American cop watch

[my5cents]

Are they? Why?

The department has acknowledged they hadn't done a good job of making sure the policy was understood. All of this was in the news story.

I don't get why anyone thinks someone must be made scapegoat here. These people all have to work together, and it's incumbent upon them to have a good working relationship. They get that, and it is what they're working toward, learning from problems like the one that arose here.

Isn't it bad enough for folk here that they've already been put through the wringer, dealing with the innocent victim of a dreadful accident? Why do members of the public feel someone must not have been acting in good faith, or with the best of intentions toward the victim?

And why do members of the public feel someone must be made to pay a severe consequence for what seems to have been largely a misunderstanding badly handled while under stress?

This, to me, is the crux of this kind of crusade. Dig a little, and it's more about exacting a pound of flesh, vengeance, etc. than it is about making the world a better place.

As I said the memo of understanding has little to do with the false arrest, in that trained police officers should know when they have the right to arrest, little lone demand the blood.

I wouldn't term the officer and his lieutenant scape goats, they are the ones responsible, if you accept that the memo isn't the document by which they should be determining powers of arrest and grounds for demanding evidence.

Unfortunately their efforts to assist one victim actually victimized another, who's only offence was doing her job.

With great power (the power of arresting someone) comes an equal responsibility.

Obviously there was an unusual circumstance and a disagreement. The need to arrest the nurse is questionable even if she was doing something wrong. She wasn't going to escape, he knew who she was and where to find her, he was just angry at her for not complying with his unlawful order.

As for me wanting a pound of flesh, I'm just commenting on what I think will happen.

Maybe you would be more forgiving if it was your wife that was being illegally arrested and dragged off.

[rustled]

Are they? Why?

The department has acknowledged they hadn't done a good job of making sure the policy was understood. All of this was in the news story.

I don't get why anyone thinks someone must be made scapegoat here. These people all have to work together, and it's incumbent upon them to have a good working relationship. They get that, and it is what they're working toward, learning from problems like the one that arose here.

Isn't it bad enough for folk here that they've already been put through the wringer, dealing with the innocent victim of a dreadful accident? Why do members of the public feel someone must not have been acting in good faith, or with the best of intentions toward the victim?

And why do members of the public feel someone must be made to pay a severe consequence for what seems to have been largely a misunderstanding badly handled while under stress?

This, to me, is the crux of this kind of crusade. Dig a little, and it's more about exacting a pound of flesh, vengeance, etc. than it is about making the world a better place.

As I said the memo of understanding has little to do with the false arrest, in that trained police officers should know when they have the right to arrest, little lone demand the blood.

I wouldn't term the officer and his lieutenant scape goats, they are the ones responsible, if you accept that the memo isn't the document by which they should be determining powers of arrest and grounds for demanding evidence.

Unfortunately their efforts to assist one victim actually victimized another, who's only offence was doing her job.

With great power (the power of arresting someone) comes an equal responsibility.

Obviously there was an unusual circumstance and a disagreement. The need to arrest the nurse is questionable even if she was doing something wrong. She wasn't going to escape, he knew who she was and where to find her, he was just angry at her for not complying with his unlawful order.

As for me wanting a pound of flesh, I'm just commenting on what I think will happen.

Maybe you would be more forgiving if it was your wife that was being illegally arrested and dragged off.

I still cannot understand why you think Payne or his lieutenant could lose their jobs over this.

Well, given that neither of us was there to see how things escalated when one person was trying his best to do the job he was ordered to do while another was doing her best to do hers, we shall have to agree we see the situation differently from one another. Suffice it to say, I find there's a great deal of vengeful expectation in how this story has been shared.

Incidentally, I'd be very surprised if my wife was the nurse. So would my husband.

[my5cents]

I still cannot understand why you think Payne or his lieutenant could lose their jobs over this.

Well, given that neither of us was there to see how things escalated when one person was trying his best to do the job he was ordered to do while another was doing her best to do hers, we shall have to agree we see the situation differently from one another. Suffice it to say, I find there's a great deal of vengeful expectation in how this story has been shared.

Incidentally, I'd be very surprised if my wife was the nurse. So would my husband.

Well you're husband could be a nurse, of course, maybe genders should be reflected in our handles, or perhaps our text should be colour coded.

