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

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

And here it's usually me who is the cynic.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Spider879
Here is the reality about such cases, stop making excuses when they do similar things in other communities, for that's where they typically honned their brutality and it never stops there.

The departments are now going to have to spend more money on PR especially with this and the cop caught on camera telling the lady in the car that shes safe cops only kill black people.

May just be cheaper to weed out the dickheads before they land them in the news.

You would think that'd be the case, had he shot her, regardless of what we saw, there is a good chance he would have walked, all he had to say he somehow feared for his life and a certain % of the population would believe him

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

And here it's usually me who is the cynic.

The world is a strange and fickle place, I have more faith in people in general of all religions than I do with people who gravitate to positions of authority. In saying that I like dogs far more than I like people.

a reply to: dreamingawake
She was right - he was wrong. Fess up - and then admit you only took the job because it let you be a bully.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Spider879
Here is the reality about such cases, stop making excuses when they do similar things in other communities, for that's where they typically honned their brutality and it never stops there.

The departments are now going to have to spend more money on PR especially with this and the cop caught on camera telling the lady in the car that shes safe cops only kill black people.

May just be cheaper to weed out the dickheads before they land them in the news.

You would think that'd be the case, had he shot her, regardless of what we saw, there is a good chance he would have walked, all he had to say he somehow feared for his life and a certain % of the population would believe him

Absolutely, that's all that a cop needs to put into a report.

This is my personal experience of course, but when I was teenager I saw one of my mates get bashed by a cop, I went home and told my father and he outright dismissed it, and lectured me about how police officers simply do not act in this way....bless his departed soul , but that is what his life experience had taught him.

Mostly, it is those sort of people who want to be cops in the first place.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

And here it's usually me who is the cynic.

The world is a strange and fickle place, I have more faith in people in general of all religions than I do with people who gravitate to positions of authority. In saying that I like dogs far more than I like people.

I happen to completely agree with you

I could not understand the last words before that cop exploded, can somebody understand them?

originally posted by: EveStreet
a reply to: dreamingawake
She was right - he was wrong. Fess up - and then admit you only took the job because it let you be a bully.

They were both right. And that's the problem.

The nurse was right, because she had been trained on the rules, and was following them, even calling the hospital administrator on the phone to confirm her interpretation of the rules was correct, right there in front officer Payne.

Officer Payne was right, since he also called his supervisor Lt. James Tracy, who instructed him "to get that blood or arrest that nurse" and that's exactly what he did.

Both nurse Wubbels and arresting Officer Payne were doing exactly what they were told to do by their own supervisors.

All that is captured on that film is the end result of the "system" that pits the front line soldiers against each other, in a battle to get their own jobs done.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: EveStreet
a reply to: dreamingawake
She was right - he was wrong. Fess up - and then admit you only took the job because it let you be a bully.

They were both right. And that's the problem.

The nurse was right, because she had been trained on the rules, and was following them, even calling the hospital administrator on the phone to confirm her interpretation of the rules was correct, right there in front officer Payne.

Officer Payne was right, since he also called his supervisor Lt. James Tracy, who instructed him "to get that blood or arrest that nurse" and that's exactly what he did.

Both nurse Wubbels and arresting Officer Payne were doing exactly what they were told to do by their own supervisors.

All that is captured on that film is the end result of the "system" that pits the front line soldiers against each other, in a battle to get their own jobs done.

Except the cop was given an order that was against the policy that they had agreed to with the hospital as well as literally unlawful, while the nurse was within the law and within that agreed upon policy.

So, if we want to hand responsibility over to the supervisors, the hospital supervisor was correct and the nurse was correct in following those orders, while the police supervisor was incorrect and the cop was incorrect in following those orders, he should have backed down and taken that supervisor to task for asking him to do something that was wrong. A pain in the ass to be sure, but ethically and legally the right response.

This isn't a One Policy Pitted Against Another issue. Law enforcement was not following policy and procedure and they were breaking the law.

originally posted by: redhorse
cop was incorrect in following those orders, he should have backed down and taken that supervisor to task for asking him to do something that was wrong. A pain in the ass to be sure, but ethically and legally the right response.

Well, I don't know what planet you're living on. But, here on earth, soldiers and policemen do as they are told by higher ups.

They don't have the option to say "I think this order is wrong, so I'm not doing it."

As men, they can disobey, of course, and face the consequences of disobeying a direct order.

But, the situation looks entirely different when they disobey, and so didn't perform the action demanded by their superior, and we don't get to see a video clip of the outcome, to all jump on the side of the officer disrespecting his boss. He just gets disciplined without any of us hearing a thing.

His neck is on the line.

Better to do as the boss says, and let things play out accordingly.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: redhorse
cop was incorrect in following those orders, he should have backed down and taken that supervisor to task for asking him to do something that was wrong. A pain in the ass to be sure, but ethically and legally the right response.

Well, I don't know what planet you're living on. But, here on earth, soldiers and policemen do as they are told by higher ups.

They don't have the option to say "I think this order is wrong, so I'm not doing it."

I'm so glad that you made the correlation between soldiers and the police, because when it comes to soldiers not only should they say "I'm not doing it" they have an legal obligation to say "I'm not doing it".

These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it.

Link

You are incorrect and I hope that you are not a U.S. soldier because you clearly do not understand your legal obligations in those situations.

originally posted by: redhorse

You are incorrect and I hope that you are not a U.S. soldier because you clearly do not understand your legal obligations in those situations.

The problem here is that "interpretation of law" is a subject for "debate." We have courts, lawyers and judges, who spend decades of their lives studying the law so that they can have the "authoritative interpretation" of what it means in any given "context."

