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.
2017/09/07 06:42:32
Subject: Re:Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/07 06:44:49
2017/09/07 07:00:36
Subject: Re:Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious 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.
2017/09/07 07:05:21
Subject: Re:Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious 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.
Wow, looks like they are throwing this guy under the bus. The story is changing very quickly here.....
2017/09/07 07:39:41
Subject: Re:Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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?
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/09/07 08:03:08
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
2017/09/07 09:58:33
Subject: Re:Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/09/07 10:51:16
Subject: Re:Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/07 11:01:59
2017/09/07 12:04:55
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/07 12:11:35
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/09/07 12:14:09
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
2017/09/07 12:18:07
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/07 12:28:06
2017/09/07 12:22:14
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/09/07 12:35:51
Subject: Re:Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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?
your argument us irrelevant. Policy does not Trump the Bill of Rights.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/09/07 12:58:56
Subject: Re:Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/09/07 13:04:22
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
2017/09/07 13:06:33
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/09/07 13:15:55
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
this statement makes no sense.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/09/07 13:31:58
Subject: Re:Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
"Holy Sh*&, you've opened my eyes and changed my mind about this topic, thanks Dakka OT!"
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/07 14:04:17
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
2017/09/07 14:04:46
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/07 14:09:09
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/09/07 15:13:25
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/07 15:21:33
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2017/09/07 15:31:14
Subject: Re:Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/09/07 16:33:50
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/07 16:36:19
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/09/07 16:42:46
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
BobtheInquisitor wrote: "Attempted [illegal seizure]? What is that, really? Can you win a Nobel prize in Attempted Chemistry?"
As far as I can tell - it's not a crime. Except maybe in minority report.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/09/07 17:04:03
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
2017/09/07 17:15:12
Subject: Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from an unconcious man
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.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
