Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 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.

Exactly

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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.

Another one eh? At this rate you might as well have a US police corruption and incompetence thread.

 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.

 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.

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

Let's be clear. It has not been rectified.

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

Ok. Does someone have to be conscious to arrest them?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok. Does someone have to be conscious to arrest them?

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok. Does someone have to be conscious to arrest them?

Nope.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok. Does someone have to be conscious to arrest them?

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).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok. Does someone have to be conscious to arrest them?

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok. Does someone have to be conscious to arrest them?

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.

Did his parents consent to the blood draw?

There was no consent reported so far.

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok. Does someone have to be conscious to arrest them?

Yes. There have been court cases where some exceptions were made. But as a general rule, they do have to be conscious.



It all ties in with Miranda vs. Arizona (1966), and Thompkins doesn't apply to an unconscious suspect.

 Bookwrack wrote:

 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.

This happened on the 26th of July.

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.

Public media attention is part of the system.

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.