I'm not rooting for them to lose their jobs, and have no vengeance towards them. The nature of the order from the lieutenant who really should have known the law was very unexceptable. I can only speak from a Canadian perspective,,, the nature of the action of the officer is also REALLY out of line and not something that would be expected.

WHY man handle the nurse ?

There were 3 criteria, the nurse pointed out that the truck driver didn't fall under any of the three. Any trained police officer should know the parameters of search and seizure.

[dogspoiler]

Cops used to be called "pigs" . This one would have to improve a lot to earn that label.

[rustled]

I still cannot understand why you think Payne or his lieutenant could lose their jobs over this.

Well, given that neither of us was there to see how things escalated when one person was trying his best to do the job he was ordered to do while another was doing her best to do hers, we shall have to agree we see the situation differently from one another. Suffice it to say, I find there's a great deal of vengeful expectation in how this story has been shared.

Incidentally, I'd be very surprised if my wife was the nurse. So would my husband.

Well you're husband could be a nurse, of course, maybe genders should be reflected in our handles, or perhaps our text should be colour coded.

I'm not rooting for them to lose their jobs, and have no vengeance towards them. The nature of the order from the lieutenant who really should have known the law was very unexceptable. I can only speak from a Canadian perspective,,, the nature of the action of the officer is also REALLY out of line and not something that would be expected.

WHY man handle the nurse ?

There were 3 criteria, the nurse pointed out that the truck driver didn't fall under any of the three. Any trained police officer should know the parameters of search and seizure.

Sure, my husband could be a nurse. But he still would be surprised to discover he's my wife.

Okay, we'll stay dead serious here.

It's pretty clear folk would rather believe what they already believe than bother to read the news story. There's this:

The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies in line with the guidance Wubbels was following in the July 26 incident.

Why manhandle the nurse? Well, reading beyond what it takes to confirm an expectation of "bad cop!" and nothing more, we find this: he'd been on the phone with his boss for half an hour, trying to get it sorted, and his boss told him if the nurse was still getting in the way he should arrest her. She knew that's what he'd been told. And according to her, she was dragged away screaming.

Does her job require that she goes that far to enforce policy and make police officers follow the law? I don't know. I know she was in a really difficult place. And I know that nothing we can see from where we sit excuses the cop from acting on his supervisor's orders, instead of saying "ok, sure ma'am, I'll just stand down and explain it to my boss later". Not with hindsight. Not from behind our computer screens.

But it just doesn't seem as cut and dried as y'all are making it out to be.

[Smurf]

Off the top of my head I would think there could be huge repercussions for both the nurse and the hospital if she took a blood sample illegally. I'm sure she was thinking about that when refusing. Not knowing local laws etc. I/we have a hard time trying to say what should or should not have happened.

[rustled]

Off the top of my head I would think there could be huge repercussions for both the nurse and the hospital if she took a blood sample illegally. I'm sure she was thinking about that when refusing. Not knowing local laws etc. I/we have a hard time trying to say what should or should not have happened.

Absolutely. Repercussions for the nurse for not following orders, repercussions for the officer for not following orders.

IMO, there is a reason it is easy for people to understand and sympathize with one of them standing their ground under stress, and surprisingly easy to "convict" the other. There's a reason for not bothering to read beyond the headline before commenting. And there's a reason for going on social media to stir up expectations of repercussions without ever showing any real interest in knowing the full story.

As I said, not all crusades are good crusades, and not every effort to "make sure the public knows" is actually about making the world a better place.

[Rider59]

i dont need no lectures from cop apoligists. you want to ignore the facts then so be it . this problem of cops g9kne rogue wont end until people like you face up to it . if you dnt like a thread dont look at itc. simple.

How would you feel if someone stated a threaded that highlighted every time a native was arrested and convicted? you want to ignore the facts then so be it

Because, if you dnt like a thread dont look at itc. simple.

BTW, when are you going to learn how to type, spell, capitalize and punctuate? Your post might(?) make more sense.

[my5cents]

Why manhandle the nurse? Well, reading beyond what it takes to confirm an expectation of "bad cop!" and nothing more, we find this: he'd been on the phone with his boss for half an hour, trying to get it sorted, and his boss told him if the nurse was still getting in the way he should arrest her. She knew that's what he'd been told. And according to her, she was dragged away screaming.