When you're an "enforcer" you don't have the luxury of engaging in debate with your superiors over the interpretation of law, nor whether it applies in this particular situation.

You do as you're told, or you're disciplined.

That's why Officer Payne told the nurse "You're preventing me from doing my job." Because he was given "an order".

He was also given another part of that order which demanded he "arrest the nurse".

He did as he was told. Trusting, that his superior knew what was the right thing to do in this circumstance, without "second guessing" his superiors.

I've noticed something disturbing... when it comes to incidents involving police officers, 95% of the time, I tend to only go against the police when the victim is white.

Is this indicative of personal bias on my part, or is there something bigger going on?

The underlying issue is the circumstances involving the unconscious driver. He was driving a Semi, which places him under a different set of guidelines than other drivers. The Hospital policy doesnt trump state or federal law or scotus rulings, which scotus just recently ruled on 3 different state cases involving implied consent laws and blood draws.

First the Hospital drafted a new policy. The Police d3epartment agreed to bring their blood draw policy in line with the Hospitals.

Second is the unconscious driver. He was involved in a motor vehicle accident (not caused by him). Under implied consent laws a blood sample can be taken without a warrant (it falls under an exception created by scotus in its ruling (N. Dakota). Secondly the driver is governed by Federal commercial motor carrier laws. That includes the number of hours they can legally operate in a day, the requirement to keep a log book, they must have a commercial drivers license and a medical certification card issued by the ME from his county of residence. They also have reduced threshold when it comes to law enforcement contact. Their trucks can be required to stop at checkpoints for weight / load verification in addition to safety inspections. they can also be stopped with reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The drink drive limit is reduced from .08 to .04 as well to be considered legally intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle.

The supreme court rulings that knocked down blood draws from implied consent all dealt with conscious patients. The court ruled breath tests are non invasive and therefore are legit. A blood draw on the other hand is invasive so new restrictions were put in place. That means if a blood draw is to occur the person must give consent or the officer must have a warrant.

The court left exceptions in place (exigent circumstances / certain cases where the person in question is unconscious).

The nurse was arrested because she was the one in charge of that particular unit on that day and was the representative of the Hospital who told the officer what he must have in order to get the blood. This is not the first time medical staff thought they were immune from arrest or thinking a policy overrides state / federal laws or court rulings and it wont be the last.

Medical staff can tell law enforcement no to certain actions but the patients life would have to be in immediate danger. It would need to be a situation where the action would place the patients life in immediate danger.

As for a Lt. ordering him to arrest if they dont give blood tells me something else was going on, possibly something the media is unaware of. Generally speaking we dont go out of our way to arrest medical staff, even if they are completely and totally wrong. I get the impression the PD (or the Lt. in question) has had issues with the Hospital in question in the past on similar topics.

for those unaware the detective in question is now on paid administrative leave pending the investigation. The PA for the county also initiated a criminal investigation into what occurred (focused on the officer according to media reports).

a reply to: WUNK22

Yeah once those supposed good cops start intervening to stop the bad ones then you'll have a point, until then, they're ALL bad.

Jaden

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: redhorse

You are incorrect and I hope that you are not a U.S. soldier because you clearly do not understand your legal obligations in those situations.

The problem here is that "interpretation of law" is a subject for "debate." We have courts, lawyers and judges, who spend decades of their lives studying the law so that they can have the "authoritative interpretation" of what it means in any given "context."

When you're an "enforcer" you don't have the luxury of engaging in debate with your superiors over the interpretation of law, nor whether it applies in this particular situation.

You do as you're told, or you're disciplined.

That's why Officer Payne told the nurse "You're preventing me from doing my job." Because he was given "an order".

He was also given another part of that order which demanded he "arrest the nurse".

He did as he was told. Trusting, that his superior knew what was the right thing to do in this circumstance, without "second guessing" his superiors.

Even when the nurse had clearly spelled out that it was against the policy that the hospital and the police had agreed upon. He KNEW he was being asked to do something that was against policy. Yes, he was accountable for his own actions at that point and should have stopped and taken it back to his superior, and if that didn't work, gone up his chain of command because his superior was wrong. Not to mention, once more, IT. IS. AGAINST. THE. LAW! "Just following orders" doesn't cut it in the military or in law enforcement. There was a professional and broader social precedent set during the Nuremberg Trials. Look into it.

You are wrong. You can double down all you want to but it doesn't change the fact that he had an obligation to question that order. I understand the man was in a difficult situation, but so was the nurse, and she stuck to her guns with more courage and tenacity than that spineless, bully cop. She was right legally, in terms of policy and ethically, he was wrong on all three counts. No excuses.

a reply to: redhorse
a reply to: AMPTAH

It is correct that law enforcement can (and has an obligation) to refuse to comply with unlawful commands. However there is a legal term called "acting in good faith". In short it means if the officer taking an action, based on information provided by another officer and who reasonably believes the actions / orders to be lawful, has a degree of protection in the legal system.

a reply to: Bone75

Does your opinion change if the officer is black?

Jaden

originally posted by: Bone75
I've noticed something disturbing... when it comes to incidents involving police officers, 95% of the time, I tend to only go against the police when the victim is white.

Is this indicative of personal bias on my part, or is there something bigger going on?

Yes, but in this case, not only was the victim "white", she was a "nurse", someone who has dedicated their entire life selflessly helping others, saving lives, comforting the sick, doing all things "noble" in our eyes, while the cop was just thinking of "himself" and the consequences he would face if he didn't carry out his boss' order right there and then.