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: 54
126
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




and again I want to know why if the Hospital policy has been in place for over a year why they decided just now to begin enforcing it.


Prove that the hospital has been allowing the police to forcibly, without a warrant, draw blood from someone who is not suspected of being under the influence, and who was an innocent victim in a fatal police chase.




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Prove they havent...

Articles discussing this issue have stated the blood draw unit has been used by other agencies to retrieve blood samples from people involved in fatality accidents and a normal course. If they have been ding that, and the Hospital policy has been in place for a year, then they seem to have been ok with blood draws in those situations... until now.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That's great and he shouldn't have ended it after an hour. He may have felt he needed to place the nurse under arrest but he didn't need to snap the way he did, and we both know that. I know that requires an almost incredible amount of patience, but the fact is none of us can go around assaulting people because our patience runs out. At least not to my knowledge, though I have the sinking feeling you're going to tell me different rules apply to the police. Nevertheless, I have seen some police be unfailingly polite to people far more belligerent and confused than this nurse was, and they successfully de-escalated ugly situations.

Instead of coming at her right in the middle of a phone conversation where she is holding the phone out for him to hear, he could have held up a hand and said "Nurse, I'm placing you under arrest for ...whatever charges apply...and then instructed her to hold still for cuffs or simply instruct her to go outside, as she was hardly a physical threat even when she was "freaking out".

By the way, that was a very inaccurate and patronizing assessment of her reaction to a physical threat that came out of nowhere. There was NOTHING in their interaction to that point that warranted such a physical and aggressive attack on her property or her person. So there was nothing over the top about her reaction to such an illogical and unreasonable and threatening move on his part.

The fact is, her backing away and shrieking her distress and confusion is a fight or flight instinct that is perfectly normal. So many police seem to forget in their efforts to get people to "comply" that compliance isn't a normal reaction to an attempt to dominate but fight or flight is. When we attempt to comply with a police officer who is intent on laying hands on us even legitimately, we are fighting generations of instinct to defend ourselves against domination.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SheeplFlavoredAgain

and at the time the detective was following his departments policy in addition to his Lt. order to arrest the nurse if she continued to interfere.

The police policy wasnt changed until after the incident occurred at that has to be considered when reviewing what occurred. After an hour of being delayed and getting a run around he acted. Granted, I will say again, it should have been handled differently but that doesnt change the fact he was within his departments policy at the time.

Lets see what the investigations reveal.
edit on 9-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Prove that the hospital has been allowing the police to forcibly, without a warrant, draw blood from someone who is not suspected of being under the influence, and who was an innocent victim in a fatal police chase.



Prove they havent...


First of all, You yourself have continued to claim that the nurse and the hospital have probably been doing this for some time, because the officers were so mad.

You yourself said that they must have some ongoing feud and anti-cop agenda for Payne to react so angrily and to threaten the hospital with "bad" customers.

Secondly, the onus is on you, as you're the one who made the claim that this is the first time this situation ever happened at this hospital.

Third, get your excuses straight, because you're all over the place. Maybe we need to test your blood!



Articles discussing this issue have stated the blood draw unit has been used by other agencies to retrieve blood samples from people involved in fatality accidents and a normal course.


But this wasn't normal. The cops didn't even seem to know what normal was, because neither of them knew that blood would automatically be drawn, due to the nature of the case, and that they could get the results with a warrant. But, the Kirby PD did!

Thank god the nurse what was what, and did the right thing.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

No - The nurse and her lawyer claimed the policy in question has been in force for over a year.

No - I said given my experience dealing with medical staff that it appears there is more going on than this one incident and I would like to know the history between the Hospital / Nurse and the Police.

No - I said given the reporting thus far this appears to be the only time this has occurred.

I am not giving excuses. It is not my fault you cant read let alone comprehend a person post, instead you choose to just make it up.

Normal or not it has nothing to do with what I stated. I stated this appears to be the first time medical staff has interfered in a blood draw from a mva in the year their hospital policy has been in place. What policy were they using in other fatality accidents where blood draws were accomplished?

Now, let me state this again so you understand and so you dont just make crap up again. These are all questions that should be looked at to place things into a better perspective.

