Welcome to Cop Land - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14840325
So two people who should have known better tried to bully a nurse doing right by her patient? That's much better! :lol:

I'm with Drlee. Fire the pair of them.
User avatar
By MistyTiger
#14840328
This just shows that cops can be total brawny meatheads. They believe that they can use any force necessary to arrest people. It's just mindless work for them. They run on adrenaline not conscious thought unlike those of us who can sit at desks and contemplate news stories and argue about it.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#14840331
How cute now the social media mob and the domestic terrorist groups BLM and Antifa are going to hijack this issue and if this nurse is not careful it will ruin her. The nurse's cause is legit, but it can be hijacked and ruined if she isn't careful. She may still get paid probably but, it can destroy her standing in the community if she becomes a willing or unwilling posterchild of the faux outrage movement.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840335
The nurse also should have known better. She was arguing from idealism when she had to know the first thing they do in the emergency room is take blood. There was no reason for her to argue other than a legal nuance that was always made mute by standard medical practice.
The cops knew they always get the blood but were unaware of the legal nuance that allowed it.
The nurse created a dispute that was strictly ideological with no basis in reality.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14840344
T
he nurse also should have known better. She was arguing from idealism


This is factually untrue. She was following the hospital's rules which are based on a Supreme Court decision and federal law.

When she had to know the first thing they do in the emergency room is take blood.


This is factually untrue.



There was no reason for her to argue other than a legal nuance that was always made mute by standard medical practice.


Again. This is factually untrue. Obviously you do not know the purpose of blood tests in an emergency environment.

The cops knew they always get the blood but were unaware of the legal nuance that allowed it.


This is factually untrue. And even if it were true that they believed that the fault is ignorant cops or at best untrained cops. That is the fault of the police department. The rest of us have to follow the law. Try making the "ignorance of the law" argument with a cop and see how far that gets you.

The nurse created a dispute that was strictly ideological with no basis in reality.


This is factually and obviously untrue. And that is why Salt Lake City is in complete damage control mode. They Mayor apologized to her. The Police Chief apologized to her.

"I was alarmed by what I saw in the video with our officer and Ms. (Wubbels)," Salt Lake City police Chief Mike Brown said in a news conference Friday. "I am sad at the rift this has caused between law enforcement and the nurses we work so closely with."
The department opened an internal affairs investigation, he said, and Friday evening the police department said Payne and another "employee" were placed on full administrative leave as a result of a criminal investigation into the incident. The department said the second person was an officer, but did not identify that officer.


Do try to keep up.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840346
Drlee wrote:T

This is factually untrue. She was following the hospital's rules which are based on a Supreme Court decision and federal law.



This is factually untrue.





Again. This is factually untrue. Obviously you do not know the purpose of blood tests in an emergency environment.



This is factually untrue. And even if it were true that they believed that the fault is ignorant cops or at best untrained cops. That is the fault of the police department. The rest of us have to follow the law. Try making the "ignorance of the law" argument with a cop and see how far that gets you.



This is factually and obviously untrue. And that is why Salt Lake City is in complete damage control mode. They Mayor apologized to her. The Police Chief apologized to her.



Do try to keep up.


I will let every poster who has ever gone to an emergency room decide which version best describes reality. You can say it is factually untrue because there are some situations that would not require blood tests. This man was unconscious. Would a blood test routinely be taken?
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14840374
One Degree wrote:The nurse also should have known better.

She should have known better than to follow hospital procedure and act in the best interest of her patient, rather than complying with an illegal demand from a detective on a power trip? :lol:

One Degree wrote:She was arguing from idealism when she had to know the first thing they do in the emergency room is take blood. There was no reason for her to argue other than a legal nuance that was always made mute by standard medical practice.

The Fourth Amendment is a "legal nuance"? That's a funny line for a strict constitutionalist to take. :lol:

One Degree wrote:The cops knew they always get the blood but were unaware of the legal nuance that allowed it.

The cops need a warrant to take a blood sample. They were well aware of this.

One Degree wrote:The nurse created a dispute that was strictly ideological with no basis in reality.

The nurse followed her obligation to her patient. The police officer tried to coerce her into breaking the law - a fact recognised by two separate police departments, and the local government in Salt Lake City. There is nothing "ideological" about it - it's about as clear-cut as it gets.
By Decky
#14840377
In an ideal world the copper would get hard time. The gulag is great way to show wayward souls the benefit of a lifestyle of honest labour over corruption.
By B0ycey
#14840380
One Degree wrote:The nurse also should have known better. She was arguing from idealism when she had to know the first thing they do in the emergency room is take blood.


The cop should have known better you mean. Legally, if she gave the blood without a warrant she would have been doing an offence. She could actually be justifiably arrested. If a cop loses his temper than he shouldn't be a cop. He should be fired. Anyone trying to somehow justify the police officers actions obviously have no understanding of respectable conduct.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840382
Heisenberg wrote:She should have known better than to follow hospital procedure and act in the best interest of her patient, rather than complying with an illegal demand from a detective on a power trip? :lol:


The Fourth Amendment is a "legal nuance"? That's a funny line for a strict constitutionalist to take. :lol:


The cops need a warrant to take a blood sample. They were well aware of this.


