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.

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.

Sadly the right choice often has bad consequences.

Calling Nurse A 'Hero,' Utah Hospital Bars Police From Patient-Care Areas

 sebster wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

beast_gts wrote:
Calling Nurse A 'Hero,' Utah Hospital Bars Police From Patient-Care Areas

there you go. That's something positive.

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.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/738277.page#9584823

" 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.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 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.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/738277.page#9584823

" 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?

I guess the cop was free to draw blood himself and violate the man's rights in the process.

But the nurse refusing to do an invasive procedure without consent and against policy is not obstructing the officer.

 d-usa wrote:
I guess the cop was free to draw blood himself and violate the man's rights in the process.

But the nurse refusing to do an invasive procedure without consent and against policy is not obstructing the officer.

Exactly, thats why this is a two fer rights violation.

[MOD EDIT - US POLITICS DETECTED - AND REMOVED. - Alpharius]

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]

[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:

 Skinnereal wrote:

 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.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/738277.page#9584823

" 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.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 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.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 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.

One thing Hot Fuzz got right.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

Ok, cool.

 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:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.