(09-01-2017 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see why he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

Yes, they didn't really say why they wanted the blood sample. Maybe the police officer had just pulled together the pieces of a 3 year old child this guy killed with drunk driving.

Poor nurse! The cop is a jerk, even if he would have been correct in his interpretation of the law and the situation - which he was not.

I don't understand how he could think it was appropriate or even legitimate to arrest the nurse in this situation. Bully buckaroo.

(09-01-2017 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/31/ut...us-victim/

This bully is still on duty. He should be criminally charged and lose his pension. So should the other security officers who watched it.

Is there anything a police officer can do, even when clearly in the wrong, that results in a criminal conviction? In this case, the officer is still on duty.

She should sue her boss who was on the phone. He was the one who set off the police officer. Real jerk challenging a police officer over the phone while his employee was face to face.

You, as typical, grossly exaggerate in your headline. He didn't assault her. She did resist arrest, which is breaking a law, but he did not use excessive force (it was pretty minimal). Now he probably had no legitimate basis for arresting her. But that is grounds for a civil lawsuit. There was nothing the police officer did illegal. He just used poor judgement and lost his temper at the nurse's arrogant boss.

Contempt of cop is not an actual crime. Drawing blood without consent, a warrant, an arrest, probable cause or legitimate exigent circumstances is battery, an actual crime. The patient was in a medically induced coma. The nurse and her supervisor followed hospital policy as they should have to protect the interests of the patient whom they rendered unable to consent and those of the stafff and hospital who have an affirmative duty not to aid in the commission of battery. If the cop wanted blood he needed to get a warrant plain and simple.

She should sue the police department. It's not a case where she would get a large award, but either the police will settle or if their counsel is sufficiently stupid and/or stubborn pay out a bit more after they lose at trial.

(09-01-2017 02:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You need a warrant.

We had a case here locally where a guy killed three people on Xmas Eve. He was three times over the limit but he walked because his blood was drawn without a warrant.

I want to say I thought there are circumstances around that kind of law.. (but I'm not up on the law)... But the cop was definitely in the wrong if it went down as she said (haven't watched the video yet).

(09-01-2017 04:15 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You need a warrant.

We had a case here locally where a guy killed three people on Xmas Eve. He was three times over the limit but he walked because his blood was drawn without a warrant.

I want to say I thought there are circumstances around that kind of law.. (but I'm not up on the law)... But the cop was definitely in the wrong if it went down as she said (haven't watched the video yet).

Definitely watch the video. I don't understand how the cop could ever be defended here.

Boy there's a lot of us pro-cop, LEO can do no wrong alt-right conservatoads in this thread.

Bully hiding behind a badge.

This cop just did what all other cops do. Looks like good police work to me. Sometimes you just have to"ruff them up".

(09-01-2017 04:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see why he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

Yes, they didn't really say why they wanted the blood sample. Maybe the police officer had just pulled together the pieces of a 3 year old child this guy killed with drunk driving.

READ THE DAMN ARTICLE. The man they were trying to get blood from was the VICTIM.

So let me get this right. The nurse gets suspended, and the cop... nothing. Trump's America.

As someone who has experience in nursing, ER nursing, trauma nursing, and dealing with investigations I can tell you that the cop was in the wrong, at least in Alabama. I've drawn samples requested by LEOs, but with patient consent. I've had patients refuse to allow the LEOs to have a blood sample. Thankfully when I've had a LEO come in for an investigation with a blood collection kit and the patient in unresponsive, they don't even try to collect a sample, at least the ones I've dealt with before. They're typically AL state troopers.

In the ER a blood and urine toxicology is run on most MVCs, especially when a victim is unresponsive after. All the DA would have to do is subpoena the hospital's lab results from the night of the event.

Refusal is an admission of guilt for both blood and field sobriety/breathalyzer tests.

I don't think the cop should be fired. Suspended, sure.

(09-01-2017 04:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see why he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

Yes, they didn't really say why they wanted the blood sample. Maybe the police officer had just pulled together the pieces of a 3 year old child this guy killed with drunk driving.

So, the Constitutional violation and false arrest was "for the children".



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Watched the 20 minute video, nurse did absolutely nothing wrong. She should be commemded for standing up to bullying. Making a scene when being unjustly arrested is a good thing and the only thing she should have done differently is demanded a lawyer as soon as he said she was under arrest. The cop was talking to her in the car after he arrested her. If she had demanded a lawyer doing so would have gotten him in even more trouble then he is going to be.

If that had been my wife not only would I be furious with the cop I would have been furious with all those pansy men who let it happen and didn't make a bigger stink about it.

(09-01-2017 06:25 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 04:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see why he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

Yes, they didn't really say why they wanted the blood sample. Maybe the police officer had just pulled together the pieces of a 3 year old child this guy killed with drunk driving.

So, the Constitutional violation and false arrest was "for the children".



