It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nurse forcibly arrested for not allowing cop to draw blood of unconscious patient(Video)

page: 33
125
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

An unconscious person does not have to be under arrest in order for a blood draw to occur in the state of Utah. There are laws and legal reasons for the blood draw and they have been explained.

The pursuit was within policy and Utah state law so immunity protections would apply. All the suspect had to do was pull over. He opted to flee and then from the looks of the in car dash cam footage he committed suicide by purposely aiming for the semi.




posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I think the "Medical professionals had it under control" idea is spot on. A modern medical facility receiving a burn victim would run a tox screen immediately because of interaction risk. Any obvious intoxicant in the victims system would be noted and placed on the victims medical record which can be accessed with a warrant.

It does begin to beg the question as to the reasoning. There had to be some, unless it was a mass authority trip.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah, that's what Title 49 is. And there is no damned way it had anything to do with whether or not the detective was in the right to demand a blood sample.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

And an unconscious person who is not suspected of driving under the influence cannot have their blood drawn without consent. You don't need to be under arrest, he just needs a reason to believe that he was driving under the influence, which has yet to be provided at all.

edit on 3-9-2017 by OrdoAdChao because: added stuff



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: Xcathdra

And an unconscious person who is not suspected of driving under the influence cannot have their blood drawn without consent. You don't need to be under arrest, he just needs a reason to believe that he was driving under the influence, which has yet to be provided at all.


And what evidence is required to justify suspicion?"

It's all in the officer's mind.

So, if the officer has any "discretion" then he can always use that power to claim "suspicion."



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

And that's where we find the "good" or "bad" apples. Police can lie all they want, unless under oath (technically).



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



The blood draw was done.


Was it? Do you have a source that says the police did get the blood draw that the officer was demanding, after all that?
edit on 3-9-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

All the suspect had to do was pull over. He opted to flee and then from the looks of the in car dash cam footage he committed suicide by purposely aiming for the semi.

???

The detective was not demanding blood from the "suspect" that they say committed suicide. He was demanding a blood sample from an innocent "victim" in the melee.

Any excuse for the detective's demand to draw blood on this patient, that is coming from the posted laws, are without merit, as the sample had already been obtained.

Therefore there is something else going on here that many seem to be missing or trying to obfuscate.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH


In Utah, a peace officer may draw a person’s blood without a warrant if the state can show by a totality of the circumstances that both probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw.




And what evidence is required to justify suspicion?"


Here's an interesting example.


The Utah Supreme Court reasoned that the State of Utah isolated a few facts within the totality of the circumstances to the exclusion of others.  The testimony revealed that the defendant was in fact crying.  Although alcohol could have accounted for her red eyes, her crying was equally, if not more plausible, reason for her red eyes.  Similarly, testimony from the victim advocate, who was with the defendant for nearly the entire time, revealed that the defendant had only one cigarette, and that she smoked the cigarette to calm herself. These facts did not create a basis for probable cause.  Nor did these facts clearly indicate sufficient impairment to justify an intrusion into defendant’s body.  Accordingly, the State of Utah failed to demonstrate under the totality of the circumstances that probable cause existed.


www.utahduilegal.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: Xcathdra

And an unconscious person who is not suspected of driving under the influence cannot have their blood drawn without consent. You don't need to be under arrest, he just needs a reason to believe that he was driving under the influence, which has yet to be provided at all.


And what evidence is required to justify suspicion?"

It's all in the officer's mind.

So, if the officer has any "discretion" then he can always use that power to claim "suspicion."


Well the guy did manage to jump out of a truck engulfed in flames.




posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Xcathdra

All the suspect had to do was pull over. He opted to flee and then from the looks of the in car dash cam footage he committed suicide by purposely aiming for the semi.

???

The detective was not demanding blood from the "suspect" that they say committed suicide. He was demanding a blood sample from an innocent "victim" in the melee.

Any excuse for the detective's demand to draw blood on this patient, that is coming from the posted laws, are without merit, as the sample had already been obtained.

Therefore there is something else going on here that many seem to be missing or trying to obfuscate.



I've been saying this. These guys continue to go back and forth saying the EXACT SAME THINGS TO EACH OTHER for 32 pages. It's gotten weird.

