Police attack nurse because she called her supervisor.

defcon5
I realize that you hate cops,

Incorrect.


I'm biased against the cops. I'll give you that one. But I don't "hate" them. Not all cops.

I hate cops that abuse their authority. I hate cops that use excessive force. I hate cops who think they shouldn't have to treat people with respect and courtesy because they have a little power.

And I have all kinds of reasons to feel this way. First, the countless stories like this. And this isn't even one of the worst ones. At least in this one the cops may have been somewhat in the right, depending on exactly how she acted. But even if she was acting like a "witch" it seems like they over-reacted.

When I was growing up, I was one of those long-haired, rock-and-roll types. As such, I've had more encounters with police than I care to recall. Based, in most cases, on little more than profiling and stereotypes. ("There goes a long-haired punk... let's go search him.... bet he's got something on him...."

Then there's the officer who shot (6 times, close range) and murdered my uncle. We're talking about a decent, law-abiding dude. Father, ran a small business, and even knew most of the local cops by name. Shot repeatedly at relatively close range in a crowded public place. Conflicting police reports. Witnesses did not report seeing the "weapon" this cop claimed. And a whole bunch of other BS. And this cop was a known wild-card. A number of complaints, including from other officers. But he got off, of course, like they usually do.


So yeah, I've seen lots of bad from cops. But I've known good cops, too. Once upon a time a number of years ago I even bought a local cop lunch. The guy came into a diner where I worked, and we would talk. He seemed like a good guy, and I do appreciate the work that good cops are out there doing. So I paid his bill.

I've known cops that are friends-of-friends, or friends of the family. In fact, my aunt is a cop, and on the SWAT team.


No, I don't hate cops. I just hate a certain kind of cop, and I hate certain attitudes that seem to be common to a lot of police. Fortunately, they're not all like that. It's just scary sometimes, when it seems like I'm seeing increasingly more, and more of these stories.... I start to wonder if the number of good ones is dwindling, or if attitudes are just changing, or what. I think if this trend increases, we're in a lot of trouble, as a society.

defcon5
Not always true, look at what happened with the girl whose family and husband disagreed.

In that case, it's not whether the family has the ability to give such an order, it's who in the family overrules whom in making such a decision when no-one's got a written power of attorney.

They can if its someone that is under arrest. I don't legally know the details, but it does happen.

I will agree (and have) that a judge can order that a physician's orders be carried out despite the patient's wishes, but I don't believe a judge can order meds on his own.

Bedlam
the problem here is that the officer didn't have a judges warrant, if he did then she would have had to comply. They can force you to have a blood draw based on a judges warrant, that is how DWI roadblocks in “no refusal” states work.

Um, true, in that case they are procuring evidence, though. Not doing medical treatment. Had she drawn the blood without an order at the place my brother Billy used to work, though, the next thing the cop would have heard was "The lab discarded it because there are no labels and the person is not registered"

However, it's a nice example of 'cops can't barge into the ED and compel or deny medical treatment', as you seem to agree...

Metaphysique
one wonders what all the fuss about Miranda was all about
or why they bother reading you your rights when you're arrested

Miranda rights are your rights under police interrogation (which is different then being questioned).
They do not read your Miranda rights to you at your arrest, that is only on TV.
In many modern jails they broadcast your Miranda rights via a prerecorded message to a whole group at once.

pavil
reply to post by defcon5

 

Was it activated? Did she, get really Tazed? Didn't realize there were multiple types out.

Yes it gave her a shock, but it didn't deploy the barbed probes that most folks think of when you mention being tazed.

posted some links earlier but it was in edit not reply form like i wanted to ill re edit and post here :

www.popcenter.org... another "interesting" link that i decided to post only for this passage

2. Working with emergency hospitals. Those emergency hospitals (whether general hospitals or specialized psychiatric hospitals) to which police may take people in crisis are important elements of the mental health system. Police agencies should meet with staff of these hospitals periodically to clarify expectations, develop workable protocols, and address problems and issues. For example, it should be clear when an officer must remain at the hospital and when hospital security can take over. It should be clear whether either the police or an ambulance is responsible for transporting a patient to another facility. It should be the responsibility of police commanders and specialists to work these matters out in advance, so that patrol officers with people in crisis at 2 a.m. do not have to argue and debate with hospital staff.

seems that the last line is what failed here they didnt have a plan worked out with the hospital for when this kind of thing happens thus no one really know their obligations under the law

its a long read but they source and reference every thing they say so i felt it was relevent
few more links i found below
johnsonandbell.com... Hospitals’ Liabilities/Responsibilities When Responding to Law Enforcement’s Request for Information is what this one is about

hipaa.bsd.uchicago.edu... guidelines under hippaa for dealing with law enforcement relates to the case at hand ill post a small snippet