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

We don't know what this officer was going through. Don't know the situation. When the boss started getting arrogant he lost it.

(09-01-2017 07:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 06:25 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 04:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see why he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

Yes, they didn't really say why they wanted the blood sample. Maybe the police officer had just pulled together the pieces of a 3 year old child this guy killed with drunk driving.

So, the Constitutional violation and false arrest was "for the children".



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

We don't know what this officer was going through. Don't know the situation. When the boss started getting arrogant he lost it.

He let a guy on a phone get under his skin enough to arrest a nurse following the law and policy? Shouldn't be a cop if he loses his cool that easy

(09-01-2017 07:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 07:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 06:25 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 04:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see why he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

Yes, they didn't really say why they wanted the blood sample. Maybe the police officer had just pulled together the pieces of a 3 year old child this guy killed with drunk driving.

So, the Constitutional violation and false arrest was "for the children".



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

We don't know what this officer was going through. Don't know the situation. When the boss started getting arrogant he lost it.

He let a guy on a phone get under his skin enough to arrest a nurse following the law and policy? Shouldn't be a cop if he loses his cool that easy

Like I said, why did he lose it so easily? That's what we don't know. Doesn't mean its ok, but it could be understandable. Or maybe not.

Fire him and sue the **** out of him.

I will add that in some departments in any collision involving a fatality it is required to do intoxicant screening of all drivers. Determining the cause of a collision isn't as simple as one would believe and you need to know all determining factors. I do not know the policy & procedures of the department in question but keep that in mind.

(09-01-2017 07:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 07:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 07:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 06:25 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 04:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  Yes, they didn't really say why they wanted the blood sample. Maybe the police officer had just pulled together the pieces of a 3 year old child this guy killed with drunk driving.

So, the Constitutional violation and false arrest was "for the children".



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

We don't know what this officer was going through. Don't know the situation. When the boss started getting arrogant he lost it.

He let a guy on a phone get under his skin enough to arrest a nurse following the law and policy? Shouldn't be a cop if he loses his cool that easy

Like I said, why did he lose it so easily? That's what we don't know. Doesn't mean its ok, but it could be understandable. Or maybe not.

You're trying to excuse the inexcusable. The SLCPD have already acknowledged that they failed to adequately train their staff on the law and that their behavior was not appropriate. A search is either legal or it isn't. An arrest is either legal or not. They don't have a leg to stand on regarding the demanded blood draw and I don't see how they have justification for the arrest. The nurse on the other hand complied with standard hospital policy for such circumstances which was vetted by U of U legal counsel and communicated to the police prior to this incident.

Moreover, "The Logan police detective assigned to the case believed "applied (sic ... should be 'implied') consent" laws — which Payne repeatedly cites in the video — allowed for the request, Hooley said. However, upon learning that the hospital was not agreeing to the blood draw, Hooley said the detective informed Salt Lake police that he would seek a medical subpoena in order to proceed."

LT My Law ignores the law

As bad as the officer's conduct was the LT's was worse. He's a supervisor. He's supposed to know the f'ing law better than his subordinates and support his command so that the public isn't abused. Officer Hulk and LT My Law should be suspended.

(09-01-2017 08:22 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 07:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 07:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 07:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 06:25 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  So, the Constitutional violation and false arrest was "for the children".



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

We don't know what this officer was going through. Don't know the situation. When the boss started getting arrogant he lost it.

He let a guy on a phone get under his skin enough to arrest a nurse following the law and policy? Shouldn't be a cop if he loses his cool that easy

Like I said, why did he lose it so easily? That's what we don't know. Doesn't mean its ok, but it could be understandable. Or maybe not.

You're trying to excuse the inexcusable. The SLCPD have already acknowledged that they failed to adequately train their staff on the law and that their behavior was not appropriate. A search is either legal or it isn't. An arrest is either legal or not. They don't have a leg to stand on regarding the demanded blood draw and I don't see how they have justification for the arrest. The nurse on the other hand complied with standard hospital policy for such circumstances which was vetted by U of U legal counsel and communicated to the police prior to this incident.

Moreover, "The Logan police detective assigned to the case believed "applied (sic ... should be 'implied') consent" laws — which Payne repeatedly cites in the video — allowed for the request, Hooley said. However, upon learning that the hospital was not agreeing to the blood draw, Hooley said the detective informed Salt Lake police that he would seek a medical subpoena in order to proceed."

LT My Law ignores the law

As bad as the officer's conduct was the LT's was worse. He's a supervisor. He's supposed to know the f'ing law better than his subordinates and support his command so that the public isn't abused. Officer Hulk and LT My Law should be suspended.

Amazing how many people on here have such poor reading comprehension. Schools aren't doing their job. Or maybe its just emotion without thought.

Nowhere did I excuse him. I just think you need to understand the circumstances before lynching him. Nobody is perfect. Many of you need some remedial reading classes.