hero wrote: The victim was heavily burned- wouldn't they have him on pain meds? That stuff would show up in a drug test right? I mean, this officer's department was partially responsible for this man being hit by a suspect. The cop was extremely adamant about obtaining the sample, going so far as to ignore the law explained to him and arresting the nurse.
On another tangent it infuriated me to no end when he exclaims, "She's the one who told me 'No'!" Like that's a valid reason to drag her out of the hospital. But I'm not surprised at all that a man with such a toxic mindset hasn't been fired yet.
Why should a police officer be swayed from his belief that he had a legal right to obtain the sample because a nurse is reading out of an employee handbook? Is she an expert at law? Does show have any legal authority over him? No. Does she know every possible exception to the rule? Nope. I'm not saying the nurse was wrong in her interpretation but I'm not sure why you think the officer should hold the nurses lecture in any kind of consideration.
It wasn't a lecture it was an explanation as to why nobody on staff was going to comply with the cop's request. The nurse calmly and professionally informed the officer of the policy. When the officer didn't accept that answer the nurse got her supervisor on the phone who then explained it again to the cop, making sure he knew why none of the hospital staff would comply with the request for a blood sample. The cop admitted he didn't have a warrant or probable cause and he was now aware of the hospital policy. The cop then resorted to unprofessional malicious threats and threw a tamper tantrum in public to the point of falsely arresting a nurse and forcibly removing her from the hospital when she hadn't broken any laws.
Do you think the officer conducted himself in a professional manner?
Do you think the officer's actions were a negative representation of his department and adversely affected his department?
Do you think it is reasonable to believe that this officer might behave in a similar fashion in the future?
Depending on what the officer's superiors believe are the answers to those questions the officer can be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including losing his job. He already got fired with cause from his second job due to the unprofessional, dangerous threats he levelled against the nurse that if carried out would have made his other employer vulnerable to a host of liability issues, lawsuits and potentially even criminal charges. Why should we hold police officers to a lower standard of professional conduct than EMTs/ambulance drivers?
Frazzled wrote: Video caught him admitting he had no PC. Trying harder.
For a warrant - If you pay attention he also claims he still has a legal authority to draw the sample.
Ya, he lied, what a shock.
He had no legal authority, only his delusions let him believe he did.
He had no warrant, no PC, the man wasn't even a suspect, and the cop had no clue about the policy for getting blood drawn, the policy his station help set up and put in place. That amount of sheer incompetence should get him fired.
Why should a police officer be swayed from his belief that he had a legal right to obtain the sample because a nurse is reading out of an employee handbook? Is she an expert at law? Does show have any legal authority over him? No. Does she know every possible exception to the rule? Nope. I'm not saying the nurse was wrong in her interpretation but I'm not sure why you think the officer should hold the nurses lecture in any kind of consideration.
If you have a job which interacts with the law- ie. any professional job- it's a safe bet that you know the laws that relate to your job.
Nurses contrary to your belief are a professional position with high professional standards in the developed world. Odds are good she went to school longer and is more up to date on the laws that relate to her profession than he is.
Sinful Hero wrote: The victim was heavily burned- wouldn't they have him on pain meds? That stuff would show up in a drug test right? I mean, this officer's department was partially responsible for this man being hit by a suspect. The cop was extremely adamant about obtaining the sample, going so far as to ignore the law explained to him and arresting the nurse.
On another tangent it infuriated me to no end when he exclaims, "She's the one who told me 'No'!" Like that's a valid reason to drag her out of the hospital. But I'm not surprised at all that a man with such a toxic mindset hasn't been fired yet.
Why should a police officer be swayed from his belief that he had a legal right to obtain the sample because a nurse is reading out of an employee handbook? Is she an expert at law? Does show have any legal authority over him? No. Does she know every possible exception to the rule? Nope. I'm not saying the nurse was wrong in her interpretation but I'm not sure why you think the officer should hold the nurses lecture in any kind of consideration.
It wasn't a lecture it was an explanation as to why nobody on staff was going to comply with the cop's request. The nurse calmly and professionally informed the officer of the policy. When the officer didn't accept that answer the nurse got her supervisor on the phone who then explained it again to the cop, making sure he knew why none of the hospital staff would comply with the request for a blood sample. The cop admitted he didn't have a warrant or probable cause and he was now aware of the hospital policy. The cop then resorted to unprofessional malicious threats and threw a tamper tantrum in public to the point of falsely arresting a nurse and forcibly removing her from the hospital when she hadn't broken any laws.
Do you think the officer conducted himself in a professional manner?
Do you think the officer's actions were a negative representation of his department and adversely affected his department?
Do you think it is reasonable to believe that this officer might behave in a similar fashion in the future?
Depending on what the officer's superiors believe are the answers to those questions the officer can be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including losing his job. He already got fired with cause from his second job due to the unprofessional, dangerous threats he levelled against the nurse that if carried out would have made his other employer vulnerable to a host of liability issues, lawsuits and potentially even criminal charges. Why should we hold police officers to a lower standard of professional conduct than EMTs/ambulance drivers?
-Impeding a police investigation is breaking a law and subjects you to arrest. Do you dispute this?
-Yes - the officer acted in a professional manner - believing he has legal authority to obtain the blood sample himself (he is fully qualified to do this) and being blocked by hospital staff he arrested the ring leader - this is standard procedure. People screaming blood murder when being handcuffed and arrested is also pretty standard - I'd also say it's unprofessional too.
- Considering the detectives behavior is consistent with acting on legal authority (he's even wearing a body cam) - I'd say a education on the current laws regarding specimen collection would prevent this from ever happening again.
I think police should be held to the same standard as everyone else - as in they should be forgiven for making the occasional mistake. Punishment if there is any should also be proportionate to the transgression - not increased based on public opinion and emotional overreaction.
He got fired sept 5th after this video came out. A viral social media reaction to this event - the ambulance company just cut ties. It has nothing to do with his conduct on that job. It's pretty much irrelevant.
He got fired sept 5th after this video came out. A viral social media reaction to this event - the ambulance company just cut ties. It has nothing to do with his conduct on that job. It's pretty much irrelevant.
You mean aside from the part where he talks about using his paramedic gig in a retaliatory fashion to dump transients at that hospital and take the "good" patients elsewhere?
Mitochondria wrote: Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?
feth that nonsense.
Nah I never said that. I said multiple times that civilians can't interfere with officers. Is this a point of contention?
That's a ah...mighty fine line there...and is absolutely false if the officers are acting illegally.
Also, police officers *are* civilians.
Police officers aren't civilians.
According to both the dictionary definition of the word "civilian" and US code they sure are.
What gives any citizen the ability to determine if a police officer is acting illegally?
The same thing that gives a cop the ability to determine if someone is acting illegally, their knowledge of civil rights and the law. Police aren't given super-special-magical powers unknown to others about the law...
Mitochondria wrote: Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?
feth that nonsense.
Nah I never said that. I said multiple times that civilians can't interfere with officers. Is this a point of contention?
Yes, this is a point of contention. She legally has the right to stop him from violating this man's rights. In fact, if she had not done so, she would be in serious trouble.
It appears you don't really know how any of this works. What is stranger is that you continue to defend this man while his bosses have said this is not proper behavior. You do not get to act like this because you think you are right, especially when there are professionals such as the nurses supervisor, whose job it is to know the law, are telling you that you are wrong. This is a bad cop getting caught doing bad things. Stop defending it. He made a mistake that is unforgivable. We are holding him to the same standards as any other profession. If you mess up this bad, you lose your job. If a nurse were to restrain a patient unnecessarily and against their will, but she thought she was in the right, you bet your ass they would lose their job. Then they would probably face criminal charges and loss of license. This guy has gotten a slap on the wrist in comparison.
Wow...so the guy is talking to his friend after the fact and makes a joke and you are trying to use that against him? That's just silly. It's completely understandable why he'd be frustrated and stressed after this even.
You are talking semantics with your definition of what a civilian is.This will vary based on what dictionary you are looking at. It's not uncommon to count police as standing army in military situations - hence they are not civilians.
Mitochondria wrote: Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?
feth that nonsense.
Nah I never said that. I said multiple times that civilians can't interfere with officers. Is this a point of contention?
Yes, this is a point of contention. She legally has the right to stop him from violating this man's rights. In fact, if she had not done so, she would be in serious trouble.
She doesn't - please demonstrate how she does. She wouldn't be in trouble...literally nothing would have happens if she let the police officer draw the blood. If anything illegal occurred - the cop would be in trouble.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow...so the guy is talking to his friend after the fact and makes a joke and you are trying to use that against him? That's just silly. It's completely understandable why he'd be frustrated and stressed after this even.