Procedures City, State or Federal Law Enforcement may seek access to a patient or access to patient information. Before providing access, follow these steps: 1. Verify the Identity of the Police Officer. If law enforcement appears in person, verify the officer's name, badge number or other agency identification, credentials or proof of government status. If you receive a request from a law enforcement officer or agency in writing, verify that the request is on the appropriate letterhead. 2. Identify What Law Enforcement Wants and the Purpose For the Request. Identify the reason that the police officer is requesting the information. 3. Provide Access Only as Follows -- and Only Provide the Minimum Amount of Information Necessary for the Purpose.

and this

Access to Patients General Statement: Physician approval: Access to the patient is subject to the physician's opinion that such access would not impede the patient's care. Patient approval: Upon physician approval, a healthcare provider will ask the patient whether he/she wants to speak to the police. The patient is not required to speak to police, and UCMC will respect the patient's wishes. This applies even if the patient is an alleged perpetrator of a crime. Note: Mental health, HIV/AIDS, and genetic information may not be disclosed without the written consent of the patient or his/her legal representative. Exception: If a patient wants to talk to the police but the physician believes his/her medical condition could be affected, alert the patient of the physician's concerns but allow the access.

its a pretty good read but in legalese so im not sure if it applies directly but i think it might

pavil
Again, if it was a locked psych ward would they have let the suspect AND the accuser go outside for an unsupervised smoke break?

1- Just to be doubly clear, I believe "locked psych ward" is a somewhat redundant term. I do not know of psych wards that do not have at least minor locks and security. You can not just walk into or out of a psych ward. Even if you're there voluntarily.


2- Wards that allow smoking very, very rarely allow patients to smoke unsupervised. There is almost always a member of staff present. And it's not like these smoking areas are so big that one person can not monitor everything.

I do know of one facility in my area where they would allow some patients to smoke unsupervised. They gave each patient a letter grade "A, B, C, D" etc. You had to be an "A" to go unsupervised, or a "B" to go even with supervision. You would only be up-graded to "A" with the approval of the psychiatrist overseeing the unit, after so much time of good behavior, etc.

To the best of my knowledge, this hospital has changed this policy.

defcon5

iwilliam
You can not fairly assume that because they were in a psych ward, that they did not also have a medical issue as well, including potentially something contagious.

You also cannot prove that they aren't really aliens...
Napoleon...
Jesus Christ...

Whats your point here?
Anyone that a cop arrest on the street could potentially be carrying some infectious disease, its a risk of the job.

Yes, but arresting someone on the street does not necessarily interrupt their right to medical treatment. Usually people are in a hospital because they are seriously unwell. You aren't admitted to the hospital for sniffles.

reply to post by Bedlam

Let me give you some more examples:
1 Court ordered chemical castration.
2 Court ordered hysterectomies.
3 Court ordered vaccinations.
4 Court ordered removal of custody and treatment of children in families with religious objection of medical treatment.
5 Baker Act.

The judge is not prescribing specific care (doses etc), but they can order that the treatment be preformed against the wishes of those involved. Again though, when you are in custody you no longer “own” your body, the state owns it.

bigfatfurrytexan
He grabbed her butt and said lurid things to her. And a judge actually issued a warrant for that. And those cops actually manhandled that nurse for that. Really.

I have often said that you can be killed for not paying your parking ticket. And its true. This story just kind of goes to show that.

Im sorry, defcon. I just don't think I am going to see it your way without more information. If he was in a locked psych ward, then he is already essentially under arrest and they can just serve a subpoena for a court date, or schedule questioning during normal business hours.

Exactly. And why did they feel the need to have him in custody, themselves, when he already was locked up, and could have been served as you said?

What, so they could interrogate him, and get a confession that any lawyer worth half a squat could get thrown out of court anyway?


Mentally incompetent? Impaired ability to understand right from wrong? Inability to understand one's own rights? What does any of that silly stuff matter?


Why don't we let them just start coercing confessions, while we're at it?

reply to post by iwilliam


If the person is that unwell (or what we call unstable), they would be stabilized with an officer remaining present. After the person is stable, they are transferred into state custody. The state has its own jail/prison infirmaries,wards, and medical doctors/nurses. If the patient requires a hospital stay, they will be transferred to a hospital that has a contract with the state to take care of such patients. When that happens an officer is there with the patient the entire period of their stay, and actually can control the access of medical people to the prisoner (they don't usually, but they certainly have to right if they feel the need).

defcon5
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Let me give you some more examples... but they can order that the treatment be preformed against the wishes of those involved.