The nurse followed her obligation to her patient. The police officer tried to coerce her into breaking the law - a fact recognised by two separate police departments, and the local government in Salt Lake City. There is nothing "ideological" about it - it's about as clear-cut as it gets.


You simply ignore my argument of nuance being the problem. You reduce it to an idealistic 'good' versus 'bad'.
Reality rarely fits your idealistic simplicity. For instance, normally just having a driver's license is implied consent for the police to take your blood. This was not altered by the Supreme Court ruling.

Edit: To elaborate, the cop was wrong but the only reason he was wrong is because he wanted the blood to prove innocence. If he wanted it to prove guilt, then he would have been correct.
I think we can agree the cop would reasonably believe the guy would willingly give a blood sample to prove his innocence.
By B0ycey
#14840390
One Degree wrote:Edit: To elaborate, the cop was wrong but the only reason he was wrong is because he wanted the blood to prove innocence. If he wanted it to prove guilt, then he would have been correct.
I think we can agree the cop would reasonably believe the guy would willingly give a blood sample to prove his innocence.


What goes on in your head? Without a warrant or consent it is wrong either way. Nobody is above the law. And a police officer should know that more than anyone else.

And just to point out your stupidity of your point, I thought you were someone who fought for our thoughts to not be considered in criminality. Is this YET another hypocritical view of yours to defend the absurb?
Last edited by B0ycey on 04 Sep 2017 20:19, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14840393
Ignorance of the law is no excuse so the nurse was in the wrong but the police officer's actions should be excused because ignorance of the law is an excuse, right one degree?

Are you familiar with the concept of an unlawful order?
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840397
B0ycey wrote:What goes on in your head? Without a warrant or consent it is wrong either way. Nobody is above the law. And a police officer should know that more than anyone else.

And just to point out your stupidity of your point, I thought you were someone who fought for our thoughts to not be considered in criminality. Is thelis YET another hypocritical view of yours to defend the adsurb?


From your post, I get an indication why you failed to understand my post. Having a driver's license is normally consent. It was not in this instance only because the cop said he did not think the guy was guilty of anything. If he had not said that, he could have had the blood.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840398
AFAIK wrote:Ignorance of the law is no excuse so the nurse was in the wrong but the police officer's actions should be excused because ignorance of the law is an excuse, right one degree?

Are you familiar with the concept of an unlawful order?


What is so hard to understand when I clearly said he was wrong and she was correct. :?:
By B0ycey
#14840400
One Degree wrote:From your post, I get an indication why you failed to understand my post. Having a driver's license is normally consent. It was not in this instance only because the cop said he did not think the guy was guilty of anything. If he had not said that, he could have had the blood.


Are you telling me that an unconscious individual has given consent to a police officer because he happens to have his driving licence? If that is legal, then America is as backwards as your views. The nurse did nothing wrong and has my full admiration for not letting the officer break the law.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840404
B0ycey wrote:Are you telling me that an unconscious individual has given consent to a police officer because he happens to have his driving licence? If that is legal, then America is as backwards as your views. The nurse did nothing wrong and has my full admiration for not letting the officer break the law.


That is exactly what I am telling you, and yes it is legal.
By B0ycey
#14840410
One Degree wrote:That is exactly what I am telling you, and yes it is legal.


Any chance for a link to that law? If that is true, America really is fucked up. Anyone can steal a driving licence or it can be obtained without the owners knowledge (like them being unconscious in a hospital bed for example). So how can it possibly be used as consent?
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840411
B0ycey wrote:Any chance for a link to that law? If that is true, America really is fucked up. Anyone can steal a driving licence or it can be obtained without the owners knowledge (like them being unconscious in a hospital bed for example). So how can it possibly be used as consent?


I am not about to look up all the applicable laws and court cases. Maybe you will take ABC's word for it.
It was the first to pop up and I have not even bothered to read it, because I know what it will say.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/2nd- ... t-49584953
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14840414
One Degree wrote:What is so hard to understand when I clearly said he was wrong and she was correct. :?:

I must have missed that comment as I skimmed through the thousands of words you spilled lamenting the lack of free speech for on duty police officers assuring a member of the public that they only killed blacks.
By B0ycey
#14840415
One Degree wrote:I am not about to look up all the applicable laws and court cases. Maybe you will take ABC's word for it.
It was the first to pop up and I have not even bothered to read it, because I know what it will say.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/2nd- ... t-49584953


Right, I have read the article and looked up the 'implied consent law'. The officer would be wrong to use this law in this case whether the person was guilty or not (unless he was a suspect in a drink driving offence to be used for that very purpose). Now you know this, do you accept the officer has no credible defence here?
Trump Pardons...

You seem to be the guy doing the forgetting. Pelo[…]

Too Many White People

Rancids penis is stainless steel

I think it would help Bernie or Warren more tha[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

As I already said, where you are is irrelevant si[…]