Inappropriate jokes get people fired all the time, especially in such professions, and for good reason. Either way, dude made a threat to abuse a position in a retaliatory manner without regard for the welfare of the people in his care. I'm not inclined at all to be sympathetic because he's stressed after losing his temper...
Even worse, the dude knows he is being recorded, and lacks the good judgement to think about that before making such a statement, which in and of itself should be enough to remove him. The dude's situational awareness and judgement are clearly flawed.
Doing that on camera would get most people fired, even without the arrest issue.
You are talking semantics with your definition of what a civilian is.This will vary based on what dictionary you are looking at. It's not uncommon to count police as standing army in military situations - hence they are not civilians.
Not in the US. I am not talking semantics at all, and this is codified into law. If you are not enlisted or hold no commission on the US armed forces, you are a civilian as far as US law is concerned, which is extremely relevant.
Police officers very much are civilians in the US.
She doesn't - please demonstrate how she does. She wouldn't be in trouble...literally nothing would have happens if she let the police officer draw the blood. If anything illegal occurred - the cop would be in trouble.
Yes...because the police investigating themselves, particularly without massive public presssure, has such a great track record of working so well...
Had the nurse stood aside, the officer would have engaged in an illegal act and nothing else would have ever happened...just as nothing would have happened without the release of the video.
Also, the nurse would have been in trouble had she just stood aside...if not with the police on hand then with her licensing board and administration.
Heres a hypothetical Vaktathi -
Lets say the nurse didn't interfere and Payne drew the lab sample. It's found to contain methamphetamine and the truck driver was drunk during the accident.
The county tries to deny any culpability to the accident because the guy was intoxicated. Then...the truck drivers attorney gets the records and finds they get collected illegally. The lab reports are stricken from the record and the case is thrown out. As would anything found in an illegal seizure. They would also be ordered to destroy the records. In other words - samples collected illegally are 100% useless. There is no incentive to collect evidence illegally.
Xenomancers wrote: -Impeding a police investigation is breaking a law and subjects you to arrest. Do you dispute this?
A cop can't do whatever he wants when investigating, however. He's not given carte blanche to do anything, demand help from anyone. He can't demand you set aside your work or free time to help him with your special gear or knowledge just because he has to wait for a department expert otherwise, unless there's a real emergency ofc. You're not required to handle his investigation-related problems for him. Even me, in my lowly security job (with keys and codes to hundreds of sites around the city) can simply refuse to open places for an officer if he can't present the necessary papers to go somewhere (or a real emergency, as said). I'd be out of a job pretty soon if I let random cops into places they have no warrant for just because they claim I'm "impeding an investigation".
A bit off topic but close by. Do you ever watch fictional cop TV shows where the tough detective asks some random guy a question, the guy demands to know why and is told he'll get hauled in for "obstruction of justice" if he doesn't answer? Yeah, it doesn't work like that. Your own constitution (5th Amendment) says you're not required to testify against yourself, and a cop asking you questions without specifying if you might be a suspect has no right to get an answer. You're not "impeding his investigation", you're exercising your legal rights (that he's trying to browbeat you into forfeiting).
Xenomancers wrote: Heres a hypothetical Vaktathi -
Lets say the nurse didn't interfere and Payne drew the lab sample. It's found to contain methamphetamine and the truck driver was drunk during the accident.
The county tries to deny any culpability to the accident because the guy was intoxicated. Then...the truck drivers attorney gets the records and finds they get collected illegally. The lab reports are stricken from the record and the case is thrown out. As would anything found in an illegal seizure. They would also be ordered to destroy the records. In other words - samples collected illegally are 100% useless. There is no incentive to collect evidence illegally.
except they do it all the time and it then falls to the defense attorney to show it that evidence was illegally obtained (and, even if instructed not to consider that evidence, it will still be in the back of a juror's mind), and in such cases pretty much nothing ever happens to the officer who engaged in the illegal act.
There's plenty of incetive to illegally collect evidence. Maybe they can pressure for a plea deal without having to take it to court (which is what happens in the vast majority of criminal cases), maybe the defense attorney sucks (it happens), some times it just boils down to ego and ****-waving etc. Just because there are safeguards in place doesnt mean it doesnt happen or that those safeguards always work (or work in a meaningfully timely manner).
By your same line of thinking, nobody would ever do anything illegal, because theyd be arrested and punished, and yet, people do so by the thousands every day...
And in this case, the cop in question did a number of other wrong things to boot, such as arresting and assaulting the nurse, joking about abusing a paramedic gig, etc.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets say the nurse didn't interfere and Payne drew the lab sample. It's found to contain methamphetamine and the truck driver was drunk during the accident.
The county tries to deny any culpability to the accident because the guy was intoxicated. Then...the truck drivers attorney gets the records and finds they get collected illegally. The lab reports are stricken from the record and the case is thrown out. As would anything found in an illegal seizure. They would also be ordered to destroy the records. In other words - samples collected illegally are 100% useless. There is no incentive to collect evidence illegally.
But what if Payne had managed to force hospital staff to collect the sample? Now the police haven't wrongly collected it, they're just bringing it in as evidence provided by a third party. Perfectly admissible! Genius!
Thats not how the chain of custody works in criminal cases. The evidence has to be legally obtained via consent or warrant. Having a third party do it is not a legal end run, else the PoPo could get some guys to beat a confession out of you and have that be admissable. The courts would (and have) view the third party as acting under direction of the PoPo and therefore subject to the same limitations.
Xenomancers wrote: Heres a hypothetical Vaktathi -
Lets say the nurse didn't interfere and Payne drew the lab sample. It's found to contain methamphetamine and the truck driver was drunk during the accident.
The county tries to deny any culpability to the accident because the guy was intoxicated. Then...the truck drivers attorney gets the records and finds they get collected illegally. The lab reports are stricken from the record and the case is thrown out. As would anything found in an illegal seizure. They would also be ordered to destroy the records. In other words - samples collected illegally are 100% useless. There is no incentive to collect evidence illegally.
The attorney would then ask why the nurses did not stop him, as his patient advocate. When the attorney learns that she just stood to the side and let him through, a lawsuit would be opened against the hospital and the nurse. The nurse would lose, because legally she has to protect the patient she has in her care.
You don't understand the laws that govern healthcare, at all. You make this clear every time you try to push this Judge Dredd type of policing as alright.
Xenomancers wrote: Heres a hypothetical Vaktathi -
Lets say the nurse didn't interfere and Payne drew the lab sample. It's found to contain methamphetamine and the truck driver was drunk during the accident.
The county tries to deny any culpability to the accident because the guy was intoxicated. Then...the truck drivers attorney gets the records and finds they get collected illegally. The lab reports are stricken from the record and the case is thrown out. As would anything found in an illegal seizure. They would also be ordered to destroy the records. In other words - samples collected illegally are 100% useless. There is no incentive to collect evidence illegally.
The attorney would then ask why the nurses did not stop him, as his patient advocate. When the attorney learns that she just stood to the side and let him through, a lawsuit would be opened against the hospital and the nurse. The nurse would lose, because legally she has to protect the patient she has in her care.
You don't understand the laws that govern healthcare, at all. You make this clear every time you try to push this Judge Dredd type of policing as alright.
Since she has no legal right to impede the officer - there would also be no case. Her job is not to physically restrain a threat to a patient - but to report these kinds of things to the authorities/ her superiors. Anything else is beyond her call of duty. Notice the hospital changed it's policy to have 0 nurse on police contact? It's because they aren't qualified to deal with them.
Xenomancers wrote: Heres a hypothetical Vaktathi -
Lets say the nurse didn't interfere and Payne drew the lab sample. It's found to contain methamphetamine and the truck driver was drunk during the accident.
The county tries to deny any culpability to the accident because the guy was intoxicated. Then...the truck drivers attorney gets the records and finds they get collected illegally. The lab reports are stricken from the record and the case is thrown out. As would anything found in an illegal seizure. They would also be ordered to destroy the records. In other words - samples collected illegally are 100% useless. There is no incentive to collect evidence illegally.
That hypothetical is totally irrelevant and inane.
Payne literally had no right to take a blood sample from Gray. There was no implied consent, there was no probable cause, there was no warrant, there were no exigent circumstances and there was no implicit consent from the patient. Legally Payne had no right to take blood from Gray, that is an indisputable fact. If Payne had taken blood it would have been inadmissible because it was illegally obtained.
The nurse was not impeding an investigation. Gray has never and is not the target of a criminal investigation. Nobody at the hospital was going to give Payne a blood sample or give him access to Gray to get one. If Wubbels was truly the impediment to Payne getting blood samples then why didn't Payne get blood samples when Wubbels was handcuffed outside for over 30 minutes? Wubbels was out of the picture so who or what was preventing Payne from getting blood? Since Payne didn't get blood samples why wasn't anyone else arrested? If Wubbels really did commit the crime of impeding a criminal investigation then why are Payne and Tracy on video discussing the fact that they're not going to bring charges against her?
