Welcome to Cop Land - Page 3 - 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 One Degree
#14840417
B0ycey wrote: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?


He was in an accident. This is all that would be needed to enact 'implied consent' normally.
The only reason he was wrong was because he said he did not think the guy was guilty of anything.
The nurse picked up on this. He was wrong and she was right but it was a 'nuanced misunderstanding'. There was no intent to violate the law.
I have now repeated this several times. That is enough.
By B0ycey
#14840421
One Degree wrote:He was in an accident. This is all that would be needed to enact 'implied consent' normally.
The only reason he was wrong was because he said he did not think the guy was guilty of anything.
The nurse picked up on this. He was wrong and she was right but it was a 'nuanced misunderstanding'. There was no intent to violate the law.
I have now repeated this several times. That is enough.


No. You're wrong. Implied consent can only be used in drink driving offenses. If he was considered guilty of an offence, a warrant would be issued instead. The only 'nuanced misunderstanding' going on here is the cop using his power to get his will. And being an officer of the law, he should have known better. So do you not accept the cop has no credible defence here?
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840423
B0ycey wrote:No. You're wrong. Implied consent can only be used in drink driving offenses. If he was considered guilty of an offence, a warrant would be issued instead. The only 'nuanced misunderstanding' going on here is the cop using his power to get his will. And being an officer of the law, he should have known better. So do you not accept the cop has no credible defence here?


You are wrong. Read more about the legal system.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentar ... mplicated/
By B0ycey
#14840425
One Degree wrote:You are wrong. Read more about the legal system.


Perhaps you should. I have only just looked it up. There is a few other things it can be applied to also but none that could justify the officers actions.

Nonetheless can you not accept the cop has no credible defense here?
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840427
B0ycey wrote:Perhaps you should. I have only just looked it up. There is a few other things it can be applied to also but none that could justify the officers actions.

Nonetheless can you not accept the cop has no credible defense here?


You apparently missed my edit. I added this...
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentar ... mplicated/
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840433
B0ycey wrote:Oh dear. Your link confirms what I told you. Perhaps read it next time. :lol:


I have no idea what you mean since you don't bother to make a point. The article discusses how complicated the law is. My argument has always been the problem arose over the nuance of the law.
By B0ycey
#14840439
One Degree wrote:I have no idea what you mean since you don't bother to make a point. The article discusses how complicated the law is. My argument has always been the problem arose over the nuance of the law.


You said a driving licence could be used as consent which was wrong. Then after reading your article I found it was implied consent (which doesn't require possessing a driving licence BTW). You also said that if the guy was guilty this law could be used. I told this was also wrong unless he was under the influence (to be used for that very reason). You then said I should look up the law and posted an article confirming what I just told you.

Nonetheless you keep on avoiding this question. Do you (or do you not) accept that this officer has no justifiable reason for the extreme action he took to break the law?
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840441
B0ycey wrote:You said a driving licence could be used as consent which was wrong. Then after reading your article I found it was implied consent (which doesn't require possessing a driving licence BTW). You also said that if the guy was guilty this law could be used. I told this was also wrong unless he was under the influence (to be used for that very reason). You then said I should look up the law and posted an article confirming what I just told you.

Nonetheless you keep on avoiding this question. Do you (or do you not) accept that this officer has no justifiable reason for the extreme action he took to break the law?


You still do not understand how these laws work. I have already said several times what I thought of the officers actions.
By B0ycey
#14840443
One Degree wrote:You still do not understand how these laws work. I have already said several times what I thought of the officers actions.


Yes, I suppose you have. He was wrong but...
User avatar
By Drlee
#14840529
The implied consent law has nothing to do with this case.. This is about a thug with a badge unlawfully arresting a citizen. The cop was simply completely wrong. His boss was wrong. They both lack the knowledge and judgment to be in a position of public trust. They should be fired to protect the people of Salt Lake and as an example to others.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14840605
Drlee wrote:The implied consent law has nothing to do with this case.. This is about a thug with a badge unlawfully arresting a citizen. The cop was simply completely wrong. His boss was wrong. They both lack the knowledge and judgment to be in a position of public trust. They should be fired to protect the people of Salt Lake and as an example to others.


Interesting opinion since every legal view says it does, but you are entitled to your feelings. Your view of the police deliberately brutalizing citizens makes so much more sense than they had a legitimate misunderstanding. :knife:
Did you forget the cops whole purpose was to help the person he wanted blood from?
User avatar
By Drlee
#14841314
Your view of the police deliberately brutalizing citizens makes so much more sense than they had a legitimate misunderstanding. :knife:


On the contrary. You do not handcuff a nurse at work and place her in a car over a misunderstanding. There is a name for that. It is called "false arrest". That is why the police officers are facing criminal charges. It go very badly for them. It should. They are trained and paid to ensure this does not happen.


