Welcome to Cop Land - Page 4 - 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
#14841525
Heisenberg wrote: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.


Your doubt the cop was trying to help the victim shows your ignorance of the entire incident. Look up the legal opinions posted on the incident. The officer was wrong, the reaction of the different organizations is typical of their caving in to political correctness because they know the liberal media will not accept a rational reaction. It is part of the insanity we are being forced to live with. No one can make a mistake anymore unless it was a deliberate attempt to violate someone's rights. :knife: All individual mistakes must be viewed as a conspiracy. Crazy people.

Edit: @Heisenberg Try to understand this. If the cop was not trying to help the victim then the nurse was wrong and he was right.
Last edited by One Degree on 07 Sep 2017 17:26, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14841527
Of course, how silly of me. I forgot about the Great Liberal Conspiracy against the police, which now includes the police themselves! MSNBC beamed evil thoughts into the officer's head which forced him to wrongfully arrest the nurse, all so that the police would be made to look like the bad guy. Then, the police departments involved in the incident apologised and began an investigation, because they are determined to destroy themselves and unleash anarchy in the USA.

It all makes sense now! I see Tucker Carlson for what he is: a genius and a prophet!
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841531
I am sure you missed my edit.
Edit: @Heisenberg Try to understand this. If the cop was not trying to help the victim then the nurse was wrong and he was right. How does this fit with your fantasy?
User avatar
By Drlee
#14841536
To add to what Heisenberg said....

Why the officer did this stuff is irrelevant. He violated department policy. He arrested a nurse at work for a "crime" that she did not commit.

So you disagree with us One Degree. We know that. You also disagree with the Chief of the Salt Lake City police department. You disagree with the mayor of Salt Lake City. You disagree with the nurse involved and the administrators and lawyers of the University of Utah Hospital. You disagree with the city attorney who has ordered a criminal investigation into the actions of these two police officers. It is nice that you defend this brutal officer but let me refresh your memory about what his superiors believe. Not your version of it. Theirs:

“Like many of you, I watched the video of police officers interacting with University of Utah Medical Center nurse Alex Wubbles [sic] for the first time through the media late yesterday," Mayor Jackie Biskupski said in a statement.

"What I saw is completely unacceptable to the values of my Administration and of the values of the Salt Lake City Police Department. I extend a personal apology to Ms. Wubbles for what she has been through for simply doing her job."


Sound like someone defending his employee for just being "nice"?

Maybe the Chief defends the officers?

“I was alarmed by what I saw in the video with our officer and Ms. Wubbles. I am sad at the rift this has caused between law-enforcement and the nurses we work so closely with. I want to be clear, we take this very seriously. Immediate steps were taken and within 12 hours, body cam footage was reviewed and an internal affairs investigation started. We've looked at the actions that took place, the policies that could have prevented it, and the training that must be done. Within 24 hours of this incident, Salt Lake City Police Department took steps to ensure this will never happen again. We met with hospital CEO and COO, Nursing Management Team, their legal representation team, and University of Utah Chief Brophy.

Most notable of all these conversations were that we apologized for the incident and promised to find a solution. Additionally, our policy management team continues to work closely with the hospital staff on improved policies and training.

To date, we have suspended the officer from the blood draw program. We have already replaced our blood draw policy with a new policy. All remaining officers on the blood draw program have reviewed, and are operating under the new policy and protocol.

It is my sincere desire to get back to a very cooperative, respectful, and friendly relationship with our “brothers and sisters in white” we work so closely with. Salt Lake City Police Officers have a very soft spot in our hearts for all medical professionals. We know that if we are ever hurt in the line of duty, it is their caring hands that will perhaps save our lives one day.

I believe we can learn from mistakes and from building strong relationships with everyone we work with and serve. By doing that we become a stronger police department.”


That does not sound like "aw come on. He was just trying to be nice".

...No one can make a mistake anymore unless it was a deliberate attempt to violate someone's rights.


Sorry. If you check our constitution you will not find an article there that allows those who violate anther's rights to just say, "Oops. My bad".

You ignore that this was supposed to be a trained officer who has been schooled in protecting the rights of others. Are cops held to a different standard than you and I? Yes. Why? Because if they do not adhere to a strict standard then the power they are given can be used to trample all over the rights we hold dear. Obviously you do not hold those rights as dear as the rest of us do. Pity.