And again, it's obvious (I think I've said so three times now) that involuntary treatment can be ordered by a judge, however, my quick perusal of the net shows that this removes the ability of the patient to refuse treatment, but it does not confer upon a judge the ability to practice medicine. It just removes the ability of the patient to say 'no'.

And in the case of, say, castration either chemical or surgical, in no case I can find can a judge say "Tie him down and cut off his nads", it's offered to the inmate as a condition for release. If you want to be paroled, it's knife time. Otherwise we keep you forever. Not "Grab him boys, and get the Callicrate ready to go!" Also, in the laws I just looked up on this, in every case a doc has to order it, or no-go. If the doctor decides it's not in the patient's best interest, the court cannot order it. And they can't compel the doc to agree by charging him with obstruction or contempt.

defcon5

Bedlam
Case in point - Lisa Hofstra. She was ordered by a cop to perform a blood test on a guy they dragged into an ED in Chicago, IIRC. She replied she could not do so without the man being admitted, and could not do so without a physician's order to draw the blood at any rate. So the guy arrested her for obstruction, and the city dropped the charges as being unlawful and paid out $78k. I would not have settled, personally.

'
the problem here is that the officer didn't have a judges warrant, if he did then she would have had to comply. They can force you to have a blood draw based on a judges warrant, that is how DWI roadblocks in “no refusal” states work.

Not sure I agree with that. And you keep trying to compare things that are not truly analogous. Why is that?

With DWI stuff:

1- You (the person whose blood they want to draw) are the one who is under suspicion of a crime. A doctor or nurse in the ER is not. They're just a related worker you want something from (work / test performed) for your case against a suspect.

2- Even in a "no refusal" state, I still have the right to refuse a DWI test. It's just that I've already agreed (when I got my license) that I can not refuse such a test without automatically forfeiting my license. I can still refuse it. There are just consequences.


3- Back to the issue at hand: Not sure if nurses have to take an oath like doctors do.... but they are there, sworn to help patients get well. Doctors have to swear that first and foremost, they will do no harm.

One might interpret that to draw blood for the police to use as evidence against someone is, in fact, "doing harm," and might refuse on these grounds. I'm not sure how well that would hold up, but speaking purely as a matter of principle, I think they could / might try to pull something like that.

Similar to (but a far less extreme example of) the idea that you should not be able to compel a medical professional to use their expertise to administer a lethal injection, as this could be seen as running counter to their oath, and the principles of their profession.

In regards to Nursing/Medical Professionals *right* to impede removal of a patient:

I'm wondering if this Nurse perhaps misinterpreted a specific section of the Geneva Convention...trying to rack my brain which one it is...been over a decade or so since I did my last med training. Will have a look through my old nursing journals.

But from memory a medical professional does have the right to refuse access to or removal of a patient under care.
HOWEVER - and its a big however - the removal of the patient in question has to be immediately life-threatening.

This case however likely has no more to do with the intention of that section of the GC than apples do to oranges...as its intent was to do with wounded prisoners of war, and the forced removal from care by MPs and/or soldiers and thus that wounded POW dying from lack of medical care...

Additionally that section wasn't specific in its wording - it didn't specify it was intended to only apply in war time and with wounded POWs.



...will see if I can find it...

defcon5

bigfatfurrytexan
The way you state that....and seem to accept it....

....never mind.

because its true man.

Custody
The care, possession, and control of a thing or person. The retention, inspection, guarding, maintenance, or security of a thing within the immediate care and control of the person to whom it is committed. The detention of a person by lawful authority or process.

You lose your rights and the state takes custody of you. If that were not the case, you could just exercise your right to walk out of prison.

Don't they cater to peoples' right to religious freedom when they're in prison?

Allowing muslims to pray at the appropriate times, dietary restrictions, etc.

If what you say is true, wouldn't they just disallow all of that, across the board?

iwilliam
One might interpret that to draw blood for the police to use as evidence against someone is, in fact, "doing harm," and might refuse on these grounds. I'm not sure how well that would hold up, but speaking purely as a matter of principle, I think they could / might try to pull something like that.

Similar to (but a far less extreme example of) the idea that you should not be able to compel a medical professional to use their expertise to administer a lethal injection, as this could be seen as running counter to their oath, and the principles of their profession.

Specifically for the DWI thing, I'd have no trouble doing the draw, but as with Hofstra, unless the person is a patient at the hospital and has signed a consent for me to perform a medical procedure on him, if I do so against his will it is assault and battery, no matter what the cop orders. The LEO cannot order me to break the law.