Did you forget the cops whole purpose was to help the person he wanted blood from?


Nonsense. First of all we do not pay cops for that. The person who was unconscious was not suspected of a crime. He was a victim. He stood absolutely nothing to gain and a great deal to loose from giving blood.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841317
Drlee wrote:On the contrary. You do not handcuff a nurse at work and place her in a car over a misunderstanding. There is a name for that. It is called "false arrest". That is why the police officers are facing criminal charges. It go very badly for them. It should. They are trained and paid to ensure this does not happen.




Nonsense. First of all we do not pay cops for that. The person who was unconscious was not suspected of a crime. He was a victim. He stood absolutely nothing to gain and a great deal to loose from giving blood.


:?: He was a victim and the blood test was meant as evidence that he was not under the influence. Without it, the person who caused the accident could cast doubts on his sobriety in court.
I have already shown why the police thought they were in the right. Your vindictiveness toward the police is in direct opposition to your concern for your pet groups. How does it feel to be capable of picking and choosing which people deserve your understanding? :*(
We don't pay cops to help people? :?: what a distorted view. :(
User avatar
By Drlee
#14841381
:?: He was a victim and the blood test was meant as evidence that he was not under the influence.


Nonsense. This is America. One does not need to prove one's innocence.

I have already shown why the police thought they were in the right.


They were wrong. They should not have been.

Your vindictiveness toward the police is in direct opposition to your concern for your pet groups


I am a big supporter of good policemen and professional policing. These cops displayed neither. I despise bullies particularly when they are supposed to know better.

How does it feel to be capable of picking and choosing which people deserve your understanding?


Good. You should try it sometime.

We don't pay cops to help people?


:lol: That is ridiculous even from you.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841427
Drlee wrote:Nonsense. This is America. One does not need to prove one's innocence.



They were wrong. They should not have been.



I am a big supporter of good policemen and professional policing. These cops displayed neither. I despise bullies particularly when they are supposed to know better.



Good. You should try it sometime.



:lol: That is ridiculous even from you.


The whole legal issue is because the cop said he wanted to help, yet you simply say this is nonsense because cops don't help people. :?: If the cop had not wanted to help, there would have never been a disagreement.
Your comments do not reflect the reality. They are just an illogical condemnation of police.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14841488
The whole legal issue is because the cop said he wanted to help,


This is nonsense. This was an illegal fishing expedition.

yet you simply say this is nonsense because cops don't help people. :?:


You said that. I did not. In fact. If you had the reading comprehension of a 12 year old you would know that from my last posts what I think of cops. YOU said "Cops don't help people?". I called your remarks "ridiculous".

If the cop had not wanted to help, there would have never been a disagreement.


Say it as many times as you want. It is simply not true. And that is why he was suspended and in all likelihood will be lucky to get by with a demotion and not outright firing.

You do not arrest and drag a nurse from a hospital because she does not let you "help" someone.

Your lack of knowledge of our legal system is disturbing. Illegal search and seizure laws are central to our justice system.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14841494
Have you actually watched the video, @One Degree? Your description of the police officer's behaviour is utterly ridiculous. Where does he say he's trying to help? Where does he behave in a non-belligerent fashion? He simply loses his temper with the nurse because she is following the correct procedure, and he is not. He is trying to make her comply with an illegal order, since he has no warrant, and when she doesn't he snaps. It's as clear as day.

By the way, the US legal system operates on the presumption of innocence. The unconscious victim was under no obligation to prove his innocence. As Drlee said, he stood nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, from allowing police officers to take a blood sample without a court order.

This "wah, people who abuse their authority are such precious victims" routine needs to stop. :eh:
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841498
How can both of you simply ignore the facts that have been reported and the legal opinions that have been given? :?: Your version totally ignores the entire basis of the legal question that led to the dispute.
Read what is actually said instead of what you want to pretend happened. :(
Your version is pure fantasy. The cop was not trying to help the victim you say, despite that was the crux of the entire incident and has been the basis of the entire legal discussion. :knife:
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14841521
I notice you didn't answer any of my questions, or the point about the presumption of innocence.

I am not pretending anything, because I am basing my interpretation on the video of the incident and the response from two police forces and the Salt Lake City government, not a fantasy world where police officers are literal saints who can do no wrong.

If the cop was trying to help the victim - something I doubt very much, and which is based on nothing other than your weird interpretation of a Fox News article - he should have gone about it in the proper fashion. Not by trying to bully a nurse into complying with an illegal order.
Trump and Russiagate

*Before* the election, our intel guys, and the in[…]

Too Many White People

They can only be considered unrealistic in the se[…]

Trump Pardons...

Trump deliberately ignored congressional oversigh[…]

Bill Barr has to go

1) Generally, laws are written down. There isn'[…]