July 31 2017, guy fleeing police crosses median and slams into truck and dies. The truck catches fire severely burning the innocent driver, Mr. Gray, who was taken to SLC University. Police later showed up demanding to the UNCONSCIOUS innocent patient's blood. RN Alex shows them the policy requiring consent, arrest, or a warrant. Hospital administration back up RN Alex.
Police aggressively arrest RN Alex and removes her from the hospital. Officer body cam insanity released today:
In this video, the aggressive officer can be heard saying that he will ensure all the "transients" are brought to this hospitals ED since they won't cooperate after being told the administrators and privacy officer are on their way.
Original Crash (graphic):
Interesting note about Alex, she was a 2x Olympian, US Ski Team member, and national champion is Slalom and GS.
Did you even read the thread? No one has defended the actions of the cop. What most of us are trying to get across is that trying to restrain an out of control cop in the process of making an arrest will:
- likely get you arrested, too - and charged with any one of a whole raft of criminal charges, many of which are felonies.
- may also get you shot.
- may also get anyone else in the vicinity shot.
Here's *my* "professional judgement" - based on what I saw in both videos and in watching the Interviews that Nurse Wubbels did on TV..
She was originally "upstairs" and moved to a more "public" area of the hospital because she felt threatened by Detective Payne..
The video of the actual "arrest" shows an officer flipping out. Acting irrationally and violently towards someone who wasn't a threat to him.
So - "OMG, he might shoot someone if you step in" has the flipside that "OMG, he could seriously injure or kill this woman if she says or does the slightest wrong thing"..
The chief of the university police faulted his own officers for agreeing to "take the ride" with her - because they jumped in the back seat, and left the nurse in the front, with the unhinged cop.
Normally, I'd agree totally, that no one should interfere with an arrest - take the ride & let your lawyer collect a check for you.. In this particular case, (he literally threatened other officers who tried to intervene) - they really *should* have stepped up and said "nope, not happening with me here - take your hands off, or you'll be in cuffs yourself.".. That would absolutely require both balls and training, evidently, neither were present in these officers.
And I think this is the fundamental difference between nursing school and cop school. Nurses are required to tell people who "outrank" them (doctors) - that "you might not want to do that".. Nursing school has simulations where you have to speak up even though it's uncomfortable and scary. Nurses are required by law to intervene to prevent harm.
Cop school has training that says "don't interfere with an arrest".. As shown here, that's sometimes the wrong thing to do.
It's absolutely a training issue - if you can teach nurses to intervene, you can teach cops to do the same thing.
I was embarrassed for how she screamed and cried. Man up! He was not taking you out back to execute you.
With as violent and aggressive as he was being, she had no way of knowing that at all.
Keep in mind, in her TV interview, she mentioned that she was in another area of the hospital, and moved to the location of the filming so there would be others around, because the cop seemed so aggressive.
Keep in mind too - at least in my state, you can't have a "rap sheet" and a nursing license. It's not normal for nurses to get arrested, they're *not* ten-time felons who can "keep their cool" when confronted by authority figures. Nurses generally obey the law, so an arrest is a huge deal & likely to "rattle" the best of us.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
United States Supreme Court
MISSOURI v. MCNEELY, (2013)
No. 11-1425
Argued: January 9, 2013 Decided: April 17, 2013
Respondent McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing.
The officer never attempted to secure a search warrant.
McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a sample. McNeely's BAC tested well above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). He moved to suppress the blood test result, arguing that taking his blood without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The trial court agreed, concluding that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that McNeely's blood alcohol was dissipating, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an emergency.
The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect's warrantless blood test where the officer "might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened 'the destruction of evidence,' " id., at 770.
This case, the state court found, involved a routine DWI investigation where no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, and, thus, the nonconsensual warrantless test violated McNeely's right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person.
Opinion of the Court
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, joined by JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part III that other arguments advanced by the State and amici in support of a per se rule are unpersuasive. Their concern that a case-by-case approach to exigency will not provide adequate guidance to law enforcement officers may make the desire for a bright-line rule understandable, but the Fourth Amendment will not tolerate adoption of an overly broad categorical approach in this context...
... though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests. Finally, the government's general interest in combating drunk driving does not justify departing from the warrant requirement without showing exigent circumstances that make securing a warrant impractical in a particular case...
... SOTOMAYOR, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and IV, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-C and III, in which SCALIA, GINSBURG, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
they have the charge nurse of the burn unit in the back of the police car and one of the cops is talking to Payne and his boss, I believe it is, and he is saying "we know this guy is on burn, right?" then "I can get you guys up to burn and then we try to __________ (inaudible) around from there and try to figure it out up there if you guys are open to that idea."
I don't think there's ever been a better documented case of false arrest ,assault and kidnapping - you've got multiple videos, lots of witnesses of good character, you know who was there, what they were telling each other from multiple angles - you've got a victim of inscrutable character...
Certainly our jails are full of people who didn't have nearly this much evidence posted against them.
if there aren't charges filed in this case, then there really is no protection against false arrest in this country.
You can certainly "mitigate" the offenses when you get to the sentencing stage if you don't want to burn this officer at the stake - but no one can deny what happened was contrary to law.
"The vision statement...defines the ultimate goal and what all employees will work to achieve: 'We will build upon the noble traditions of integrity and trust to foster a culture of service, respect, and compassion toward our employees and the communities we serve.' "
Yeah, he will likely be forced to retire in shame.
I'm getting a lot of varied and very good responses from the thread I started on the police forum. It looks like a really well run forum. It sounds like most think that this guy was a bit of a horses ass. But there's a lot of different angles of thought on the subject and I'm enjoying the discussion over there.
Wuzzie
5,238 Posts
Wear your asbestos undies.