Does her job require that she goes that far to enforce policy and make police officers follow the law? I don't know. I know she was in a really difficult place. And I know that nothing we can see from where we sit excuses the cop from acting on his supervisor's orders, instead of saying "ok, sure ma'am, I'll just stand down and explain it to my boss later". Not with hindsight. Not from behind our computer screens.

But it just doesn't seem as cut and dried as y'all are making it out to be.

I still go back to "why manhandle/arrest the nurse ?"

Police officers are trained to analyse situations. What are my grounds ? What evidence do I have ? What evidence do I need to further my investigation ? How can I obtain that evidence ? Am I gathering the evidence legally ?

On CNN today, the nurse and her lawyer were interviewed, another piece of information came to light. "Probable Cause" and "Implied Consent". In Utah, IF an officer has "probable cause" to believe a driver is intoxicate, there is "implied consent" to the obtaining of a blood sample.

In this case, however, even that doesn't help the police because they had no probable cause, they had no information that the truck driver had consumed anything. (the police have conceded that)

Not "according to her" we have the police officers body camera showing him dragging her off screaming.

"Does her job require that she goes that far to enforce policy and make police officers follow the law ?"

You've got that a little mixed up. The nurse is not enforcing anything, she is just refusing to disobey policy (and apparently the law). She not "making" the police officer follow the law, she is just not being complicit with him in breaking the law and hospital policy.

So having wrestled the nurse into the police car in hand cuffs, what is the next step ? Approach the next nurse in line and threaten him or her with arrest unless he/she complies ?

Lets say that was you and you are unconscious in the hospital and a cop demands that a nurse take blood from you, and if you had been awake you would have refused. The nurse takes the blood and gives it to the cop, how would you feel towards the nurse and the hospital. They had a duty of care towards you, considering that you were incapacitated and disobeyed, in the least their policy.

It's very common for someone faced with a demand for, lets say, a search, to ask the police for their authorization. If a warrant is required, the police are required to produce the warrant. That's really all the nurse was doing.

If the police had the grounds to obtain the blood, why not get the warrant as required ?

The three circumstances that would have allowed the police to obtain the blood, were :

- Under arrest - No
- Warrant - No
- Consent - No

I'm still wondering how the Lieutenant got to that rank. For that matter the police officer was a detective, also a rank above patrolman, indicating he had some degree of experience.

[rustled]

Why manhandle the nurse? Well, reading beyond what it takes to confirm an expectation of "bad cop!" and nothing more, we find this: he'd been on the phone with his boss for half an hour, trying to get it sorted, and his boss told him if the nurse was still getting in the way he should arrest her. She knew that's what he'd been told. And according to her, she was dragged away screaming.

Does her job require that she goes that far to enforce policy and make police officers follow the law? I don't know. I know she was in a really difficult place. And I know that nothing we can see from where we sit excuses the cop from acting on his supervisor's orders, instead of saying "ok, sure ma'am, I'll just stand down and explain it to my boss later". Not with hindsight. Not from behind our computer screens.

But it just doesn't seem as cut and dried as y'all are making it out to be.

I still go back to "why manhandle/arrest the nurse ?"

Police officers are trained to analyse situations. What are my grounds ? What evidence do I have ? What evidence do I need to further my investigation ? How can I obtain that evidence ? Am I gathering the evidence legally ?

On CNN today, the nurse and her lawyer were interviewed, another piece of information came to light. "Probable Cause" and "Implied Consent". In Utah, IF an officer has "probable cause" to believe a driver is intoxicate, there is "implied consent" to the obtaining of a blood sample.

In this case, however, even that doesn't help the police because they had no probable cause, they had no information that the truck driver had consumed anything. (the police have conceded that)

Not "according to her" we have the police officers body camera showing him dragging her off screaming.

"Does her job require that she goes that far to enforce policy and make police officers follow the law ?"

You've got that a little mixed up. The nurse is not enforcing anything, she is just refusing to disobey policy (and apparently the law). She not "making" the police officer follow the law, she is just not being complicit with him in breaking the law and hospital policy.

So having wrestled the nurse into the police car in hand cuffs, what is the next step ? Approach the next nurse in line and threaten him or her with arrest unless he/she complies ?

Lets say that was you and you are unconscious in the hospital and a cop demands that a nurse take blood from you, and if you had been awake you would have refused. The nurse takes the blood and gives it to the cop, how would you feel towards the nurse and the hospital. They had a duty of care towards you, considering that you were incapacitated and disobeyed, in the least their policy.