The real issue is: WHY DID THIS COP NEED TO DRAW THE BLOOD HIMSELF?
edit on 3-9-2017 by KansasGirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

While the laws are being microscopically reviewed, maybe some thought needs to go to why such an insane request was made in the first place, and why it was so important to them that it was allowed to escalate to this degree.

I think the scrutiny of this incident is pointed in the wrong direction.


Yep. I said that more than once many pages back....why such an overwhelming need to get that blood to the point of unlawful arrest. I agree with you on this.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone


Yes it does.

Utahs implied consent laws apply to every driver in that state. If your from Florida and your drunk driving in Utah you are subject to their implied consent laws just as a Utah driver is.


You said it yourself in this example " If your from Florida AND YOU'RE DRUNK DRIVING" He was not and there is no PC or reasonable suspicion he was.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: Xcathdra

And an unconscious person who is not suspected of driving under the influence cannot have their blood drawn without consent. You don't need to be under arrest, he just needs a reason to believe that he was driving under the influence, which has yet to be provided at all.


And what evidence is required to justify suspicion?"

It's all in the officer's mind.

So, if the officer has any "discretion" then he can always use that power to claim "suspicion."


Well the guy did manage to jump out of a truck engulfed in flames.




Had to be the PCP!



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Or that vicious devil plant!



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I think the scrutiny of this incident is pointed in the wrong direction.


Initially I agreed with Windword. I thought the department was desperate to divert any culpability over the crash from themselves to the truck driver. But the more I read into this, the more that doesn't make sense to me.

The cops were called because 26 year old Marco Torres was driving erratically and throwing beer bottles out of his window. When they spotted him and attempted to pull him over, 10 seconds later Torres was dead and Gray was on fire. One of the cops put him out with a fire extinguisher possibly saving his life. He's a hero. Everyone involved was commended for their actions and several dashcams recorded the whole thing.

They didn't need a diversion, which begs for another motive to explain Payne's actions.

What's bothering me the most is why we don't know Marco Torres's life story by now.


edit on 4-9-2017 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

They didn't need a diversion which begs for another motive.


I read somewhere that UoU had a purported habit of saying "no" to the PD which I could see drawing their ire. It's quite possible this is simply a case where the detective thought he would be the departments messiah and save them all from the throes of the befouled caregivers by instantiating an unlawful arrest.

Also, I initially thought that there may have been some union rivalry between Idaho and Utah Police unions giving rise to a possible setup of the truck driver, but that's pretty sketchy at best.


What's bothering me the most is why we don't know Marco Torres's life story by now.



Not me. He's likely very much a nobody in all of this.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone
I think this is becoming a regular tactic.

Look at what they did to the victim in Minnesota.

She calls the police for help because she thought someone was being assaulted in the alley near her home.

She ends up dead in the street a few minutes later, and all we got was a bunch of excuses for a cop that acted inappropriately and killing an innocent woman.

They are also did an investigation of the victim, including a search of her home, private life, and medical history. Maybe in a year or two they will come to a decision, and maybe they will let the public know their decision, or maybe it will just fall off the radar, like the woman that was killed with a round of bullets with her baby in the car on Capitol Hill a few years back.

It seems that the innocent and the victims are becoming the target whenever a police officer screws up.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

I think the scrutiny of this incident is pointed in the wrong direction.


The first time I watched the police video it screamed "suicide", which is my opinion formed from a grainy dashcam video on YT. I can't say I've seen anything that convinces me otherwise. Regardless, there needs to be some kind of inquiry as to motive.


originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

What's bothering me the most is why we don't know Marco Torres's life story by now.



I am in the same boat, but with the attention on the nurse it might not be too odd. We'll hear more once the damage control squad has a good yarn.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: craig732

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Hypothetical question, Do you have a right to resist arrest in these type of scenarios?.



www.constitution.org...“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”


I hope to hell nobody reads this bullsnip you posted. The very first "quote" in that discussion is a complete and total fabrication. It appears literally nowhere in the actual case law or court opinion on the case, and everything falls apart even further after that.


Sigh... you need to do better research. You don't believe that BS website... fine... do you believe Cornell University Law School? Cornell Law School

If you don't trust them either, let me know. I will try to access the actual court case when I have access to the right computer or law library, but sometimes it is tough to post the actual decisions from cases that occurred well over 100 years ago.




top topics



 
125
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join