Try to understand this. If the cop was not trying to help the victim then the nurse was wrong and he was right. How does this fit with your fantasy?


This statement does not even make sense. But it also doesn't matter. Intent is not at play here. This is a clear violation of the law and of department regulations. The nurse was following the guidelines she had been given to comply with a law called HIPPA as well as several Supreme Court decisions on privacy and illegal search and seizure.

Then there is the separate issue of unlawful arrest. That little thing is going to cost the city a fortune if the nurse wants it to. Political correctness has nothing to do with this. There is outrage on all sides. Did you forget that this incident happened in just about the "reddest" state in the union? And the people of Utah are outraged.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14841537
One Degree wrote:f the cop was not trying to help the victim then the nurse was wrong and he was right. How does this fit with your fantasy?

Yeah, this doesn't make sense at all. The hospital's policy is not to give blood samples without a warrant, and the Supreme Court agrees that warrants are required under the Fourth Amendment. (By the way, as has been the case in most threads on this forum lately, that took all of ten seconds to find on Google. Research is your friend!)

It is completely cut and dry, which is why the officer will likely lose his job for wrongfully arresting the nurse for doing her job. Whether the police officer "intends to help" someone is irrelevant to whether a warrant is required.

Do stop making things up to defend literally anything an authority figure does, even when it's plainly illegal. Bootlicking is not a good look.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841545
The fact that you don't think my statement makes sense, that puts the entire scenario in perspective, simply shows your unwillingness to accept the facts. No one is saying the cop was right. Your argument that people today want to crucify everyone who the media decides to bring to their attention just supports my argument they are ignorant emotional morons that can't wait to appease the political correct by throwing one of their own to the wolves. Why is he the scapegoat instead of the lieutenant who told him to arrest her? Because he was on video. :knife: Why have you not even mentioned the lieutenant? "Duh, I saw it and it wasn't nice so they should destroy him no matter what the facts are." Such compassionate automatons. :lol:
By B0ycey
#14841546
One Degree wrote:I am sure you missed my edit.
Edit: @Heisenberg Try to understand this. If the cop was not trying to help the victim then the nurse was wrong and he was right. How does this fit with your fantasy?


Well that depends. Was alcohol involved? :lol:
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14841549
One Degree wrote:The fact that you don't think my statement makes sense, that puts the entire scenario in perspective, simply shows your unwillingness to accept the facts.

Feel free to present some evidence for your interpretation of things. You talk a lot about "the facts", but are curiously unwilling to present them in any of your posts. Where in the Fourth Amendment is the disclaimer "none of the foregoing shall apply if an officer of the state wishes to help"?

One Degree wrote:Why is he the scapegoat instead of the lieutenant who told him to arrest her? Because he was on video. Why have you not even mentioned the lieutenant?

What are you talking about? I have mentioned him. Here's what I said regarding the lieutenant, since apparently going back two pages is too much effort for you.

Heisenberg, in this very thread wrote:Fire the pair of them.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841551
B0ycey wrote:Well that depends. Was alcohol involved? :lol:


As far as I know the blood tests, which were actually taken, have not been reported in the media. Such facts are not important to a media that thrives on your unreasonable emotional reactions. They just want you outraged.
By B0ycey
#14841555
One Degree wrote:As far as I know the blood tests, which were actually taken, have not been reported in the media. Such facts are not important to a media that thrives on your unreasonable emotional reactions. They just want you outraged.


It might not be important to the media, it would be important with the implied consent law that you claim was the cause for confusion.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841556
@Heisenberg

The facts are all over the news. All you have to do is read them, and understand them. It is not even a point of disagreement except with some posters who refuse to accept reality. It is common knowledge now that the legal issue revolves around the cop saying the victim was not guilty of anything. You asking me to post what has been said repeatedly in the news is a pointless waste of my time. If you did not understand it then, my repeating it won't help.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841557
B0ycey wrote:It might not be important to the media, it would be important with the implied consent law that you claim was the cause for confusion.


No, it would not.
By B0ycey
#14841560
One Degree wrote:No, it would not.


I assume your crystallized intelligence covers the law that I have researched and read? Thanks for providing that link that proved me right by the way! :lol:
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14841570
One Degree wrote:The facts are all over the news. All you have to do is read them, and understand them. It is not even a point of disagreement except with some posters who refuse to accept reality. It is common knowledge now that the legal issue revolves around the cop saying the victim was not guilty of anything. You asking me to post what has been said repeatedly in the news is a pointless waste of my time. If you did not understand it then, my repeating it won't help.