Contrary to popular belief the pa stated the criminal investigation is not just looking at the officers but the entire situation. As has been stated it is illegal to resist an arrest, even if the initial arrest was unlawful. It is not the purpose of medical staff to play point-counter point with law enforcement over criminal law and that way very well bite her in the ass.

By not addressing the nurses behavior when she resisted it can send an equally dangerous message that could very well result in medical staff thinking they are immune from the law. You make your objections and if the nurse is overrode you chart it to ensure liability is on police. Especially if there is a situation that meets an exigent circumstance exception, which hospital policy does not address. In that instance Hospital policy is in violation and so are any medical personnel who follow it.

You guys want to condemn the police and leave it at that. I want the entire story to place things into proper context. It is true changes need to be made however its not limited to just the Police. Hospital policy gives way to criminal law and there is no getting around that. I was only following orders / i was following hospital policy didnt work as a valid excuse throughout history and it still wont work today.
edit on 9-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



In that instance Hospital policy is in violation and so are any medical personnel who follow it.


In THIS instance, the hospital was NOT in violation and neither were any of the personnel who followed it. In THIS instance, the blood draw was not legal or authorized under Utah law.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
You just cant seem to understand posts at all...

Even now the Hospital policy doesnt allow for exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement. In this instance the police policy being used was different than hospital policy and since you are incapable of understanding legalities let me explain it.. again. It is not the job of medical staff to play point counter point with law enforcement over criminal law.

The situation has to be reviewed in the manner it occurred and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as you and others are attempting to do - incorrectly. The detective and Lt. were following the current policy of the SLCPD and the nurse was following hers. In the event of a clash of policies, law enforcement has the authority to arrest where as medical staff does not. Law Enforcement policy will take precedence over Hospital policy.

That is not an opinion - its based on law.

Interpretation of law is settled by the courts, as we have seen in the various supreme court rulings.

Based on available info -
The detective was within policy
The Lt. was within policy
The detective and Lt. were within in the law, at the time, for the arrest.
The nurse was within hospital policy.
The nurse resisted a lawful detention, stop or arrest.
The nurse was released when more facts about the blood occurred.
The Mayor and Chief stated department policy would change after the incident.

Based on the above
I dont see the detective being found in violation of police policy.
I dont see the Lt. being found in violation of police policy.
I dont see the Detective or Lt. being found in violation of the law for the arrest.
I dont see the Detective or Lt. being found in violation of 42 USC 1983
I see the nurse being found in violation of resisting but wont face charges given the circumstances.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


There were no exigent circumstances.

The police policy was "outdated". The PD's policy was in violation of the law. The PD has since apologized to Nurse Wubbles and the hospital and updated their policy to reflect the law.

The blood draw was not legal under Utah law. It was an unlawful search demand. It's not a crime to interfere with a wrongful search, as Nurse Wubbles did.



That is not an opinion - its based on law.


Not really. Not according to your brethren over at Blue Lives Matter

bluelivesmatter.blue...
edit on 9-9-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's wonderful to know that you believe that you have the authority to arrest someone whether it's legal or not you're a piece of s***



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

And again he was using the most current policy for his police department which is very relevant.

it is in fact a crime to interfere with hat law enforcement is doing. As has been stated, and ignored by the ignorant, a person can be charged with resisting an arrest, even if the arrest is determined to be invalid. It is a completely separate charge and is like that for good reason.

Everything I provide is based on law.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's wonderful to know that you believe that you have the authority to arrest someone whether it's legal or not you're a piece of s***


Condemnation from the ignorant has no relevance. When you learn what your talking about get back to me. To correct your ignorance I said a person has no right to resist an arrest, even if its later determined the arrest was invalid.

The following is looked at when reviewing -

Police policy at the time
The fact University police were also operating off an out of date policy
The Lt.'s actions once on scene
The Mayor and Chiefs statements / actions on the policy in question

So if your done attacking me out of ignorance and want to learn ask questions.


77-7-7. Force in making arrest.
If a person is being arrested and flees or forcibly resists after being informed of the intention to make the arrest, the person arresting may use reasonable force to effect the arrest. Deadly force may be used only as provided in Section 76-2-404.



