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: 37
126
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Because, just like the ELD mandate, we did it to ourselves. After years of truck drivers running hopped up on everything known to man, and three log books, and having a ridiculous number of accidents, the FMCSA was created. There were so many off the books companies and drivers ignoring regulations that they decided something needed to be done.




posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah. What can I say, that IS true.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth


When people enlist they are no longer their own person, but property of the US government,


An oft repeated sentiment, but not accurate. Article 108 of the UCMJ specifies that government property have a monetary value, and no value is attached to a person by the military.


unless they start what's call "Retracting Military Enlistment" which basically breaks the contract due to many factors, while many times not easy with a good attorney and the proper reasons, it can be done.


Retracting your enlistment is as simple as writing the recruiting command a letter saying you wish to retract your enlistment. It can only be done while in the delayed entry program. Once a person has left for recruit training, it's an entirely different ball game, and goes by other nomenclature. Retracting military enlistment may draw the ire of one's recruiter, but it is granted far more often than not. And it can be done for no other reason than "I don't want to anymore."



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

And now, there's major complaining about how you can't make any money running under electronic logs because they make you run totally legal and you can't get around the HOS rules.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6



An oft repeated sentiment, but not accurate. Article 108 of the UCMJ specifies that government property have a monetary value, and no value is attached to a person by the military.


There is no "slavery" in the US military, because slaves have worth! Reminds me of "Full Metal Jacket", where the boot camp sergeant informs the new recruits, "I don't care if your black, yellow or white, you're all equal, here! You're all equally worthless scrotum scum! (Or something like that)


Oh, here it is. Oh my gosh, Gunnery Sergeant says it so much better than I remembered! LOL




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



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Yep!

Can't be property if you're literally worthless.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Gotcha. I do realize the regulations drivers face are really steep. I am still questioning the legality of the blood draw in this circumstance, though.

In your experience, have you ever been privy to a case similar to this? It seems like it must be on the rare end of the scale.

I can't see how the DOT wouldn't recognize the entire situation as "exigent" and potentially waive the "as soon as is reasonable" part of the regulation when the CDL holder is at no fault and in fact an unconscious burn victim of a suicide-by-trucker scenario. I realize that the preliminary tox screen at the hospital might not show exact concentrations of drugs tested other than alcohol, which is pretty routine for any emergency center. But, there is no room for appeal, not even in this case?



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

They might be able to in this case, since fault is so blatant. I've never heard of one this extreme, no, at least not with post accident testing. Some crazy stuff in relation to drivers getting busted for things, but nothing like this. This comes across as more of an over zealous attempt at CYA on behalf of the detective.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am curious at why the hospital toxicology report from the blood drawn on admission would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the DOT, and why the DOT was not the one requesting this required information. The first blood draw would be the most relevant if alcohol or illegal drugs are the substances being looked for.

I worked from 2009 to 2014 as a hospital Case Manager, and as a Case Manager Consultant I worked at several different hospitals. I never during that time ever ran across a time where a police officer came to the hospital to draw blood on a patient.

Some businesses have a similar policy that makes it a requirement for anyone injured on the job to have a toxicology screen done on arrival to the ER. I worked with Workman's Comp and Insurance companies during that time, providing them documentation and diagnostic reports as they were required for reimbursement, and to meet the criteria for people to return to work.

In none of those cases was it necessary or requested for a police officer to come to the hospital to draw the patient's blood.

I have no argument with the requirements for employment and licensure with the DOT, my argument is that it was not necessary nor appropriate for the detective to request to draw the blood at the time of his demands. It would have been odd even if the patient was awake and in a regular hospital bed. Since the patient was in a burn unit in critical condition, not under arrest, and not under any suspicion of guilt, the demand is very strange and his actions on refusal is more than questionable.

Many insurance companies and places of employment can be very demanding and anal about their reports and documentation at the time of reimbursement, and at the time a patient is returning to work, none have shown themselves to be so callous or rigid that they would send a police officer to collect blood that may or not be used a much later date as a requirement or policy.

This had nothing to do with the DOT and their requirement for licensure. That is why I feel something else was going on here.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Still no info on Marcos Torres. No Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat that I can find. Notta. No articles, no statements from his parents or anything.

Just an obituary and a GoFundMe campaign.

Also, did anyone else notice that maneuver he did before slamming into the semi? It was pretty impressive for a drunk driver. Whoever was in that car traveling next to the semi must've gotten out and kissed the ground after crapping their pants... I would've.





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



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

It would be admissible for law enforcement purposes (just a pain if something is questioned). The problem was the detective was never told the blood draw for the Hospital already occurred. Given the severe burns the truck driver sustained it may have been assumed a blood draw was low priority given complications with burn victims (they can easily become hypothermic / dehydrated in addition to be extremely susceptible to infections). That also might explain his urgency with the time frame of a blood draw. Once he found out the blood was taken he released the nurse and the situation ended.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Question - You made the comment you think the cops was doing what he did as a cya. What exactly would the detective be trying to cover his ass on? The pursuit was with Utah State Patrol and the Logan Police department. Logan PD was in charge of the crash scene and the Logan investigator requested Salt Lake City PD do the blood draw for them, which is common in this area (hence the reason they have a 10 man blood draw unit). That was the extent of Salt Lake City PD involvement.

Just curious.
edit on 4-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Because there is an investigation underway there might be a delay in detailed info being released by Utah highway patrol / Logan pd.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Hey look NightSkye I figured it out! Had to reply to a post for it to work! So this is a general reply not to NightSkye's post, I can't make a general reply, posts are too low.

_________

No one's mentioned the fact that by the time that officer wanted blood the victim was in an induced coma and probably on enough morphine or some other pain killer to down an elephant, so really at that point what would a blood draw show? Massive drugs on board, but that would have no relation to before the attack on him.