Every single legal argument Payne and Tracy, the two officers in charge of blood draws, made to the hospital staff was legally incorrect. Both officers whose job is to legally collect blood evidence for the department were making false legal claims that had been invalidated over a decade ago by the Utah state supreme court and by the Federal supreme court. The hospital has a vested interest in knowing the laws that govern its' patients had a policy that reflected those laws and had staff who were informed of those laws. The police, who also had a powerful vested interest in knowing the law that governed their primary jobs, were both willfully ignorant and were deliberately trying to engage in illegal activity that would have opened up their department to lawsuits and made the blood they collected inadmissible evidence. That kind of massive screw up certainly meets the definition for a just cause firing.
There was nothing that Payne and Tracy could have legally done to get the blood samples they wanted, everything they did to try to get those samples was wrong, had no legal justification and is going to result in lawsuits and serious consequences.
Since she has no legal right to impede the officer - there would also be no case. Her job is not to physically restrain a threat to a patient - but to report these kinds of things to the authorities/ her superiors. Anything else is beyond her call of duty. Notice the hospital changed it's policy to have 0 nurse on police contact? It's because they aren't qualified to deal with them.
Again you are in error. She didn't impede the officer. There is no video of her trying to taze him, sic dogs on him, block him, or even call him a bald headed poopy head. She just said they weren't going to do it themselves.
Sorry there's no way you can paint this outside of a martial law scenario where it comes out good for him.
Fire him, his boss, and all the non hospital police that were standing around at the time witnessing an intentional and knowing violation of basis Consitutional rights.
Xenomancers wrote: Heres a hypothetical Vaktathi -
Lets say the nurse didn't interfere and Payne drew the lab sample. It's found to contain methamphetamine and the truck driver was drunk during the accident.
The county tries to deny any culpability to the accident because the guy was intoxicated. Then...the truck drivers attorney gets the records and finds they get collected illegally. The lab reports are stricken from the record and the case is thrown out. As would anything found in an illegal seizure. They would also be ordered to destroy the records. In other words - samples collected illegally are 100% useless. There is no incentive to collect evidence illegally.
The attorney would then ask why the nurses did not stop him, as his patient advocate. When the attorney learns that she just stood to the side and let him through, a lawsuit would be opened against the hospital and the nurse. The nurse would lose, because legally she has to protect the patient she has in her care.
You don't understand the laws that govern healthcare, at all. You make this clear every time you try to push this Judge Dredd type of policing as alright.
The nurses would be named but the entire hospital would get sued. That's why the hospital has a policy that specifically forbids their staff from engaging in the unlawful collection of blood samples from hospital patients. If hospital staff let police officers walk into the room of an unconscious patient and violate his body and his rights then the hospital is going to get hit with huge lawsuit and see their insurance premiums greatly increase. The hospital has a tremendous financial interest in making sure that their employees don't engage in illegal activities done against the patients in their care. No member of the hospital staff was going to forfeit their careers and licensure just because the police officers illegally asked them to do so. This incident is literally a police officer being ignorant of the law he's citing and then throwing a temper tantrum and blaming the messenger for pointing out his ignorance and refusing to placate him.
According to some people, "Refusing to do illegal things because an officer threatened you to try to get you to do so" == "Impeding an officer".
Next you'll tell us that people who get beaten to death by cops are guilty of assault because they got blood on their uniforms.
Man - the smallest amount of research beyond reading the title of the article you'd realize that's not what this is about. This nurse wasn't arrested for refusing to draw the patient herself. She was arrested for preventing the officer from drawing the patient himself (who is a certified phlebotomist - and also part time paramedic).
According to some people, "Refusing to do illegal things because an officer threatened you to try to get you to do so" == "Impeding an officer".
Next you'll tell us that people who get beaten to death by cops are guilty of assault because they got blood on their uniforms.
Man - the smallest amount of research beyond reading the title of the article you'd realize that's not what this is about. This nurse wasn't arrested for refusing to draw the patient herself. She was arrested for preventing the officer from drawing the patient himself (who is a certified phlebotomist - and also part time paramedic).
Please demonstrate where she was "preventing" the officer from drawing the blood. As noted, why wasn't the blood drawn after she was arrested, oh yea, because the cop knew it was illegal...
Even then I would bet any medic has quite wide latitude to stop the police taking blood if doing so would be harmful to the patient, even if the officer has a warrant. Time and again it has been said, the police do not have absolute authority to do as they wish.
I wold expect that any medical staff in a hospital would have a duty of care to patients under their care, including stopping a police officer taking blood, which they have no right to do. If what the nurse was doing was illegal, why what she released?
Man - the smallest amount of research beyond reading the title of the article you'd realize that's not what this is about. This nurse wasn't arrested for refusing to draw the patient herself. She was arrested for preventing the officer from drawing the patient himself (who is a certified phlebotomist - and also part time paramedic).
You're right. She "refused to do illegal things (allow an illegal blood draw on a helpless patient in her custodianship) because an officer threatened [her] to try to get [her] to do so". How could I have missed that? ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!
Though now that you bring it up, it's goddamned impressive that she managed to continue to prevent him from drawing the blood himself while handcuffed in a freaking squad car. Man, maybe the police need her working for them.
The cop had the same right to access the patient as any cop has to walk into your home to draw blood from you: none.
A hospital room is a private space, and police can and should be denied access to an area where a patient has a right of privacy. Cops need warrants or probable cause to even enter the hospital room, and that's not even talking about the blood draw at all.
We should probably lock the thread by now. We have multiple people explain why, for multiple reasons, the officer was acting unprofessionally and illegally. We also have one guy whose argument boils down to "he has a 'do whatever I want and get away with it badge' so there nurse was wrong". The past three pages have been repeat and rinse of the same argument.
Man - the smallest amount of research beyond reading the title of the article you'd realize that's not what this is about. This nurse wasn't arrested for refusing to draw the patient herself. She was arrested for preventing the officer from drawing the patient himself (who is a certified phlebotomist - and also part time paramedic).
You're right. She "refused to do illegal things (allow an illegal blood draw on a helpless patient in her custodianship) because an officer threatened [her] to try to get [her] to do so". How could I have missed that? ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!
Though now that you bring it up, it's goddamned impressive that she managed to continue to prevent him from drawing the blood himself while handcuffed in a freaking squad car. Man, maybe the police need her working for them.
She has magic powers. Maybe we can employ her as a failsafe to NK from launching nukes, or alternatively, another Avatar movie being released.
According to some people, "Refusing to do illegal things because an officer threatened you to try to get you to do so" == "Impeding an officer".
Next you'll tell us that people who get beaten to death by cops are guilty of assault because they got blood on their uniforms.
Man - the smallest amount of research beyond reading the title of the article you'd realize that's not what this is about. This nurse wasn't arrested for refusing to draw the patient herself. She was arrested for preventing the officer from drawing the patient himself (who is a certified phlebotomist - and also part time paramedic).
She does have the legal right to impede the officer. I keep telling you that, but for some reason you keep ignoring it.
You are wrong. 100% wrong. She has the right to stop him. She has the right to throw him out of the Hospital if she feels it is having a negative impact on her patients. Nurse > Police when it comes to patient care.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow...so the guy is talking to his friend after the fact and makes a joke and you are trying to use that against him?
I contend he was not joking.
It's completely understandable why he'd be frustrated and stressed after this even.
I contend that anyone would be frustrated and stressed after being caught abusing one's authority and committing not one, but dos offenses that warrant firing.
You are talking semantics with your definition of what a civilian is.
Sure it's semantics, but so what? Being police doesn't put one above question, and if you can't handle having your authority questioned you probably shouldn't be a public servant.
It's not uncommon to count police as standing army in military situations
In a police state...
She wouldn't be in trouble...
Nurses can be sued for malpractice, which letting that cop violate a patient's civil right's constitutes.
If anything illegal occurred - the cop would be in trouble.
Except something illegal did occur and he didn't get in trouble until the story hit the information highway.
They would also be ordered to destroy the records. In other words - samples collected illegally are 100% useless.
