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: 45
126
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


and there was NO exigent circumstance here. No PC . NO RS so no legal standing. Read here buddy or is the PRO POLICE website Blue lives matter anti cop also? Read the paragraph, Lawfulness of the search

bluelivesmatter.blue...




posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
That we are aware of. Hence the investigation into what occurred, what the detective was told and what his Lt. said in addition to what Logan pd said when they made the request.
edit on 4-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

When did hospitals start letting people who aren't employees do medical procedures? Where is the law on that?

As I understand the situation he had no paperwork at all---just his request to let him do a medical procedure on a critically ill patient at a hospital that isn't his employer. That nurse would have been crazy to allow that. She explained it to him in a very civil manner.

If he's an EMT he would know that the first thing the hospital did was to take blood for a toxicology screen because standard protocol for a burn victim is to give morphine IV but before they did that they would have made sure that there wasn't something in his blood that would prevent them doing it. All he needed do was get a warrant to get the results of that toxicology test. Neither the patient nor the results of test were going anywhere so his little tantrum was needless.

But go ahead and blame the nurse. She was the professional in this case. He was the unprofessional bully with a badge. You say you're not defending him, that he "could have handled it better." Seriously? You've spent dozens of pages now defending him by dragging up every regulation and law you can Google and find, even if they don't apply in this case. If another jurisdiction needed a sample of the guy's blood, as was explained, all they needed do was get a warrant since he wasn't a suspect in a crime. The tox test was well within the 8-32 hour limit required by the DOT if indeed that's what they were going for. But go ahead and blame the nurse, the person who was acting in the best interest of her patient, her hospital and her own job. The fact that she's now going on talk shows means nothing except in your twisted mind, where cops are NEVER wrong.

If you really were law enforcement you would know that as a cop you can't just walk into a hospital sans paperwork and begin demanding that medical procedures be done on your say-so. Even a doc who isn't legally associated with a hospital can't do that!

edit on 4-9-2017 by diggindirt because: spelling



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: norhoc


FACT- Implied consent only applies if there is PC or Reasonable suspicion to believe the person committed a crime, in this case they had NO PC or RS so implied consent does not apply.


FACT - in addition scotus said warrantless blood draws can occur under exigent circumstances.

You continually fail to add that important part - why?


Exigent circstances? Like a truck driver that was the victim of a police chase and a race against the clock to prove the victim a criminal in order to save the department from lawsuit?

Is that defined as Exigent?



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'd accept this argument but for one teensy little thing, in that case all the cop had to do was say "look I'm just trying to preserve this guys job if he recovers enough to go back to driving, If we don't get blood in X amount of time he will lose his CDL".

If he truly was there to help the driver he never would have been so belligerent, he would have led with that argument, and probably would have had much more cooperation. Because he was helping not doing what he really did do.

But instead he said it was for a "criminal" investigation, and acted like a creep the entire 20 minutes of video we've seen. Mocking the hospital, the nurse and who knows what the whispers I couldn't make out were, but the tone was snide as heck. Like I said before it's similar to blaming the rape victim not the rapist.

That trucker did nothing wrong and unless he had some super secret XMen power to move his truck he could not have done anything to avoid that guy. And as for the DoT thing, the blood was drawn, it was done, over, he had another motive to draw more blood by his hand as far as I can tell watching that thing. OK I'm out now, back to lurking lol. This just really upset me for some reason.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Your arguments are so weak and getting weaker with every post.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Apparently its permissible in Utah since they have a blood draw unit. In their case they are certified phlebotomists.

and yes I raised those issues because they matter in the overall picture.

A nurse and her lawyer filing a request for his body cam footage only to turn around and release just 2 minutes out of 20 minutes while making talk show rounds is suspicious.

As for your comment about paperwork your actually wrong. As I have pointed out many many times now warrantless blood draws are permissible under scotus rulings. Those exigent circumstances though are incumbent on the police and not medical staff. If something doesnt pass muster then it falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and is excluded.

But again thats law enforcement's area and not medicals.

also there is term called switching hats and its a no no in law enforcement. You act in the capacity you are serving in for liability. You take that hat off and go into another area, trained or not, you take on added liability. Not to mention some departmental policies forbid it.

Let the investigation unfold and watch what happens.
edit on 4-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   


Also under HIPPA certain information is required to be released to law enforcement during official investigations. I am going to guess you didnt know that or know what it is without having to google it.
a reply to: Xcathdra

You must have paperwork, not just your word. There's not a hospital in the country that would allow a person not employed by the hospital or under contract to the hospital to perform any sort of medical procedure or procure the results of tests on a patient without the proper paperwork. This guy didn't have it so he's in the wrong. Why you can't understand that is beyond those of us who operate on common sense and civility. All he had to do was get the needed paperwork to obtain what he was demanding. He decided instead to be a bully and abuse someone who was being a professional because he didn't like her answer.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: norhoc


FACT- Implied consent only applies if there is PC or Reasonable suspicion to believe the person committed a crime, in this case they had NO PC or RS so implied consent does not apply.