It's very common for someone faced with a demand for, lets say, a search, to ask the police for their authorization. If a warrant is required, the police are required to produce the warrant. That's really all the nurse was doing.

If the police had the grounds to obtain the blood, why not get the warrant as required ?

The three circumstances that would have allowed the police to obtain the blood, were :

- Under arrest - No
- Warrant - No
- Consent - No

I'm still wondering how the Lieutenant got to that rank. For that matter the police officer was a detective, also a rank above patrolman, indicating he had some degree of experience.

You keep proving my point.

A Utah nurse said she was scared to death when a police officer handcuffed and dragged her screaming from a hospital after she refused to allow blood to be drawn from an unconscious patient.

My bold= from the very first line in the news story. She said.

If I'm the unconscious innocent victim of a dreadful accident, and an officer believes he's doing something to protect me, I'm not sure I'll see than any differently than the nurse trying to protect me. But hey, that's all speculation, isn't it?

IMO, your perception bias is completely clouding your ability to process the news story, just as the OP's does each and every time she comes across something like this.

Which is why you keep presenting all these extraneous facts about insurance and policy and search and seizure law and who had to have known/been/trained in/been aware of what, and coming up with all these "what if" scenarios.

IMO, if you don't care enough about what actually happened to read and process the news story, 'nuff said.

[maryjane48]

How would you feel if someone stated a threaded that highlighted every time a native was arrested and convicted? you want to ignore the facts then so be it

Because, if you dnt like a thread dont look at itc. simple.

BTW, when are you going to learn how to type, spell, capitalize and punctuate? Your post might(?) make more sense.

you mean like the indian act ? or residential schools ? or flooding their land for profits ? go a head we have freedom of speech in canada . every one these posts has been in main stream news . you going to protest them writing news storys?

[my5cents]

If I'm the unconscious innocent victim of a dreadful accident, and an officer believes he's doing something to protect me, I'm not sure I'll see than any differently than the nurse trying to protect me. But hey, that's all speculation, isn't it?

IMO, your perception bias is completely clouding your ability to process the news story, just as the OP's does each and every time she comes across something like this.

Which is why you keep presenting all these extraneous facts about insurance and policy and search and seizure law and who had to have known/been/trained in/been aware of what, and coming up with all these "what if" scenarios.

IMO, if you don't care enough about what actually happened to read and process the news story, 'nuff said.

The officer's belief that he is doing something to protect you has no bearing in law.

The law is what is in place to protect you.

The entire incident can be and has, been summarized into a finite number of facts, non of which support the hospital supplying the police with blood.

The only bias I have is against uninformed, improperly trained law enforcement.

"Which is why you keep presenting all these extraneous facts about insurance and policy and search and seizure law and who had to have known/been/trained in/been aware of what, and coming up with all these "what if" scenarios."

??????? You brought up the subject of "professional driver", THE REASON, especially in the US that they are targets is BECAUSE of the insurance carried on vehicles (trucks) driven by professional drivers.

"by rustled 02 Sep 2017 11:44
As I understand it, the unconscious patient was a professional driver, working when the accident happened. A friend who is a professional driver was involved in a terrible accident where there was loss of life. He realized well after the fact he should have insisted on being tested, because of how often professional drivers are accused of causing the accident, no matter what the circumstances. Perhaps that's what Payne and his lieutenant were thinking of. It would seem that way to me:"

"Policy", was what the nurse was reading and pointing out to the cop

"Search and Seizure Law", is what this is all about. "Getting the blood", is SEARCH and SEIZURE

The variable in this situation, if there is one, is that I am applying Canadian police standards and expectations to that of the USA. The average salary in the US for a police officer is just under $60,000, in Canada around $90,000.

So, perhaps I applying an expectation of a higher standard than I should, based on my 37 years in law enforcement.

[rustled]

Ah, so that's your bias. Glad it's not the same as the O.P.'s!

Well, as I said: it was all laid out in the initial story, which any unbiased person could easily process, so: 'nuf said.

[maryjane48]

http://www.theprovince.com/news/world/p ... story.html


cop now loses his medic job

[my5cents]

Noon news today....

The nurse was awarded $500,000.00 and the cop who made the false arrest was fired (I gather, now from his police job).