They are in fact not, especially since most states have no law pertaining to what the police are supposed to do with DNA samples after the fact. It's almost always forced upon people to go to court to get an order for them to be destroyed which is expensive and surprisingly hard to do (just ask 19 guys from Baton Rouge). In fact it is easier for the police to keep your DNA if you're never charged with a crime cause you can't go to court and argue harm, and if you happen to be charged with one ten years later using that DNA that was taken from you to "rule you out as a suspect" or maybe when some thug decided he should "draw some blood cause I want to" it's too late. Even if the evidence gets thrown out they now know you did it, and can investigate independently to prove the case. It's a complete circumvention of due process rights, but hey they're cops and I guess I should just shut up and let them do whatever they want *pours tea*
As a matter of your own personal liberty you should never give the police DNA, even if you're innocent of the given crime being investigated. It can in fact only hurt you in the long run which is why we should all be glad it's illegal to take blood from us while we're incapacitated and we should all be offended that a police officer not only tried to do so, but arrested the first person to point out he wasn't allowed to do so.
But I guess some people have different ideals of how law enforcement should behave;
According to some people, "Refusing to do illegal things because an officer threatened you to try to get you to do so" == "Impeding an officer".
Next you'll tell us that people who get beaten to death by cops are guilty of assault because they got blood on their uniforms.
I guess everyone forgot that time police nearly beat a man to death and then charged him with destruction of property when they couldn't wash the blood stains out of their uniforms
According to some people, "Refusing to do illegal things because an officer threatened you to try to get you to do so" == "Impeding an officer".
Next you'll tell us that people who get beaten to death by cops are guilty of assault because they got blood on their uniforms.
Man - the smallest amount of research beyond reading the title of the article you'd realize that's not what this is about. This nurse wasn't arrested for refusing to draw the patient herself. She was arrested for preventing the officer from drawing the patient himself (who is a certified phlebotomist - and also part time paramedic).
Please demonstrate where she was "preventing" the officer from drawing the blood. As noted, why wasn't the blood drawn after she was arrested, oh yea, because the cop knew it was illegal...
Because timing. He arrests the nurse then calls his boss - he says let her go - we will get the sample another way.
According to some people, "Refusing to do illegal things because an officer threatened you to try to get you to do so" == "Impeding an officer".
Next you'll tell us that people who get beaten to death by cops are guilty of assault because they got blood on their uniforms.
Man - the smallest amount of research beyond reading the title of the article you'd realize that's not what this is about. This nurse wasn't arrested for refusing to draw the patient herself. She was arrested for preventing the officer from drawing the patient himself (who is a certified phlebotomist - and also part time paramedic).
Please demonstrate where she was "preventing" the officer from drawing the blood. As noted, why wasn't the blood drawn after she was arrested, oh yea, because the cop knew it was illegal...
Because timing. He arrests the nurse then calls his boss - he says let her go - we will get the sample another way.
Because his boss realized that without a warrant or probable cause there was no way for Payne to get a blood sample from the burn victim who wasn't the target of any kind of investigation because he was a victim of a car crash that was completely filmed by police dash cams that showed Gray did nothing wrong. There was literally no way that Payne could have legally obtained a blood sample from Gray at the hospital, none. There was no reason for him to be there in the first place and his ignorance of the law and inability to control his emotions are the only things that caused the incident with the nurse.
Because timing. He arrests the nurse then calls his boss - he says let her go - we will get the sample another way.
"Plan A failed. We'll have to find another way to violate civil liberties."
Sounds like there are two cops who really shouldn't be cops anymore
Yeah Payne and Tracy should both be fired. Two cops whose primary role is collecting blood samples and they are both completely ignorant of the major state and federal supreme court decisions that directly impacted their jobs and continued to operate under an erroneous understanding of the law for over a decade that led them to believe that they could willfully commit illegal acts against the populace with impunity.
According to some people, "Refusing to do illegal things because an officer threatened you to try to get you to do so" == "Impeding an officer".
Next you'll tell us that people who get beaten to death by cops are guilty of assault because they got blood on their uniforms.
Man - the smallest amount of research beyond reading the title of the article you'd realize that's not what this is about. This nurse wasn't arrested for refusing to draw the patient herself. She was arrested for preventing the officer from drawing the patient himself (who is a certified phlebotomist - and also part time paramedic).
Have to ask. was the officer carrying equipment to draw the blood him self or was he expecting the hospital to do it for him and or lend him the equipment he has no rights to.
According to some people, "Refusing to do illegal things because an officer threatened you to try to get you to do so" == "Impeding an officer".
Next you'll tell us that people who get beaten to death by cops are guilty of assault because they got blood on their uniforms.
Man - the smallest amount of research beyond reading the title of the article you'd realize that's not what this is about. This nurse wasn't arrested for refusing to draw the patient herself. She was arrested for preventing the officer from drawing the patient himself (who is a certified phlebotomist - and also part time paramedic).
Have to ask. was the officer carrying equipment to draw the blood him self or was he expecting the hospital to do it for him and or lend him the equipment he has no rights to.
Payne should be grateful that Wubbels didn't allow him illegally violate the body of an unconscious burn victim. If Payne had drawn blood from Gray he would have committed an additional crime that would have likely gotten the department he works for sued by the victim's family, along with suing the hospital and having the hospital sue the police department as well, and could have faced criminal charges himself as well as losing his job.
According to some people, "Refusing to do illegal things because an officer threatened you to try to get you to do so" == "Impeding an officer".
Next you'll tell us that people who get beaten to death by cops are guilty of assault because they got blood on their uniforms.
Man - the smallest amount of research beyond reading the title of the article you'd realize that's not what this is about. This nurse wasn't arrested for refusing to draw the patient herself. She was arrested for preventing the officer from drawing the patient himself (who is a certified phlebotomist - and also part time paramedic).
So the nurse who was easily manhandled and dragged out of the hospital by Payne was somehow physically stopping Payne from drawing blood from Gray, the unconscious burn victim, even though the nurse never laid a hand on Payne? Nobody on the hospital staff was going to cooperate with Payne, not Wubbels or any other staffer, especially not after having the hospital admin explain the law and policy over speakerphone for the whole room to hear, but nobody was going to physically restrain Payne either. If he really wanted the blood sample he could have forced the issue and done it himself, but he never did, he just argued with hospital staff erroneously citing outdated laws and then dragged a nurse out of the hospital because Payne's ignorance of the law and rude demeanor wasn't enough to convince Wubbels to do an illegal act on his behalf.
The willful ignorance of the folks defending the police officers is staggering...
Makes me PROUD to be 'Murican!
The police needed a warrant or consent from the patient to obtain the blood sample.
They had neither.
This is the part some are choking on - the police were trying to seize a blood sample (yes, for those arguing that 'seize' doesn't apply - yeah, it does) from an unconscious victim, who was not suspected of any crimes.
The officers were informed of this.
Does anybody really think that the cop didn't know he needed a warrant? Really?
The FBI? Things getting interesting. There's a lot of things that have been revealed by this specific incident that point to the possibility of rampant police corruption in Salt Lake.
LordofHats wrote: The FBI? Things getting interesting. There's a lot of things that have been revealed by this specific incident that point to the possibility of rampant police corruption in Salt Lake.
d-usa wrote: The cop had the same right to access the patient as any cop has to walk into your home to draw blood from you: none.
A hospital room is a private space, and police can and should be denied access to an area where a patient has a right of privacy. Cops need warrants or probable cause to even enter the hospital room, and that's not even talking about the blood draw at all.
We should probably lock the thread by now. We have multiple people explain why, for multiple reasons, the officer was acting unprofessionally and illegally. We also have one guy whose argument boils down to "he has a 'do whatever I want and get away with it badge' so there nurse was wrong". The past three pages have been repeat and rinse of the same argument.
I believe there is no more pointin talking to him about it since no amount of pointing to the laws against what the cop wanted to do is doing any good.
I don't think the thread should be locked just because one individual seems incapable of understanding the situation, since there are other interesting things coming into play with this story, such as a request put out now for FBI involvement:
I'm sure Xenomancer will claim that if you don't allow a police officer to search your home without a warrant, you should be arrested for impeding an investigation...
skyth wrote: I'm sure Xenomancer will claim that if you don't allow a police officer to search your home without a warrant, you should be arrested for impeding an investigation...
I'd say just let him remain with his opinion. More space than it's worth has been wasted in this thread citing laws and court decisions showing the cop acted illegally and he still doesn't understand. At this stage further discussion with him about it is pointless.
LordofHats wrote: The FBI? Things getting interesting. There's a lot of things that have been revealed by this specific incident that point to the possibility of rampant police corruption in Salt Lake.
skyth wrote: I'm sure Xenomancer will claim that if you don't allow a police officer to search your home without a warrant, you should be arrested for impeding an investigation...
I can tell you I am very much against police entering someone's home without a warrant. I do know that if a cop could see a crack pipe through my window he could bust my door down - that's just the way it is. I can also tell you that this story isn't portraying the story correctly in the media. I feel compelled to defend this man because he is being slaughtered by misinformation. Plus it just doesn't smell right to me. I'm going to bid this thread goodbye. I very well might be wrong about this event. He could just be a bad cop that took frustrations out on an innocent person because he was having a bad day. If that happens - I'll come back to this thread and admitted I was wrong.