Add in the burn issue and yeah, seriously not needing more needles stuck in him that's going to show massive drugs in his system from treatment of his burns. Color me confused and horrified. If I was that nurse I'd sue then give the money to the poor guy if I won. If his burns are as severe as they would seem to be, having gotten out of his truck on fire and having to be extinguished, I highly doubt he's ever going to be a trucker again anyway. Or any job if they are worse.

All the regulations you guys are so focused on don't mean s**t in this situation because he may not live much less drive/work again. The nurse in my opinion with or without those protocols did the right thing for her patient, she protected him from further harm from an out of control cop and LT that were totally out of line.

I think she's a hero and those particular cops are zeros, including the ones who stood around with their fingers up their a**es watching and smiling about the whole thing. This is coming from someone who adores cops too, our cops in my area are awesome and I've personally only had one bad interaction with a cop in my 52 years and it was minor, like he was in a bad mood/kinda snarky kinda minor. But then that was a good 30+ years ago. I still love our cops here though, they are awesome!



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Lilroanie


No one's mentioned the fact that by the time that officer wanted blood the victim was in an induced coma and probably on enough morphine or some other pain killer to down an elephant, so really at that point what would a blood draw show? Massive drugs on board, but that would have no relation to before the attack on him.


A blood screen can show the presence of specific drugs. If drugs show up in a screen and they weren't administered by the hospital, then it would show the person had other drugs in their system.


All the regulations you guys are so focused on don't mean s**t in this situation because he may not live much less drive/work again. The nurse in my opinion with or without those protocols did the right thing for her patient, she protected him from further harm from an out of control cop and LT that were totally out of line.


If he was dead, DoT regulations would still require a blood draw. Unless I'm mistaken, in which case I'm sure Zaphod will correct me. His ability to ever drive a truck again is immaterial to that.

And yes, the cop that arrested her was over the line.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Lilroanie

A blood test would detect alcohol in addition to various drugs. The drugs the hospital used can be eliminated by the test, showing any remaining drugs present that were not administered by the hospital. Even if, as an example, the driver was illegally taking morphine, and was then administered morphine at the hospital, what was administered and what is present can be used to determine the presence beyond what the hospital administered.

Drugs / alcohol metabolize at different rates that are predictable.

The nurse didnt protect the patient from harm. Any action that would jeopardize the patients life can be blocked, including police actions. If patient safety were the concern she would have told the detective the medical reason for the refusal. In this case patient safety wasnt the concern but the absence of a warrant. Had the detective had a warrant she would have let him draw the blood (according only to hospital policy).

I still think they have had issues with this hospital in the past with interfering in law enforcement functions for this to have gone down the way it did. What people are missing is the entire 20 minute bodycam footage. The 2 minute clip released was done so by the nurse and her lawyer and only show the arrest. It doesnt show the previous 20 minutes where everything under the sun was attempted for a resolution with no luck.

The detective was performing a blood draw at the request of a Logan pd detective who was working the fatality accident. Blood draws are common in fatality accidents and the region uses the SLCPD blood draw unit for those purposes (in addition to dwi / dui cases).

The detective spent an hour speaking with his Lt. about what was occurring at the hospital and was finally told to arrest the nurse if she continues to interfere. That is what happened.

When the detective learned hospital staff took a blood sample the nurse was released and in his report noted that detectives can decide if they want to pursue charges against the nurse for obstruction.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   


In case this hasn't been posted.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Lilroanie
You made some good points.

The patient was in a compromised state at the time of his request. There was no sensible reason for the urgency that detective placed on drawing the patient's blood. There was no sound legal reason for the detective to further compromise the patient. The patient was not under arrest, he was not a flight risk, he was not suspected of any wrong doing. There was no need for an additional blood draw and definitely not from someone outside of the hospital.

The claim they are making that they did not know that blood had already been drawn is not just unbelievable, it is highly suspicious. It is a no brainer. Placing a line and obtaining blood work, including a toxicology, would have been the first and most important step in the treatment of a burn patient, and or a patient that is likely to experience shock.

Besides, the first thing any competent and professional person would do, is to ask what blood had already been drawn on the patient, before attempting to draw blood. Even if I have to collect additional blood or urine, I always ask what had already been done, and I always request a copy of the reports for comparison. The lab prefers it that way, it helps them with their data analysis.

In a compromised state it is insane that the detective or his superiors would think that it was of such urgency for the detective to draw the victim's blood.

It makes me think that they may have had some other plans for that blood. I can guarantee you it was not to meet some DOT criteria.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Access to the patient was not based on patient protection. Had the officer had warrant as hospital policy demands he would have been allowed to take blood. Had the patients safety been a factor the nurse would have made that argument.

She did not.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
Still no reason given for the urgency placed on the detective drawing this patient's blood.

The nurse states that the detective approached her in an angry and aggressive manner from the start.

Something is clearly being hidden.

At first I was supportive of her decision not to sue, but now I am leaning more towards the idea that maybe she should sue.

Maybe he is the one that should have had his blood drawn, it may answer more questions than is likely to come from the blood of the victim.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn


It makes me think that they may have had some other plans for that blood.


Of course you do.


I can guarantee you it was not to meet some DOT criteria.


Of course you don't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, anybody, but I don't recall the nurse informing anybody that blood work had already been done until after she'd been placed in handcuffs, no? So....if "the first thing any competent professional person would do" would be to ask, and nobody asked, then why didn't anybody mention blood work had been done?

Again, for the umpteenth time, not blaming the nurse for an arrest. Just wondering why if it's such a "no brainer" she didn't mention it until the cop had put her in his vehicle.




top topics



 
126
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join