Secondly, if a doctor has not ordered the draw to be done, I have no legal ground to do it, and I am practicing medicine without a license, a felony. Again, a LEO cannot order me to break the law.

That's where Chicago PD lost it, right off the bat. "Lawful orders" are pretty circumscribed, they can't order me to do something unlawful,no matter how much they'd really like me too.

iwilliam
Not sure I agree with that. And you keep trying to compare things that are not truly analogous. Why is that?

I was answering his question which was about this specific instance.

iwilliam
1- You (the person whose blood they want to draw) are the one who is under suspicion of a crime. A doctor or nurse in the ER is not. They're just a related worker you want something from (work / test performed) for your case against a suspect.

He was mentioning a specific case in which the nurse was arrested for obstruction after a refusal.

iwilliam
2- Even in a "no refusal" state, I still have the right to refuse a DWI test. It's just that I've already agreed (when I got my license) that I can not refuse such a test without automatically forfeiting my license. I can still refuse it. There are just consequences.

No that's not how it works.
In all states you have agreed to submit contractually to a DUI test at the request of a police officer. If you refuse that test, you are subject to civil penalties including losing your license. Because folks would opt for the civil action when committing a crime, and the state didn't like that, they came up with “no refusal” stops in some states.

In a no refusal stop the police have a judge on standby doing nothing but writing court ordered warrants for blood draws. If you refuse the test, they call the judge, he writes a warrant for a blood drawn, they take you to a cell or other facility where you are strapped down, officers restrain you, and your blood is forcibly drawn.


One a side note...
Notice anything in that video?
The guy is yelling that he was not being read his rights (just like someone posted to me earlier).
Typical TV lawyer incorrectly trying to tell the police their legal business, and EXACTLY how folks get in trouble for resisting.

He is not being interrogated and he does not have to be read any rights.

iwilliam
Don't they cater to peoples' right to religious freedom when they're in prison?
Allowing muslims to pray at the appropriate times, dietary restrictions, etc.
If what you say is true, wouldn't they just disallow all of that, across the board?

They make accommodations for various things, especially if they enhance your morals, such as religious beliefs, but you are NOT guaranteed them in prison. As an example, you could get into trouble and end up in solitary, the prison is not required to allow you out of solitary to accommodate your going to the chapel and taking communion. They allow you to have certain things as privileges not rights.

iwilliam

defcon5

bigfatfurrytexan
The way you state that....and seem to accept it....

....never mind.

because its true man.

Custody
The care, possession, and control of a thing or person. The retention, inspection, guarding, maintenance, or security of a thing within the immediate care and control of the person to whom it is committed. The detention of a person by lawful authority or process.

You lose your rights and the state takes custody of you. If that were not the case, you could just exercise your right to walk out of prison.

Don't they cater to peoples' right to religious freedom when they're in prison?

Allowing muslims to pray at the appropriate times, dietary restrictions, etc.

If what you say is true, wouldn't they just disallow all of that, across the board?

ROFL here's a perfect example of a psychotic delusion if any
see how the doublethink kicks in as he minces around the gun in the room
[which is what really prevents the sheeple from exercising their rights]
the ultimate argument of kings they used to call it.
and proof the inmates ARE running the asylum.

you might be interested in Stefan Molyneux's
"The Fascists That Surround You" www.youtube.com...
particularly chapters 2,3,and 4
for an in depth analysis of this kind of lunacy

puts this case clearly in perspective and exposes what is really being argued for by the apologists they're no different from the thugs with badges, when the mask of reasonableness and "rationality" is removed.
Actions being louder than mere words.

sigh... I'm through here it's obvious the threads been successfully derailed,
but again I only Preach/Post for the Remnant so my job here is done

and of course there's those rocks off to starboard...

(facepalm) I'm pretty sure Defcon's not mincing.

Or prancing, or gamboling, or doing the funky chicken. We have somewhat different POVs. Not totally different.

Most cops know better than to totally PO the nurses and docs at the local hospital, because they know they have long, long memories, and that "prn" means "when I feel it's necessary, not when YOU feel it's necessary" on pain meds. Eventually, one of their buddies ends up in the ED, and at that point, you are gambling that the nurse is more professional than YOU were.

So it might be momentarily gratifying to smack around a nurse or EMT, but that wheel of karma is a beeyotch.

OccamsRazor04
Your thread title is wrong. They claimed to arrest her because she ran into the nursing station and locked the door behind her and told them she would not let them arrest the patient.

Whether that is true or not, or if they used excessive force or not, is another matter entirely. But the title is wrong.

Never gunna argue with that!
Second
pending....