Xenomancers wrote: I can also tell you that this story isn't portraying the story correctly in the media. I feel compelled to defend this man because he is being slaughtered by misinformation. Plus it just doesn't smell right to me.
Well, you do have one thing right - his superiors expected him to do a thing they should have known was illegal, in a quite routine manner, but once it hit national news they're throwing him under the bus as the one solely responsible. He's still not a nice guy, judging from his tantrum at the hospital, but he's also a man commanded to do illegal things as part of his work (until the story changed). He was expected to get the blood work as a safeguard for the department and damn civil rights. This failure isn't just on one man but everyone above him is trying to get away from it, leaving the blame on him.
Xenomancers wrote: I can also tell you that this story isn't portraying the story correctly in the media. I feel compelled to defend this man because he is being slaughtered by misinformation. Plus it just doesn't smell right to me.
Well, you do have one thing right - his superiors expected him to do a thing they should have known was illegal, in a quite routine manner, but once it hit national news they're throwing him under the bus as the one solely responsible. He's still not a nice guy, judging from his tantrum at the hospital, but he's also a man commanded to do illegal things as part of his work (until the story changed). He was expected to get the blood work as a safeguard for the department and damn civil rights. This failure isn't just on one man but everyone above him is trying to get away from it, leaving the blame on him.
Xenomancers wrote: I can also tell you that this story isn't portraying the story correctly in the media. I feel compelled to defend this man because he is being slaughtered by misinformation. Plus it just doesn't smell right to me.
Well, you do have one thing right - his superiors expected him to do a thing they should have known was illegal, in a quite routine manner, but once it hit national news they're throwing him under the bus as the one solely responsible. He's still not a nice guy, judging from his tantrum at the hospital, but he's also a man commanded to do illegal things as part of his work (until the story changed). He was expected to get the blood work as a safeguard for the department and damn civil rights. This failure isn't just on one man but everyone above him is trying to get away from it, leaving the blame on him.
You are 100% correct on this.. there is a video on you tube showing more of the body cam video and the supervisor and his boss needs to get the same punishment. But it looks like the Chief of Police is backing
up the bus and denying anything thing wrong.. As is the Mayor's office..
Not that it's anything like this but I used to work in manufacturing and made critical decisions everyday and always included my boss (A VP no less) on all communications. But when something went south he
would act like he didn't know anything and when you told him he was on all the emails, He asked me to call him directly next time to make the correct decision.. Of course when something happened he
was never able to be reached. Just shows you that in today's world don't help your fellow man.. save yourself.. It's really sad ....
d-usa wrote: The cop had the same right to access the patient as any cop has to walk into your home to draw blood from you: none.
A hospital room is a private space, and police can and should be denied access to an area where a patient has a right of privacy. Cops need warrants or probable cause to even enter the hospital room, and that's not even talking about the blood draw at all.
We should probably lock the thread by now. We have multiple people explain why, for multiple reasons, the officer was acting unprofessionally and illegally. We also have one guy whose argument boils down to "he has a 'do whatever I want and get away with it badge' so there nurse was wrong". The past three pages have been repeat and rinse of the same argument.
I believe there is no more pointin talking to him about it since no amount of pointing to the laws against what the cop wanted to do is doing any good.
I don't think the thread should be locked just because one individual seems incapable of understanding the situation, since there are other interesting things coming into play with this story, such as a request put out now for FBI involvement:
Closing threads because of one individual is what Dakka does best.
If the FBI were to investigate an entire department, going back years to look for a pattern of abuse of power, every time incidents like this happened, incidents like this would probably happen a lot less frequently.
Dreadwinter wrote: You are wrong. 100% wrong. She has the right to stop him. She has the right to throw him out of the Hospital if she feels it is having a negative impact on her patients. Nurse > Police when it comes to patient care.
I feel like this should be basic common knowledge. Outside of exceptional circumstances (which this was not) nurse on duty should absolutely trump dumbarse cop.
The nurse responds by telling Tracy that he has already been given pain medication, which would show up in the blood draw.
“If we’re breaking the law,” Tracy tells Wubbels, “If we’re doing wrong, there are civil remedies. It’s called taking fruit of the poisonous tree. If we took his blood illegally, it all goes away, alright? So there are civil remedies.”
Yeah... throw them both to the dogs. 'It's okay if we break the law, because if we get caught, we won't be able to use it anyway'....
This is why body cams and mics are needed - when the cops are innocent, it protects them, when the cops try these kinds of shenanigans, it protects the public.
I figured they'd have given him something considering his burns. Man, that cop is dirty. Poor man would have had a heck of a time clearing his name from being "under the influence", and I bet they knew it.
It could be an innocent mistake by the police department. It could be an attempt by the police to avoid liability for conducting a high speed chase that got an innocent person injured.
d-usa wrote: It could be an innocent mistake by the police department. It could be an attempt by the police to avoid liability for conducting a high speed chase that got an innocent person injured.
We will never know...
Unless, of course, it goes to trial.
Or has, you know... been recorded on video - where the officer was specifically and repeatedly told that he didn't have the authority. (Whoops.)
I am betting on the officers just thinking they could get away with it.(Read the article I linked to above, where the Lt. is talking about 'the fruit of the poisonous tree' - they cannot claim ignorance.)
While I'd like to see this SoB literally thrown to the curb, I always found this complaint weird. If someone is under investigation, what would be more ideal ? You don't want them working at the station less they muddle with it, and if they they're gone that prevents them from doing any more damage before it's over. BUt investigations and trials can take weeks or even months, and months without pay is not exactly a good way to treat your employee in any job. Not every case is as open and shut as this one.
I think it's less about the paid leave while under investigation, and more about the paid leave being the only punishment of any kind for many of them.
Same old same old. Set aside the bullets and the potential stabbings and law enforcement arguably has the best job security in the country. You can violate constitutional laws, do things that'll get other people set to jail, literally beat people and arrest them for getting blood on your clothes, hell you can even rob people with a badge for years, intimidate all the witnesses into shutting up, get your own criminal case thrown out, and and retire. For cops paychecks and benefits are like real life plot armor.
And that's just examples from Chicago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think it's less about the paid leave while under investigation, and more about the paid leave being the only punishment of any kind for many of them.
Even when they do get harsher punishments, lots of officers are allowed to retire with full pensions and benefits regardless of why they aren't on the force anymore. I wish my retirement was so bullet proof I could beat a customer within an inch of his life and still get it. You pretty much have to commit a crime from start to finish in full view of a recording device to actually get fired without benefits and even then you can commit full on assault and battery under the influence and get 2 years probation and community service.
Also an example from Chicago. What can I saw. The Chicago PD is really bad at hiding their dirty laundry.
d-usa wrote: I think it's less about the paid leave while under investigation, and more about the paid leave being the only punishment of any kind for many of them.
While I'd like to see this SoB literally thrown to the curb, I always found this complaint weird. If someone is under investigation, what would be more ideal ? You don't want them working at the station less they muddle with it, and if they they're gone that prevents them from doing any more damage before it's over. BUt investigations and trials can take weeks or even months, and months without pay is not exactly a good way to treat your employee in any job. Not every case is as open and shut as this one.
well in the private realm, they would be suspended without pay or just straight out fired given what occurred.
Surely there's some crappy jobs with no responsibility they can do while being investigated to avoid wasting tax payer money for them to be on paid leave.
No, just on leave during the investigation. Punishments, if any, will be meted out after the investigations conclude.
Ah I see. My instinct tells me that ultimately sweet f.a will happen to him. After all, if other cops can perform summary executions without punishment, why bother punishing this one just for trying to illegally take blood.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Surely there's some crappy jobs with no responsibility they can do while being investigated to avoid wasting tax payer money for them to be on paid leave.
Do you expect this poor cop to go out and find work to survive? Heavens to Betsy, how uncivilized.
But seriously, McDonald's and Wal-Mart are always hiring. Maybe cops would think about what they are doing or learn the law if we stopped punishing them with paid vacations.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Surely there's some crappy jobs with no responsibility they can do while being investigated to avoid wasting tax payer money for them to be on paid leave.
Do you expect this poor cop to go out and find work to survive? Heavens to Betsy, how uncivilized.
But seriously, McDonald's and Wal-Mart are always hiring. Maybe cops would think about what they are doing or learn the law if we stopped punishing them with paid vacations.
