I'm with Drlee. Fire the pair of them.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
he 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.
"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.
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.
One Degree wrote:The nurse also should have known better.
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.
One Degree wrote:The cops knew they always get the blood but were unaware of the legal nuance that allowed it.
One Degree wrote:The nurse created a dispute that was strictly ideological with no basis in reality.
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.
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?
The Fourth Amendment is a "legal nuance"? That's a funny line for a strict constitutionalist to take.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
One Degree wrote:That is exactly what I am telling you, and yes it is legal.
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?
One Degree wrote:What is so hard to understand when I clearly said he was wrong and she was correct. :?:
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
You seem to be the guy doing the forgetting. Pelo[…]
Rancids penis is stainless steel
I think it would help Bernie or Warren more tha[…]
As I already said, where you are is irrelevant si[…]