FACT - in addition scotus said warrantless blood draws can occur under exigent circumstances.

You continually fail to add that important part - why?


Exigent circstances? Like a truck driver that was the victim of a police chase and a race against the clock to prove the victim a criminal in order to save the department from lawsuit?

Is that defined as Exigent?


Determined by the officer on scene running the investigation.

Ask Logan pd or wait for the conclusion of the investigation.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lilroanie
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'd accept this argument but for one teensy little thing, in that case all the cop had to do was say "look I'm just trying to preserve this guys job if he recovers enough to go back to driving, If we don't get blood in X amount of time he will lose his CDL".


If I remember correctly he did tell medical staff that, that they were trying to protect the truck driver and his job and that he wasnt a suspect. They didnt care and made the officer wait over an hour for an administrator to call.




originally posted by: Lilroanie
If he truly was there to help the driver he never would have been so belligerent, he would have led with that argument, and probably would have had much more cooperation. Because he was helping not doing what he really did do.

But instead he said it was for a "criminal" investigation, and acted like a creep the entire 20 minutes of video we've seen. Mocking the hospital, the nurse and who knows what the whispers I couldn't make out were, but the tone was snide as heck. Like I said before it's similar to blaming the rape victim not the rapist.

Because the body metabolizes constantly and every minute that passes the more the body cleans out the system.



originally posted by: Lilroanie
That trucker did nothing wrong and unless he had some super secret XMen power to move his truck he could not have done anything to avoid that guy. And as for the DoT thing, the blood was drawn, it was done, over, he had another motive to draw more blood by his hand as far as I can tell watching that thing. OK I'm out now, back to lurking lol. This just really upset me for some reason.


and medical was told he wasnt a suspect and they were trying to protect the driver.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


Your arguments are so weak and getting weaker with every post.


i will stop calling you out sir when you stop giving partial information and half truths.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Oh I misunderstood you. In the case in Utah they are trained and certified and I assume the medical facilities in the region are aware of who can do what.

Absent a medical procedure is what I was referring to. A warrantless blood draw for instance has no paperwork for it. The nurse has to chart the situation for their side of things and we include it in our reports for our side.

Common sense and civility are fine up to the point you have a job to do and people start interfering in that job.
edit on 4-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


Funny thing is he is the only still saying this was all legit and legal. Read every law website or police website and everyone disagrees with this joker.

again if the policy he was operating under was in line with the law and the hospital's was not then why have the police changed their policy to fall in line with the hospitals?



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



LOL what a joke coming from you, I am giving fact and truth, you are the one leaving out PC and RS are needed even under your precious implied consent law, and exigent circumstance does not apply here and even you can't answer what the exigent circumstance would be when multiple people have asked you. You are certainly a hard turd to flush



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: diggindirt


Funny thing is he is the only still saying this was all legit and legal. Read every law website or police website and everyone disagrees with this joker.

again if the policy he was operating under was in line with the law and the hospital's was not then why have the police changed their policy to fall in line with the hospitals?


Now that you finally admitted the police policy was in fact different tell me what their policy says and hows it different than the hospitals?

Since you cant we would need to know what that policy said to determine if the officers actions were in line with the police policy. If his actions were within policy then the department and not the officer has problems.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

No you leave information out because it doesnt support what you are pushing.. As an example exigent circumstances and warrantless blood draws. you fixate on portions that help your position and flat out ignore the parts that dont, like exigent circumstance...

or the fact you refused to believe the pd and hospital policy were different, even after i posted the statements from the mayor and police chief stating that very fact.

As for exigent circumstance how does it not apply? We havent heard from the Logan officer who worked the scene or know what the specific request was made for.

Good to know you can answer for him though.
edit on 4-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: norhoc


FACT- Implied consent only applies if there is PC or Reasonable suspicion to believe the person committed a crime, in this case they had NO PC or RS so implied consent does not apply.


FACT - in addition scotus said warrantless blood draws can occur under exigent circumstances.

You continually fail to add that important part - why?


Exigent circstances? Like a truck driver that was the victim of a police chase and a race against the clock to prove the victim a criminal in order to save the department from lawsuit?

Is that defined as Exigent?


Determined by the officer on scene running the investigation.

Ask Logan pd or wait for the conclusion of the investigation.


Ok. How about just your opinion or experience with this. Would a risk of lawsuit against a police department be considered exigent circumstance for an "officer on scene running the investigation" ??

Does public perception and liability count as Exigent circumstance? When a PD is in trouble with potential lawsuit all gloves are off cause it's exigent?



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


And in that reply to me you just admitted that all of us saying this was illegal are right. When I said there was no PC, RS, exigent, hence no legal standing and you replied "that we are aware of" so you agree as of right now there was no legal standing. Thank You, Case Closed, Debate over, bravo on it taking 45+ pages


(post by norhoc removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=22636674]Xcathdra[/post


you accuse others of doing what you are doing, again you can't answer the exigent circumstances question because you know you are wrong here and just can't admit it, just like the meathead cop in the video



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join