It's matter of collective bargaining. While the video clearly shows how Payne and Tracy behaved the video by itself can't be held against them. The video can trigger an investigation and then while they are under investigation they get put on paid leave because until the investigation concludes they haven't been found to have done anything wrong. The department can't punish cops who haven't been found to have done anything wrong yet so they get paid suspension until the internal investigation is done and then depending on the findings of the investigation they may or may not be punished. If they are punished at all they may contest the punishment and the investigation and they may get cleared and reinstated or it may go to court. The video of their actions, by itself, can't actually get them fired, it only sets in motion an investigation that might lead to them being fired.
For what it's worth, many departments have crap pay and officers rely heavily on overtime to make ends meet. So paid leave with "only" regular pay and the resulting loss of overtime is at least some punishment.
d-usa wrote: For what it's worth, many departments have crap pay and officers rely heavily on overtime to make ends meet. So paid leave with "only" regular pay and the resulting loss of overtime is at least some punishment.
I'm the first guy who will stand up and say that civil servants at the bottom of the rungs don't get paid enough. Teachers. Cops. Social Workers. These people do a lot of important stuff, and their reward is mediocre pay, overloaded labor hours, and the unfortunate positions of being the front line of administration when people are frustrated.
But without a doubt, I think it's absurd in this kind of situation to say "we should wait until the investigation is complete." This isn't a he said she said, or an ambiguous situation where witness statements need to be parsed out. Pretty much every step of this was recorded visually or on audio, and rather plainly at that. Everyone knows what happened. The investigation should be focused on if this is the first time he's gone too far, not whether or not this incident warrants firing. The answer is undoubtedly yes, this incident warrants firing. Unless someone was holding his kid hostage somewhere and threatening their life there really isn't a valid excuse for the conduct.
And if I facebook live myself shooting someone in the head, I'm still innocent until the jury says I'm not.
The process sucks, but it's the contract the officers and the department (and by extension the public) agrees to. If the contract allows them to suspend without pay in this scenario, then by all means it should be without pay though.
d-usa wrote: And if I facebook live myself shooting someone in the head, I'm still innocent until the jury says I'm not.
I'm not saying charge him with a crime. I'm saying it's been months since this happened. This matter should have been hashed out and shut within a week and the cop given the boot as a result. It's not that complicated. I've had union jobs where people got fired faster than that for insulting customers verbally. Why is he still getting a tax payer funded pay check months later? We should be investigating the people in charge of starting investigations, because jesus do they seem negligent on this one
d-usa wrote: And if I facebook live myself shooting someone in the head, I'm still innocent until the jury says I'm not.
I'm not saying charge him with a crime. I'm saying it's been months since this happened. This matter should have been hashed out and shut within a week and the cop given the boot as a result. It's not that complicated. I've had union jobs where people got fired faster than that for insulting customers verbally. Why is he still getting a tax payer funded pay check months later? We should be investigating the people in charge of starting investigations, because jesus do they seem negligent on this one
Most of the time if an employee does a thing to make the company they work for look bad they usually get dropped like its hot. it shouldn't be any different.
Personally dont like him being on pay though i believe they should go through the proper processes of making sure everything happened exactly as it happens instead of knee jerk boots.
d-usa wrote: For what it's worth, many departments have crap pay and officers rely heavily on overtime to make ends meet. So paid leave with "only" regular pay and the resulting loss of overtime is at least some punishment.
I'm the first guy who will stand up and say that civil servants at the bottom of the rungs don't get paid enough. Teachers. Cops. Social Workers. These people do a lot of important stuff, and their reward is mediocre pay, overloaded labor hours, and the unfortunate positions of being the front line of administration when people are frustrated.
But without a doubt, I think it's absurd in this kind of situation to say "we should wait until the investigation is complete." This isn't a he said she said, or an ambiguous situation where witness statements need to be parsed out. Pretty much every step of this was recorded visually or on audio, and rather plainly at that. Everyone knows what happened. The investigation should be focused on if this is the first time he's gone too far, not whether or not this incident warrants firing. The answer is undoubtedly yes, this incident warrants firing. Unless someone was holding his kid hostage somewhere and threatening their life there really isn't a valid excuse for the conduct.
One could argue that the investigation should have taken 24 hours. The fact it didn't Start until after the video is unacceptable.
It's certainly moving slowly but at least they're being thorough and have declared that the officers were in the wrong.
Biskupski said that Wednesday’s announcement won’t be the final step in the process. Both officers have 20 days to respond to the allegations, she said.
After the 20-day period, the findings of the investigations will be turned over to Salt Lake City Police Chief Mike Brown, who will use the information to make a decision about the employment of the two officers.
A single violation of company policy can get me canned automatically with no appeal in 20 minutes at the drop of a hat by my immediate boss with the flimsiest of pretexts.
The police can violate half a dozen policies (to say nothing of naked and ope abuse of position/authority and illegal use of force and kidnapping...), have their bosses bosses bosses boss publicly admit and exclaim as much on TV in front of the world, with video evidence no less, and they get 20 days, paid, before their Chief has the opportunity to make a employment decision...
An interesting point to make note of...and a lesson that nobody should forget.
Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken? They are basically policies that amount to "police will be nice and respectful to citizens when allowed" Holy crap -. Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?
Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken?
Yes.
Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?
Did you read it? Cause there's at least three cited provisions directly relating too it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Nothing about imposing an illegal search either.
I assume that Department policies assumes that it goes without saying that doing illegal things isn't allowed, and it isn't really the department's job to punish for them (especially not when they're civil torts rather than criminal violations).
Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken? They are basically policies that amount to "police will be nice and respectful to citizens when allowed"
So...in other words, policies requiring police to act in a professional manner, as civil servants, not thugs. That's not unimportant.
Also, failing filing proper paperwork, arrest handling, and reporting procedures...hard to see why they'd do that...
Holy crap -. Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?
Probably not one the mayor is willing to go on TV and admit clear and direct liability to, thats a lot costlier than the other stuff. But yeah, it's amusing to see that not make the list.
Frazzled wrote: Thats not logical. It should be expressly the department's job to punish them.
It should be in a perfect world, but then...
We already largely make it the responsibility of police departments to police themselves, and we all see how well that works out; not well. Oversight of law enforcement should be independent of the law enforcement body and directly answerable to outside authority. No organization should ever have the responsibility of investigating and punishing itself. We've seen time and time again how that doesn't work this incident being one of the latest.
Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken? They are basically policies that amount to "police will be nice and respectful to citizens when allowed"
So...in other words, policies requiring police to act in a professional manner, as civil servants, not thugs. That's not unimportant.
Also, failing filing proper paperwork, arrest handling, and reporting procedures...hard to see why they'd do that...
Holy crap -. Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?
Probably not one the mayor is willing to go on TV and admit clear and direct liability to, thats a lot costlier than the other stuff. But yeah, it's amusing to see that not make the list.
These are some candy land policies. Have you ever seen cops? I've watched it quite a bit - not only are these policies broken on the regular. They also have a clear way out of the policy when it includes "if allowed or if able" in the policy. Failure to file a report is his only serious offence in the eyes of his department it seems - which is probably something that every officer on the force does regularly. Is that okay? I have a pile of paperwork on my desk right now that I am deliberately ignoring - I probably should be fired for that but you'd have to fire the whole office if that were the case. I'm a little disappointed by this at this point I want people to feel justice was served. We already know he broke the don't be a jerk policy.
Frazzled wrote: Thats not logical. It should be expressly the department's job to punish them.
It should be in a perfect world, but then...
We already largely make it the responsibility of police departments to police themselves, and we all see how well that works out; not well. Oversight of law enforcement should be independent of the law enforcement body and directly answerable to outside authority. No organization should ever have the responsibility of investigating and punishing itself. We've seen time and time again how that doesn't work this incident being one of the latest.
That is jurisdictional dependent. For example, here in North Carolina, the State Bureau of Investigation handles investigations of this nature. We used to call them "The Headhunters". Agencies in this State don't have "internal affairs" divisions.
Also, it isn't always an issue with the agency in question. In jurisdictions where law enforcement is unionized, the police unions sometimes have a part to play in it.
What you propose has it's own set of problems. It's bad enough that cops tend to get thrown to the wolves by politicians, even when they are in the right, to cover their own asses and political careers. Such a third party panel is likely to be staffed with political appointees, "experts" that have no background in law enforcement issues, or people with ideological axes to grind.
As for the Feds, that is a tricky proposition Constitutionally. Truth be told, even if invited, the FBI shouldn't even be involved beyond an advisory/assistance role unless it crosses State lines or involves a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken? They are basically policies that amount to "police will be nice and respectful to citizens when allowed" Holy crap -. Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?
You sure you actually read it?
III-030 and III-680.4 are both violations that directly pertain to the arrest.