It's apparently not common knowledge, because it is impossible to find any "legal opinion" saying that the Fourth Amendment is not applicable when the officer wants to help. If you could be so kind as to present some evidence for this "common knowledge", I'll be very grateful.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841573
B0ycey wrote:I assume your crystallized intelligence covers the law that I have researched and read? Thanks for providing that link that proved me right by the way! :lol:


I am sorry you still do not understand the law. The results of the blood tests have nothing to do with implied consent that allows the blood test. The results are irrelevant.
By B0ycey
#14841576
One Degree wrote:I am sorry you still do not understand the law. The results of the blood tests have nothing to do with implied consent that allows the blood test. The results are irrelevant.


Without the victim being a suspect in a drink/drug driving offense, the police officer would require a warrant to have the blood sample. This would be true whether the officer wanted to help or not. Your crystallized intelligence seems to make you fail to take this in it seems. :lol:
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14841584
The hospital took blood samples because this is routine practice in medical care. I am sure that One Degree is aware that medical care is not the same thing as a police search, and that nurses and doctors do not require search warrants in order to treat a patient. So this whole line of argument is irrelevant and pointless.

It is also worth mentioning that the "implied consent" law did not apply in this case, and it is not for some "nuanced" reason - it is quite clear why. The victim was not under arrest. This is, again, cut and dry. "They were trying to prove he was not under the influence" is a tortured way of saying they did not have probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence, trying to make it sound more complicated than it was. :roll:
User avatar
By One Degree
#14841588
B0ycey wrote:Without the victim being a suspect in a drink/drug driving offense, the police officer would require a warrant to have the blood sample. This would be true whether the officer wanted to help or not. Your crystallized intelligence seems to make you fail to take this in it seems. :lol:


Almost, having a driver's license requires that you do not drive under the influence of anything. But, you do not have to be under the influence for the implied consent to be valid. Your argument is the results matter and they don't. We also have 'presumed innocence' so it makes no sense a person would have to be guilty to justify implied consent. The accident itself was enough except the cop said he had no reason to expect guilt. If he had not said this, then he was entitled to the blood sample. The results have no relevance.

Edit: I see from @Heisenberg 's latest post that he does understand this but for some reason still does not understand my argument. :?:
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14841591
One Degree wrote:We also have 'presumed innocence' so it makes no sense a person would have to be guilty to justify implied consent. The accident itself was enough except the cop said he had no reason to expect guilt. If he had not said this, then he was entitled to the blood sample.

No. The patient would have to be under arrest for implied consent law to apply - hence the hospital's policy. Saying he had "no reason to expect guilt" means that he did not have probable cause, which is a major point in police searches. If you openly admit you do not have probable cause, then you are not entitled to make a search. It's pretty clear, and once again, the nurse was in the right.

There is also the question of how forcibly searching someone they believed to be an innocent victim is in any way conducive to a criminal investigation, since it makes the police officer sound like a total moron.

I understand your argument perfectly, One Degree, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far, because it relies on the assumption that there is some horrible grey area between a police officer having probable cause and not having probable cause, even when the officer has repeatedly said he does not have probable cause. :lol:
By B0ycey
#14841593
One Degree wrote:Almost, having a driver's license requires that you do not drive under the influence of anything. But, you do not have to be under the influence for the implied consent to be valid. Your argument is the results matter and they don't. We also have 'presumed innocence' so it makes no sense a person would have to be guilty to justify implied consent. The accident itself was enough except the cop said he had no reason to expect guilt. If he had not said this, then he was entitled to the blood sample. The results have no relevance.

Edit: I see from @Heisenberg 's latest post that he does understand this but for some reason still does not understand my argument. :?:


We have been here before. For a start, a driving licence is completely irrelevant in 'implied consent'. Second, the victim could be guilty and the officer would still need a warrant for a blood sample. The only exception is if he was a suspect in a drink/drug driving offence.

And I have not mentioned the results of the tests once, so how have you reached that conclusion that is my argument? Still struggling to understand written English I see.
The Evolution Fraud

You should not need my help, since you are an ele[…]

@Verv , yes, most of that post is formatted as i[…]

The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record[…]

The Outrage Exchange

Also, I'm actually in Hong Kong and while I've av[…]