What happened to the cop who assaulted that nurse when she refused his request to draw blood?
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [Stumps]
[ In reply to ]
Lost his jobs.
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [ThisIsIt]
[ In reply to ]
ThisIsIt wrote:
Lost his jobs.The union have filed appeals stating he was only following orders from dispatch who did not have the hospitals protocols on drawing blood from unconscious patients.
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [50+]
[ In reply to ]
Quote:
The union have filed appeals stating he was only following orders from dispatch who did not have the hospitals protocols on drawing blood from unconscious patients.That's a joke, right?
Following orders...from dispatch.
lol.
The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [sphere]
[ In reply to ]
sphere wrote:
Quote:
The union have filed appeals stating he was only following orders from dispatch who did not have the hospitals protocols on drawing blood from unconscious patients.That's a joke, right?
Following orders...from dispatch.
lol.
The officer was on the phone with his LT who ordered him to arrest the nurse.
Not defending the actions of anyone, just clarifying the facts.
http://www.sltrib.com/...xcessive-discipline/
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [JSA]
[ In reply to ]
Ah. Ok, well, that's entirely different. And makes me a little more empathetic to his situation.
Over time you learn to tune out pretty much everything dispatch says after the call location.
The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Over time you learn to tune out pretty much everything dispatch says after the call location.
The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [JSA]
[ In reply to ]
JSA wrote:
sphere wrote:
Quote:
The union have filed appeals stating he was only following orders from dispatch who did not have the hospitals protocols on drawing blood from unconscious patients.That's a joke, right?
Following orders...from dispatch.
lol.
The officer was on the phone with his LT who ordered him to arrest the nurse.
Not defending the actions of anyone, just clarifying the facts.
http://www.sltrib.com/...xcessive-discipline/
That's right, I saw it on the news a month ago so got it a bit mixed up, the union is pissed though. Anyway it'll be interesting to see if he gets his job back.
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [50+]
[ In reply to ]
Sounds of William Calley all over again, "I was just following orders."
Not a comparison or a defense anyone should want attached to his name.
Not a comparison or a defense anyone should want attached to his name.
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [50+]
[ In reply to ]
50+ wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
Lost his jobs.The union have filed appeals stating he was only following orders from dispatch who did not have the hospitals protocols on drawing blood from unconscious patients.
IIRC, he also lost his job as an ambulance driver for his unethical statements made to the nurse about threatening to bring indigent patients to her hospital.
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [50+]
[ In reply to ]
50+ wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
Lost his jobs.The union have filed appeals stating he was only following orders from dispatch who did not have the hospitals protocols on drawing blood from unconscious patients.
Following an illegal order does not absolve him of the crime.
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [racin_rusty]
[ In reply to ]
racin_rusty wrote:
50+ wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
Lost his jobs.The union have filed appeals stating he was only following orders from dispatch who did not have the hospitals protocols on drawing blood from unconscious patients.
Following an illegal order does not absolve him of the crime.
But this isn't being treated as a criminal matter.
This appears to be an appeal of his termination. I don't know, but the union has likely negotiated some form of binding arbitration to hear disciplinary appeals. (Don't know if Utah provides it separately as a matter of right to sworn employees.)
If there's binding arbitration, then from the little facts I've learned about the case, the officer has a legitimate chance at getting the supposed (supposed -- because I'm only relying on a prior post stating that he had been terminated) termination overturned.
Likely, the case will come down to how these questions are resolved:
1. Was he following directions from a superior?
2. Were those directions unlawful? If so, was the unlawfulness clear and obvious at the time? Was it unreasonable for the officer to follow his supervisor's directions?
3. Was the supervisor also disciplined? Was the supervisor fully aware of the circumstances when giving the order.
4. Given the order to arrest, did the officer use excess force?
5. Are there extenuating or exasperating circumstances? Is this an exception officer who has only made this one mistake, or is this a problem officer with a history of documented violations?
6. Is termination appropriate, or is there a lesser from of discipline that more appropriately matches the conduct, given the circumstances?
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [AlanShearer]
[ In reply to ]
"5. Are there extenuating or exasperating circumstances? Is this an exception officer who has only made this one mistake, or is this a problem officer with a history of documented violations? "
Damned autocorrect is an exacerbating factor in the decline of the English langage. Some also find it exasperating.
Damned autocorrect is an exacerbating factor in the decline of the English langage. Some also find it exasperating.
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [daleagain]
[ In reply to ]
daleagain wrote:
Sounds of William Calley all over again, "I was just following orders." Not a comparison or a defense anyone should want attached to his name.
Really??? Arresting the nurse is comparable to executing 22 unarmed Vietnamese civilians?
As I mention above, this isn't even remotely comparable. Not even a little bit. Calley knew or should have known the order was illegal and, as an Army officer, had a duty to disobey. In contrast, it is reasonable to believe the law permitted arrest of the nurse for refusing to draw blood. As I stated above - the manner in which the officer carried out the arrest was wholly unacceptable. But, the order to arrest the nurse was not so blatantly illegal as to warrant refusal to follow.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Post deleted by spudone
[ In reply to ]
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [spudone]
[ In reply to ]
spudone wrote:
JSA wrote:
daleagain wrote:
Sounds of William Calley all over again, "I was just following orders." Not a comparison or a defense anyone should want attached to his name.