030 instructs officers to issue citations for misdemeanors and not make arrests without a positive reason for making an arrest. If Payne is guilty of violating 030 and his dept is saying he is, then they are saying that Payne had insufficient cause to arrest Wubbels and should not have done so. Having the police dept. internal investigation declare that Payne should not have arrested Wubbels strikes me as a rather clear statement that the arrest was a breach of policy.
680.4 requires officers to write up a general offense report anytime they forcibly detain and restrain somebody. Cops can't just grab people, put them in handcuffs and detain them arbitrarily and then never report the incident in order to hide it from their superiors. Payne violated policy by making the arrest and then violated policy again by deliberately avoiding reporting the incident. Not reporting a valid arrest that involved restraining and detaining somebody is bad, this isn't like not filling out TPS reports in Office Space, this policy exists to enforce accountability. How can the police department determine if its officers are doing good things or bad things if the officers don't actually report the things they're doing? It's doubly bad when the arrest you don't report was a direct violation of policy, that's a screw up and a cover up.
Everything has problems to be overcome, but obviously there are too many instances of cops covering for cops (going back decades now) for people to continue blindly acting like police departments should be handling these things internally.
It's bad enough that cops tend to get thrown to the wolves by politicians, even when they are in the right, to cover their own asses and political careers.
Politicians also cover for police to cover their own asses and political careers, but that that's a less interesting B movie plot.
Such a third party panel is likely to be staffed with political appointees, "experts" that have no background in law enforcement issues,
I'm sure the CIA, military, and every government body that ever fethed up has made the same complaint. My responses in order are; everything is ultimately an ideological/political question once you get down to it, and if you don't want to deal with my "experts" question your conduct I think you're in the wrong line of work.
And that's really about as far as we can go without this becoming US politics
As for the Feds, that is a tricky proposition Constitutionally. Truth be told, even if invited, the FBI shouldn't even be involved beyond an advisory/assistance role unless it crosses State lines or involves a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
I don't think it's a trick proposition as much as unlitigated territory. It's a gray area in constitutional law, and because the Feds have historically only stepped in when things have gotten really heywire there's little desire to fight back from state and local authority so it persists. The Civil Rights Act covers so much ground that pretty much any abuse by police can constitute a violation of it.
Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken? They are basically policies that amount to "police will be nice and respectful to citizens when allowed"
So...in other words, policies requiring police to act in a professional manner, as civil servants, not thugs. That's not unimportant.
Also, failing filing proper paperwork, arrest handling, and reporting procedures...hard to see why they'd do that...
Holy crap -. Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?
Probably not one the mayor is willing to go on TV and admit clear and direct liability to, thats a lot costlier than the other stuff. But yeah, it's amusing to see that not make the list.
These are some candy land policies. Have you ever seen cops?
I've watched it quite a bit - not only are these policies broken on the regular.
Yes, but lets also acknowledge that COPS is sensationalized "reality" TV that cherry picks its subject matter very carefully from selectively chosen partners who desire that kind of publicity, has a not so subtle slant, and is extensively edited and dramatized...and typically focuses almost enirely on dealing with the less...savory elements of society than a nurse in a hospital.
They also have a clear way out of the policy when it includes "if allowed or if able" in the policy.
When you're faced with a noncombative nurse delivering hospital policy in a care facility and workplace, it's rather difficult to seee where they were neither allowed nor able...
We're not talking about some MS13 dude throwing fists and dropping F bombs in 3 different languages. Nobody is going to blame cops for not being perfectly courteous in that situation, however such was not the case here.
Failure to file a report is his only serious offence in the eyes of his department it seems - which is probably something that every officer on the force does regularly. Is that okay? I have a pile of paperwork on my desk right now that I am deliberately ignoring - I probably should be fired for that but you'd have to fire the whole office if that were the case.
When you have to involve senior level officers coming in person, making an arrest and then letting them off when its clear that you were in the wrong, and there's multiple officers and vehicles on location...yeah thats an issue. That's a "lets pretend this never happened to cover our butts" deal.
We're not talking about letting a traffic incident or a minor bar fight slide here, we're talking about an incident at a hospital involving large numbers of command staff and officers and people who regularly interact with officers.
In Portland, Maine, there was a loverly case where two officers beat a suspect, putting him into the hospital... Only to discover that he wasn't even the person that the police were looking for.
The subsequent lawsuit cost the city around half a million dollars.
As a consequence, the police chief of the time - Michael Chitwood - had the officers concerned... declared officers of the year.
Huzzah....
****
The FBI investigation is separate from the two investigations cited in the article - and is the one likely to bring criminal charges in its wake - they are going to be a lot quieter about that one, as it can prejudice the case.
The policies broken are also a little more important than the phraseology makes them sound - and the public nature of their colossal will make it unlikely that their careers will be going anywhere, even if cleared.
That said, I rather hope that they get their hides nailed to the church door....
Everything has problems to be overcome, but obviously there are too many instances of cops covering for cops (going back decades now) for people to continue blindly acting like police departments should be handling these things internally.
That's because crap like this isn't really that common, considering the amount of interaction that goes on between police and John Q. Public every day. The hype machine and media ratings mongers ensure that it becomes "an epidemic".
There isn't any real need for your special measures. What abuse goes on, it gets handled well enough in most cases by the systems we have in place. The prosecution of officers involved in unjustifiable shootings recently is proof of that. You are going to have hiccups and ball dropping in ANY system (It isn't perfect by any means). But for the most part, it works like it supposed to if people will let it. The issue here is that some among the general public whipped up in a frenzy, grievance industry profiteers, and politically motivated don't want to hear that. Especially if a investigation doesn't go their way.
Politicians also cover for police to cover their own asses and political careers, but that that's a less interesting B movie plot.
That isn't as common as throwing officers under the bus who are in the right. As a former public employee and law enforcement officer, I can attest to that. The same back "in the day" when my Old Man was a cop.
But go ahead and dismiss what I say off-hand as a B-movie plot because it doesn't fit the narrative that you've embraced.
I'm sure the CIA, military, and every government body that ever fethed up has made the same complaint. My responses in order are; everything is ultimately an ideological/political question once you get down to it, and if you don't want to deal with my "experts" question your conduct I think you're in the wrong line of work.
The military has always lived with such, still handles most things internally, and (as in civilian life) people have been thrown under the bus to cover for the asses of higher-ups and connected. And like your rather silly CIA example, we're talking about apples and oranges here. I'm sure that "The Company" running dope during the war in Southeast Asia, plotting to put LSD in Castro's cigars, and trading arms for hostages is not on the same level as a cop overstepping his authority, and not following proper procedure to obtain blood samples.
And for your snide remark about "your experts", let me clue you in on something. If an "expert" don't know jack melon-fething about something, then they have no goddamned business sitting on some oversight committee pertaining to said issue. And if you are going to deal with something as serious as this, the ideology CAN and SHOULD be left at the door, and working only from facts and the results of investigations. Not from media pressure, personal axes to grind, political agendas, and the so-called "court of public opinion".
If you start putting special interest groups and social science majors in charge of policing (via over scrutiny in matters outside their pay grades), as opposed to criminologists, legal pros, ConLaw experts, and criminal justice majors (to name some examples), that's a good way to gut your police forces. And I can tell you that the political leadership won't pick too many of the latter. They want to be re-elected, or aspire to higher office, after all.
I don't think it's a trick proposition as much as unlitigated territory. It's a gray area in constitutional law, and because the Feds have historically only stepped in when things have gotten really heywire there's little desire to fight back from state and local authority so it persists. The Civil Rights Act covers so much ground that pretty much any abuse by police can constitute a violation of it.
Here is one thing you have said that we can see eye to eye on. Unlitigated is most definately a better term. In our Federalist division of powers, police powers have traditionally resided in the hands of the States. And there was a time that the FBI only got involved in local matters if it garnered headlines, overtime pay, and brownie points for the local branch offices (the same deal with the INS back then). It usually fell to other Federal agencies, if something local fell under some power reserved to the Feds (Constitutional Clauses that tend to get abused anyway), there was a request for assistance, or a violation of Federal law, otherwise. That changed after 9/11 and the restructuring of Federal law enforcement agencies. And since the early 90's, after several high profile Federal screw ups, and local agencies getting too hooked on Federal money due to the failed War of Drugs, most State and many local governments have gotten somewhat leery of Federal "generosity" (which leads to the Feds thinking they can just mosey in any ol' time, stepping on toes and pushing their extra-jurisdictional weight around).
So, they play the smart game. It's EXACTLY how your pointed out. The Feds just wait patiently for spineless local/State politicos to squeal for them to save the day. Or they just step in if public opinion is likely favorable toward such.
And you're absolutely right about the broad nature of the Civil Rights Act. It's usually taken for granted that some sort of discrimination or hate-related crime has to be involved, usually of a racial nature. Because of the generality of the Act, I agree that certain sections of the law can be broadly interpreted, even with all the specific additions since 1965.
Perhaps not. Wouldn't be needed at all if law enforcement showed more willingness to look inward, but we've had a half dozen major investigations over the last decade alone into police departments and they've always found chronic and persistent abuses that were not being dealt with. It is evident that change and reform is overwhelmingly not coming from within and I'm really not keen on civil liberty being subject to a waiting room while offending agencies get their act together.
Because it doesn't fit the narrative that you've embraced.
Same to you
we're talking about apples and oranges here
No we're not. No one likes having others look over their shoulder, but when you're in a position to screw other people over there should always be someone looking over your shoulder. It's as much about keeping the faith and being transparent as it is about punishing people who go to far. The police assuring us that "all is well" is not very assuring, and this is true at all levels of government and social policy. Even if police maintain internal oversights, there should still be external reviews of those processes that are able to step in should things become untenable.
And if you are going to deal with something as serious as this, the ideology CAN and SHOULD be left at the door,
That police should be monitored and abuses punished is at it's core rooted in ideology and political opinion. Things like "transparency is good," "authority should be questioned," and "oversights are important for protecting civil liberties" are all at least partially based in ideological directives. A police officer arrested a nurse for obstructing him is a fact. A police officer arrested a nurse for obstructing him and that is wrong is an opinion based in ideals of civic freedom and political thought.
If you start putting special interest groups and social science majors in charge of policing
It's foolish to ignore special interest groups. You shouldn't listen to them exclusively but you shouldn't ignore them. Especially not while espousing democratic principles like free association and assembly.
as opposed to criminologists, legal pros, ConLaw experts, and criminal justice majors (to name some examples),
I'd point out that all of these positions fall under the banner of the Social Sciences, and I'm curious what experts you think I think should be staffing these things. I just want independent oversight and review which doesn't really require much expertise beyond being able to read a given list of priorities and policies and being familiar with relevant law. It doesn't take much expertise to do that. Just lots of reading and some administrative experience. You brought up experts and you seem to of assumed that I inherently meant something other than people with relevant experience.
That changed after 9/11 and the restructuring of Federal law enforcement agencies.
Well you could see it before that too. Historically speaking federal power has been called in, and forced in, for many reasons. The US government intervened in various ways during Reconstruction to enforce the eras reforms when Southern authority was unwilling to follow through on its own. In the Civil Right's era it was simultaneously brought in to "investigate" "terrorists" like MLK and Malcom X, and to enforce SCOTUS decisions and new legal practices like the CRA itself. During the culture wars it would be called in to do stuff like undermine the Black Panthers and other radical groups deemed threatening. I wouldn't say it's spineless as much as local and state authority is completely willing to get federal help when it suits them, and get annoyed when the feds butt in when it doesn't. Sometimes the feds have been forced to jump in because local and state authority isn't doing things, and they can't resist it simply because "we fethed it up and how dare the feds clean up our mess" is plain bad PR.
So the whole things goes without challenge, particularly because of the nature of the way it happens. Either the feds are being brought in and doing something sleazy, which is usually to the benefit of established political power so why would they complain, or it's been forced in because someone fethed up and complaining would look really bad. I don't think it's nefarious, or at least it isn't anymore nefarious than government is on a typical day. Sometimes its bad sometimes it isn't and when that is oddly enough (not really) really comes down a lot to a question of political ideology. I think we've done fairly well on this front for the most part though cause the Feds aren't super gung ho about jumping in on the first chance they get and generally only get involved at request or when things have become untennable for local authorities. A good example (welp we're here I guess) is the LA riots where no matter how you cut it, local and state authority lost control of the situation and calling in Federal military units might not be pretty but it's a pretty hot debate I think whether the riots could have been quelled without them. So long as federal intervention into these situations remains a fringe result of extreme situations I don't see it as much of a problem.
That's because crap like this isn't really that common, considering the amount of interaction that goes on between police and John Q. Public every day. The hype machine and media ratings mongers ensure that it becomes "an epidemic".
There isn't any real need for your special measures. What abuse goes on, it gets handled well enough in most cases by the systems we have in place. The prosecution of officers involved in unjustifiable shootings recently is proof of that. You are going to have hiccups and ball dropping in ANY system (It isn't perfect by any means). But for the most part, it works like it supposed to if people will let it. The issue here is that some among the general public whipped up in a frenzy, grievance industry profiteers, and politically motivated don't want to hear that. Especially if a investigation doesn't go their way.
Horsegak, it does not get handled in house and this very case proves it. It was going to be brushed right under the rug until this video. Officers were more than happy to let this be forgotten, until an outside group said no. The only reason we know about this is because it was privately recorded. Same with Phillando Castille. Same with the cop who shot the man in the back while he was fleeing. You cannot tell me the system is working fine when there are still cops refusing to turn on body cameras or "forgetting" to turn them on. This system is not working for us. It is great for the cops though.
That's because crap like this isn't really that common, considering the amount of interaction that goes on between police and John Q. Public every day. The hype machine and media ratings mongers ensure that it becomes "an epidemic".
There isn't any real need for your special measures. What abuse goes on, it gets handled well enough in most cases by the systems we have in place. The prosecution of officers involved in unjustifiable shootings recently is proof of that. You are going to have hiccups and ball dropping in ANY system (It isn't perfect by any means). But for the most part, it works like it supposed to if people will let it. The issue here is that some among the general public whipped up in a frenzy, grievance industry profiteers, and politically motivated don't want to hear that. Especially if a investigation doesn't go their way.
Horsegak, it does not get handled in house and this very case proves it. It was going to be brushed right under the rug until this video. Officers were more than happy to let this be forgotten, until an outside group said no. The only reason we know about this is because it was privately recorded. Same with Phillando Castille. Same with the cop who shot the man in the back while he was fleeing. You cannot tell me the system is working fine when there are still cops refusing to turn on body cameras or "forgetting" to turn them on. This system is not working for us. It is great for the cops though.
Payne was wearing a body cam though. It recorded the whole event - interesting we don't see the whole event in any press release. You basically only see the parts they want you to see. The parts that play on your emotions. You don't see the parts where Payne likely calmly explained she was going to be arrested if she didn't stop getting in his way. You don't see the part where the officer yells at Castille 3 times "not to reach for it" and still does anyways because hes stoned out of his mind. You don't see the part where brown is charging a police officer that he just punched through his window - you just see a junior high yearbook photo with lego blocks in the background. You are getting played by professional liars with agendas.
That's because crap like this isn't really that common, considering the amount of interaction that goes on between police and John Q. Public every day. The hype machine and media ratings mongers ensure that it becomes "an epidemic".
There isn't any real need for your special measures. What abuse goes on, it gets handled well enough in most cases by the systems we have in place. The prosecution of officers involved in unjustifiable shootings recently is proof of that. You are going to have hiccups and ball dropping in ANY system (It isn't perfect by any means). But for the most part, it works like it supposed to if people will let it. The issue here is that some among the general public whipped up in a frenzy, grievance industry profiteers, and politically motivated don't want to hear that. Especially if a investigation doesn't go their way.
Horsegak, it does not get handled in house and this very case proves it. It was going to be brushed right under the rug until this video. Officers were more than happy to let this be forgotten, until an outside group said no. The only reason we know about this is because it was privately recorded. Same with Phillando Castille. Same with the cop who shot the man in the back while he was fleeing. You cannot tell me the system is working fine when there are still cops refusing to turn on body cameras or "forgetting" to turn them on. This system is not working for us. It is great for the cops though.
Payne was wearing a body cam though. It recorded the whole event - interesting we don't see the whole event in any press release. You basically only see the parts they want you to see. The parts that play on your emotions. You don't see the parts where Payne likely calmly explained she was going to be arrested if she didn't stop getting in his way. You don't see the part where the officer yells at Castille 3 times "not to reach for it" and still does anyways because hes stoned out of his mind. You don't see the part where brown is charging a police officer that he just punched through his window - you just see a junior high yearbook photo with lego blocks in the background. You are getting played by professional liars with agendas.
lol, did you just say "stoned out of his mind."? I bet you think Marijuana is a dangerous drug.
See, these all are things we did not see until the public had its own video. We would have never seen the Castillo body cam, had it not been for the FB livestream of him being murdered
Also, there was no calmly explaining to the nurse she would be arrested if she continued to get in his way. Because it is her job and duty as a healthcare professional to stop him from doing this. I don't know how many times I can explain that to you.
You just don't know what you are talking about and you have formed your own narrative of the situation because of "professional liars with agendas." You have little knowledge of the law involved in this and the policies. You are the perfect "low information voter" in this scenario.
will make it unlikely that their careers will be going anywhere, even if cleared.