Effective 5/9/2017
76-8-305. Interference with peace officer.
(1) A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if the person knows, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another person and interferes with the arrest or detention by:
(a) use of force or any weapon;
(b) refusing to perform any act required by lawful order:
(i) necessary to effect the arrest or detention; and
(ii) made by a peace officer involved in the arrest or detention; or
(c) refusing to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention.
(2) Recording the actions of a law enforcement officer with a camera, mobile phone, or other photographic device, while the officer is performing official duties in plain view, does not by itself constitute:
(a) interference with the officer;
(b) willful resistance;
(c) disorderly conduct; or
(d) obstruction of justice.


ATS - The right to resist arrest and YOU!

The US Supreme Court, in its rulings and in state court ruling and state laws, have removed the term "lawful" arrest portion making it illegal to resist an arrest, even if its determined the arrest is unlawful.

so being called a piece of # by someone ignorant of the law means nothing and only reinforces the fact you attack what you dont understand.
edit on 9-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Obey!

Government is God!

Don`t mess with my Authorati!

Even if you are on the clock medical staff doing THEIR JOB in an emergency facility who`s profession it is to save lives of those in desperate need, of the innocent, or of the victim or guilty. Arrest their butts, who cares for those in need! certainly not these cops.




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



As has been stated, and ignored by the ignorant, a person can be charged with resisting an arrest, even if the arrest is determined to be invalid. It is a completely separate charge and is like that for good reason.


What? I never said anything about "resisting an arrest". Are you trying to say that Nurse Wubbles was resisting arrest now?

Bottom line, Officer Paynes order to Nurse Wubbles was not lawful. Her refusal to comply with his unlawful order was lawful. Her arrest was unlawful.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: gps777

Last I checked it was the responsibility of the legal system to determine right and wrong, innocence and guilt, valid action and not a valid action. Where does charge nurse fit into that process and why do you think a medical unit is a proper place to have that argument?

On the off chance you arent familiar a charge nurse is a supervising nurse, responsible for running the floor / unit and overseeing nurses while they perform patient care.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Man you have massive issues following your own post and responses to it.

Yes - she resisted arrest and i have stated it numerous times now.

A person cannot resist an arrest, regardless if the arrest was lawful or not. That determination is up to a judge and not a medical nurse.

Do I need to explain to you how this works, again, or do you understand it now?
edit on 9-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


"Resisting arrest" has never been a part of my argument nor have I brought it up in response to any of your posts or arguments, so why you want to open that up with me now is just you moving the goal posts, because you are cornered.

But, oh well......


Based on the criminal violation, and the lawfulness of the search, it is fairly certain that the arrest was unlawful.
bluelivesmatter.blue...



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

A person cannot resist an arrest, regardless if the arrest was lawful or not. That determination is up to a judge and not a medical nurse.





“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.


and



“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.


So, yeah, they can.

Had this dumbass cop never said "you're under arrest" he may have had more sturdy legs to stand on, though still very weak due to his handling (mishandling) of the nurse.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Could you post a link where the mayor and chief disputed the hospital's claim of an agreed policy. I've not seen any such remarks yet you keep repeating that.

The nurse and the administrator only knew what policy was written and they were following it. The cop was told not to bother with the sample by the requesting authority and yet he hung around for an hour harassing the hospital personnel. Why didn't he just do what he was told and avoid all this kerfuffle? He might have kept his jobs. Every police officer speaking publicly about this has condemned his actions. That doesn't happen when the law is on their side. It was not in this case. Logan PD told him to forget about it but he ignored their directive. Why? Logan PD doesn't understand why he didn't drop it and leave. They have stated as much.

Yet you've dreamed up this situation where the nurse is a cop hater with an agenda. In addition you've consistently called the nurse a liar with no evidence whatsoever. Do you actually think she made up that policy just to give the cop a bad time?

To people with normal brains it is plain who was in possession of an agenda and it wasn't the hospital or the nurse. It was the cop who continued to try to violate the victim's rights even after he'd been told that they would get what they needed another way---the legal way. They did not realize the patient was unconscious when they made the request. When they were told he couldn't give consent they backed off but the cop didn't.

To continue to defend him and say he was right to continue to attempt to get an illegal sample is just twisted since every authority involved has said otherwise.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Which is why I said you should read posts because it was a part of my post in response to your post.



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join