Really??? Arresting the nurse is comparable to executing 22 unarmed Vietnamese civilians?
As I mention above, this isn't even remotely comparable. Not even a little bit. Calley knew or should have known the order was illegal and, as an Army officer, had a duty to disobey. In contrast, it is reasonable to believe the law permitted arrest of the nurse for refusing to draw blood. As I stated above - the manner in which the officer carried out the arrest was wholly unacceptable. But, the order to arrest the nurse was not so blatantly illegal as to warrant refusal to follow.
It was blatant. You don't even have to think very hard about it. The nurse was not accused of anything and neither was the person they wanted blood from. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand basic rights.
Are you familiar with the implied consent doctrine? Are you familiar with Utah's implied consent law? If so, were you familiar with it prior to this case? Has SCOTUS ruled on implied consent?
Do you believe this arrest was comparable to the execution of 22 unarmed Vietnamese civilians?
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Post deleted by spudone
[ In reply to ]
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [spudone]
[ In reply to ]
spudone wrote:
JSA wrote:
spudone wrote:
JSA wrote:
daleagain wrote:
Sounds of William Calley all over again, "I was just following orders." Not a comparison or a defense anyone should want attached to his name.
Really??? Arresting the nurse is comparable to executing 22 unarmed Vietnamese civilians?
As I mention above, this isn't even remotely comparable. Not even a little bit. Calley knew or should have known the order was illegal and, as an Army officer, had a duty to disobey. In contrast, it is reasonable to believe the law permitted arrest of the nurse for refusing to draw blood. As I stated above - the manner in which the officer carried out the arrest was wholly unacceptable. But, the order to arrest the nurse was not so blatantly illegal as to warrant refusal to follow.
It was blatant. You don't even have to think very hard about it. The nurse was not accused of anything and neither was the person they wanted blood from. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand basic rights.
Are you familiar with the implied consent doctrine? Are you familiar with Utah's implied consent law? If so, were you familiar with it prior to this case? Has SCOTUS ruled on implied consent?
Do you believe this arrest was comparable to the execution of 22 unarmed Vietnamese civilians?
OK no need to sound like a jackass with your last sentence there, which I wasn't talking about at all because it's ridiculous. But I get it, you want to pull that lawyer-smarter-than-the-internets card. It's ok, feel proud of that degree.
Hey, you jumped into the conversation. No one pulled you into it.
spudone wrote:
And yes I have read Utah's implied consent law and I also understand why it didn't cover this particular case - because the cops wanted to use it to show that he *was not* under the influence.Given how implied consent works, it certainly could be argued it applied in this situation. Assuming it did, refusal to draw blood could be obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice warrants arrest. Of course a number of errors were made here. But, the LT ordered the detective to arrest and, given these factors, said order was not blatantly illegal so as to justify refusal by the detective.
The Union would win this case on that basis had the detective not used unreasonable force in arresting her.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Re: Cop who assaulted the nurse [daleagain]
[ In reply to ]
daleagain wrote:
Sounds of William Calley all over again, "I was just following orders." Not a comparison or a defense anyone should want attached to his name.
I
Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart
Post deleted by spudone
[ In reply to ]
spudone wrote:
JSA wrote:
Given how implied consent works, it certainly could be argued it applied in this situation. Assuming it did, refusal to draw blood could be obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice warrants arrest. Of course a number of errors were made here. But, the LT ordered the detective to arrest and, given these factors, said order was not blatantly illegal so as to justify refusal by the detective. The Union would win this case on that basis had the detective not used unreasonable force in arresting her.
So as a lawyer, if you read Utah's law (41-6a-520), it clearly states that implied consent searches are for purposes of determining criminality. Not absolving it. But ok, fair point if you want to argue that maybe the cop wasn't clear on that.
As a lawyer, no. But police officers are not experts on the law and I certainly could see how the detective could read it that way. More importantly, his superior, the LT, ordered him to arrest. It was perfectly reasonable for the detective to believe the LT was better educated on the law and there was nothing so blatantly "wrong" with the order to warrant refusal to obey.
supdone wrote:
Also to the part of your original question I missed: on the Supreme Court - I remembered some recent decision but I had to look it up. Birchfield v. North Dakota. Does that apply here? The decision came down about a year prior to what we're talking about. And I'm pretty sure they did not have a warrant in the Utah case.SCOTUS effectively outlawed implied consent in states that criminalized refusal. Utah does not criminalize refusal, it only applies civil penalties. Therefore, Birchfield did not impact the Utah law. Thus, I can see a lay person (or a law enforcement official) thinking that ruling, in effect, "legalized" Utah's implied consent rule. This would further make the order seem legit.
Good commentary on why the detective may have thought he was correct here: http://www.sltrib.com/...-law-is-complicated/
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR