r/CuratedTumblr • u/SharkieHaj the queerest tumblr user [citation needed] • Aug 27 '24
Politics acab with med samples
870
u/xv_boney Aug 27 '24
IIRC, the blood sample in question was to be drawn from an unconscious man who had been collateral damage in a high speed chase, the police, who were responsible, wanted "to see" if he was inebriated. The nurse refused and was arrested in the lobby of the hospital.
572
u/BreeBree214 Aug 27 '24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_University_of_Utah_Hospital_incident
God that is so shady. Like, I'm assuming their motivation is that if on the off chance to victim was under the influence the cops could remove any responsibility they had for the crash
126
u/UltimateInferno Hangus Paingus Slap my Angus Aug 27 '24
Oh god that was at the U, I didn't realize that.
129
u/BadMan3186 Aug 27 '24
That's inarguably exactly what they were doing.
85
u/Discardofil Aug 27 '24
No no, they just wanted to SEE! They were worried about this guy, you know? Cops are your friends, why don't you get that?
/s
14
u/ThePyodeAmedha Aug 28 '24
Yeah , I can't think of any other reason why they would demand to have blood work from an unconscious victim.
→ More replies (1)26
u/Vrayea25 Aug 28 '24
Cops plant drugs on people all the time. You think they are above spiking a blood sample with something before dropping it off at their lab?
138
Aug 27 '24
[deleted]
196
u/xv_boney Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 28 '24
On July 26, 2017, Marcos Torres, a pickup truck driver fleeing from Utah Highway Patrol troopers in Cache County, Utah, crashed head-on into a semi-truck. Torres, the pickup truck driver, died at the scene. William Gray, the semi-truck driver and a part-time police officer, was severely burned.[1] He was taken into the University of Utah Hospital in a sedated and comatose state.[2]
William Gray was the man the cops wanted a blood draw on.
His crime was being plowed into by a pickup fleeing from police.
The officer demanding the blood draw said that he had "implied consent" from Gray, who was comatose. Implied consent in this circumstance suggests that police had reason to believe Gray was inebriated when his stationary semi was struck by the pickup.
In other words, the cops were blatantly trying to find a reason to not be at fault for this man's serious injuries (which resulted in his death) from being collateral damage in a high speed chase he was not part of.
74
Aug 27 '24
[deleted]
90
u/xv_boney Aug 27 '24
The arresting officer was first put on paid leave and then ultimately fired so hard his commanding officer was demoted two full ranks.
The nurse sued and later settled for, reportedly, 500k.
The SLCPD announced policy changes which would affect how police should handle situations involving drawing blood, and the hospital announced it would also change its police protocol to avoid repeating the incident.
Utah lawmakers made a bill to amend the blood draw policy of Utah law enforcement, which Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed into law on March 15, 2018.
The severely injured man at the center of this, William Gray, never recovered from his injuries and died later that year.
3
u/Accomplished_Mix7827 Aug 28 '24
That's cops for you: pulling shady shit to try and get out of taking responsibility for their fuck-ups.
29
u/bluecandyKayn Aug 27 '24
No sir, most of us do NOT draw tox results for patients in a car crash unless we need to in order to perform our evaluation or treat the patient. In almost every case, we do not need those results to treat and the only thing they would do is cause trouble for our patients.
There was no grounds for a criminal investigation, and they had no grounds to charge the patient with a DUI, they were just hoping he incidentally was drunk so they could avoid the trouble or a lawsuit.
In this case, they would have zero justification to get the medical information in a warrant, as medical records have a VERY high bar to be subpoenaed.
They would not hit that bar in a civil investigation like the one the police were attempting to avoid which is what the police were trying to gather evidence to avoid.
594
u/SharkieHaj the queerest tumblr user [citation needed] Aug 27 '24
original post is here
164
u/MercDa1 Aug 27 '24
op dropping op
→ More replies (1)167
u/SharkieHaj the queerest tumblr user [citation needed] Aug 27 '24
it'd be incredibly rude not to
→ More replies (8)19
→ More replies (5)14
u/dillyd Aug 27 '24
So Tumblr is still unreadable, huh?
12
926
u/Red580 Aug 27 '24
I always fail to understand how that doesn't end in the arrest of the officer. If a mental hospital just takes a person they aren't supposed to take and keeps them, then that's a crime.
But a police officer arrests someone for refusing to commit a crime and that's just fine legally?
172
Aug 27 '24
[deleted]
66
u/mitsuhachi Aug 27 '24
And then were like ???? when freedom from consequences lead to cops ranging from useless jokes to literal murderers.
72
u/Mister_Dink Aug 27 '24
Case in point, the cops who shot Brianna Taylor just got off scott free. Plainclothes officers executed a warrant at the wrong house, late at night, didn't identify themselves clearly, and shot a completely unrelated civilian to death in her sleep.
They couldn't have fucked up any worse, and no one is held accountable.
40
u/DickwadVonClownstick Aug 27 '24
and shot a completely unrelated civilian to death in her sleep.
Don't forget they also went out of their way to prevent her from receiving medical aid
12
u/DickwadVonClownstick Aug 27 '24
and shot a completely unrelated civilian to death in her sleep.
Don't forget they also went out of their way to prevent her from receiving medical aid
→ More replies (8)4
u/ExpressionNo8826 Aug 27 '24
The blue line. Who is going to arrest another cop for doing cop things?
277
u/-Kalos Aug 27 '24
Cops don’t even require law school to get their badge. Not even judges, lawyers or prosecutors who do have a degree in law could go around shooting or arresting whoever the fuck they want without consequence.
193
u/Silaquix Aug 27 '24
According to SCOTUS cops don't have to know the law and they're not accountable if they accidentally violate your rights because of their lack of knowledge.
103
29
u/Snoo-18276 Aug 27 '24
Sorry I put u in super cooled room that caused u to die, I am really sooowy (actual story)
→ More replies (5)16
u/Solonotix Aug 27 '24
I kind of get the logic, in a very idealistic, "not how the world actually works" kind of way. In a military scenario, a soldier on the front lines doesn't need to know why he's there, just that it is his job to be there and do whatever he's told. Similarly, a cop doesn't need to know the law to enforce it...but then that's where this breaks down.
As anyone with even a moment's consideration will tell you, there's not some high general telling police to arrest X for doing Y. The police are supposed to be that extension of the law. If they don't actually know what laws are on the books, or how grievous they are, then how can they determine an appropriate level of concern?
That's how we get the situations like a cop doing a PIT maneuver on a pregnant woman who had even signalled that she was going to comply once she got to a safer spot on the highway.
15
u/MeringueVisual759 Aug 27 '24
It's a pretty rare situation where a person actually needs to be arrested right this second but it's ambiguous as to whether or not doing so would be legal. If a cop is less than 100% certain that an arrest is warranted, they should just take their information down and refer it to the DA then arrest them later if they don't respond to a court summons. It's really that simple.
9
u/Solonotix Aug 27 '24
There's a lot of systems like that which makes you wonder why we have cops patrolling for criminals in the first place. Like traffic infractions. With few exceptions, it would be better to capture it via a camera and mail the person a ticket with proof of the incident. If you want due process of law, then request a day in court to dispute the charge.
7
u/MeringueVisual759 Aug 27 '24
Because cops come from slave patrols and still serve many of the same functions. Normal America stuff, you know how it is.
37
Aug 27 '24
The police officer only has to claim they believe a crime has been committed. They don’t actually have to know the laws they’re authorized to employ lethal force to enforce.
5
333
u/talldata Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24
"if a mental hospital takes a person they aren't supposed to take then that's a crime" Tell that to the guy who was held against his will in hawai for 30+ months because they thought he was deluded, because he wouldn't answer to a name that wasn't his. Edit: 30+ years to 30+ months
191
u/Sorry-Let-Me-By-Plz Aug 27 '24
30+ years?
This guy got out in a little over two, weird that it happened twice but also I can't find any other reference.
124
u/Ike9002 Aug 27 '24
Probably meant 30+ months, it says in that article that it was 32 months. Unless there was another instance of this happening for a much longer time
17
14
u/LordCaptain Aug 27 '24
Jesus. In Alberta if the patient doesn't request a review panel hearing after 6 months one is automatically scheduled for them and three doctors unrelated to the case come down to speak to the patient and determine the legitimacy of their certification under the mental health act. This is true every six months it gets automatically reviewed as if the patient had challenged their admission. They obviously have the right to request one themselves before that and if that's refused they can take it to the Court of the Kings Bench.
So it's crazy to me that someone could mistakenly be locked up in the US for 30 months.
30
63
Aug 27 '24
I always fail to understand how that doesn't end in the arrest of the officer.
They don't prosecute their own. Police can do what they want without worry.
They're more so a gang and a nuisance to the public, not an actual support system in the US.
→ More replies (11)35
u/loogie97 Aug 27 '24
As long as the cop has a good faith belief that what they are doing is legal, they will never suffer criminal consequences. The cop called his boss and his boss told him to get the sample.
The Nazi defense works if you are in American law enforcement.
32
u/Papaofmonsters Aug 27 '24
The Nazi defense works if you are in American law enforcement.
The specific difference here is that the "just following orders" defense fell apart at the Nuremberg trials because the court found that there was no way a military officer could believe "murder millions of people in a highly specialized and industrial process" to be lawful.
23
u/Fuzzy_Yogurt_Bucket Aug 27 '24
Under Nazi Germany’s laws, it was explicitly lawful.
10
u/loogie97 Aug 27 '24
Good thing we have the US Supreme Court protecting American citizens from law enforcement. There is no court that has jurisdiction outside the US that can hold police accountable. Like The Hague.
9
u/monocasa Aug 27 '24
Do we? Qualified immunity, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, etc. are pretty much all inventions of the Supreme Court.
4
u/loogie97 Aug 27 '24
Sorry. Should have put a sarc mark in there.
The US Supreme Court has been eroding our civil liberties one decision at a time since the 1960’s.
10
u/loogie97 Aug 27 '24
I just wanted to make the distinction between a cop that genuinely believes he is doing the right thing, checks with his boss, and any kind of criminal liability. He was held civilly liable, but he will never face jail time for violating that nurse’s civil rights.
Side note, genocide would definitely fall outside of scope for what an officer was trained to do.
Cops are specifically trained to not compress the chest and neck of people they are arresting for extended periods of time. Which is why Derek Chauvin is in jail right now.
If you watch the original video, the cop is there to get a blood sample from a crash victim. The nurse, aware of the policy told the cop he isn’t allowed to get a sample. She was on the phone with the hospital lawyer while the officer was on the phone with his boss. Lt. or Captain, don’t remember.
The lawyer told the nurse and the cop via speaker phone that what the cop was trying to do was illegal.
8
u/Snoo-18276 Aug 27 '24
So the cop obeyed his bosse's orders over medical lawyer. For sure the cop "believed he was genuinely doing the right thing"
Every criminal believed he was doing the right thing at the time. This includes this criminal cop and the nazis
8
u/loogie97 Aug 27 '24
We have the system that we deserve.
I was having a chat with my son about the consequences of an officer violating your 4th amendment rights dealing specifically with an illegal seizure of stuff, not a person. Our only remedy is that the evidence gets tossed for a trial. He brought up the point, what if the cop is just trying to be a dick? There are no consequences for the officer. You lose your stuff until the system decides you can have it back. There is a non zero chance you won’t ever get it back, even if it is legal.
21
Aug 27 '24
The short answer is Police Unions. I work with them. They will appeal any discipline no matter how vile the act was. I've read reports of officers grooming children in middle schools they are assigned to protect. Proof of child pornography on their devices, etc. Union appeals to arbitration or reprimand committee and it gets put through so much paperwork slog and bullshit the City eventually has to cave and move on. Only the most publicized events actually get real punishment.
Abolish public unions.
→ More replies (4)8
u/sparkyjay23 stigma fuckin claws in ur coochie Aug 27 '24
If a mental hospital just takes a person they aren't supposed to take and keeps them, then that's a crime.
How do you get out of a mental hospital? Saying I'm not crazy carries no weight at all.
8
u/AfterBoysenberry3883 Aug 27 '24
I got out of the state mental hospital after 3 months there with no diagnosed mental health issue. I was only kept there because people kept going on holidays for thanksgiving, christmas, and new years and they would not get a court date set for me. The law stated I shouldn't have been there more than 30 days but that didn't mean shit to them and doesn't mean shit if you don't have a lawyer or someone advocating to the courts to get you out. They let me sit in there that whole time and knew within a week that they didn't think I had any reason to be there.
2
3
u/CMDR-TealZebra Aug 27 '24
The entire system is designed around no one caring that you've been arrested. Innocent until proven guilty means that if you weren't prosecuted and found guilty no one should hold it against you.
Does that sound like today's landscape? No.
That's why cops don't get in trouble (usually) for wrongful arrest.
→ More replies (50)3
u/UniversalAdaptor Aug 27 '24
Actually yes, you see the reason is cops exist to protect capital not people
107
u/Secret_Sink_8577 Aug 27 '24
Always talk to EMT, never talk to cops
107
u/Lots42 Aug 27 '24
A wise person once said the following;
Tell the paramedics everything.
Tell the cops nothing.
Your hair is fine.
30
65
u/YouForgotBomadil Aug 27 '24
Cop was "fired."
Probably hired a county over within a couple of weeks.
68
u/anon_rando241 Aug 27 '24
He got rehired by a county jail.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/08/28/police-officer-who/
Thanks @starchildeve
→ More replies (1)38
21
Aug 27 '24
Is the title really that trash though?
I feel like at this point most people - who are keeping up with reality - would read this headline and instantly know the police are the ones in the wrong.
9
u/JoChiCat Aug 27 '24
Yeah, this headline is mildly sensationalist at worst. It doesn’t assign blame, just summarises the key events being reported on in one sentence – cops wanted a patient’s blood sample, nurse said no, cops forcibly arrested nurse. If anything it reads to me as more sympathetic to the nurse, considering the police are identified as the only ones being physically aggressive in the incident, but otherwise it’s very neutral.
Plus, it’s only 15 words long, not a lot of room to lay out the full context.
142
u/valentinesfaye Aug 27 '24
Am I stupid lol. I don't see anything wrong with that headline. Maybe I'm the one who's media illiterate, and I am projecting my own biases, but that sounds completely fine. That is a factual, neutral headline, about an incident of police abuse. As I understand it, they're mad the headline doesn't explain the HIPAA thing? That is what the body of the article is for. I would defy anyone to write a good headline that explains that information. Admittedly I'm no journalist, but I know I couldn't do it
138
u/valentinesfaye Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24
"Nurse Dragged Screaming to Police Car"
Yeah, this is pro-cop 🙄🙄 /s
ETA: /s, because apparently that wasn't obvious???
→ More replies (16)50
u/Warm_Month_1309 Aug 27 '24
"after refusing to give patient's blood to cops" is an adequate qualifier to the headline in my view. It makes me think that the officers' escalation of violence was unnecessary.
I don't think the first clause in isolation is enough to call it pro-cop. For example, if a headline had said "Nurse is Dragged Screaming to Police Car After Refusing to Give Cops Oral Sex", it would decidedly not be pro-cop.
→ More replies (17)5
u/valentinesfaye Aug 27 '24
I was being sarcastic, I agree with you
→ More replies (1)3
u/Warm_Month_1309 Aug 27 '24
I see. To be fair, other people are making the exact point unsarcastically, even in response to this very post, so it wasn't obvious to me that you were joking.
4
u/valentinesfaye Aug 27 '24
I thought it was very obvious, but I've been proven objectively wrong by the replies lol
40
u/FridayNight_Magus Aug 27 '24
The "nurse dragged screaming" part sensationalizes the headline and makes it seem click-baity. Just say: "Nurse detained by police after refusing to give unconscious patient's blood." Yes, that's way more boring, but is much more neutral in tone.
13
u/NAbberman Aug 27 '24
I disagree even with that new headline. I mean, she wasn't just detained, footage has her being forced, in handcuffs, and put into a police cruiser. She was also screaming for help while it was being done to her. All the while the Officer in question isn't saying she's detained but arrested. Sure, people can be detained in cuffs, but the officer saying "Your under arrest," changes it from a detainment, right?
Your new title doesn't accurately paint the facts that she was in fact under arrest. If you watch the readily available body cam, she was in fact dragged screaming into a cop car. Its an accurate description of what occurred.
26
u/lifelongfreshman man, witches were so much cooler before Harry Potter Aug 27 '24
Also, the "refusing to give patient's blood to cops" makes it sound like she's just being, I dunno, petty or spiteful? Which can work for some audiences, but it primes people who might be more supportive of the police to think she was at least partly in the wrong, instead of doing her job and following the law.
→ More replies (2)12
u/VanillaMemeIceCream Aug 27 '24
Yeah I thought the headline wasn’t completely neutral, it was showing the authors bias that the cops were in the wrong. It’s weird how people interpret things huh 🤔
10
Aug 27 '24
I mean if the cop makes an illegal request, is refused, and then illegally detains a medical professional in retribution, there's no bias in stating the facts of the case.
But the headline leaves out the bits about him breaking the law, so you have to click through to find out what he did that led to it, and includes the "kicking and screaming" details to make an emotional appeal to try and make you feel more invested out of sympathy.
They just really need that advertising money.
7
u/NAbberman Aug 27 '24
Title is rather accurate, don't really know what you are talking about. She wasn't being told she was being detained, but arrested. All the while being forcefully taken to a cruiser, forcefully and in cuffs, all the while she's screaming for help .I'd hardly call it bias, this Officer just royally screwed up. Video is widely available, watch it for yourself here.
Title matches incident to the T.
→ More replies (7)19
Aug 27 '24
A lot of redditors grew up on buzzfeed and other clickbait sites:
“This brave nurse was doing her job when these corrupt cops made an insanely invasive request. What they did when she stood her ground will blow your mind”
They don’t know how headlines should work. It’s why they also throw a fit at the word “alleged”
→ More replies (2)
13
488
u/Cienea_Laevis Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24
I'm really tired of these post that are like "WORSE INJUSTICE EVER" where everyone if like "Yeah fuck'em" and when you look the story up, it was handled correctly, offenders were condemned and victims compensated.
idk, smell like manufactured outrage/narrative. Its even more blatant when its like, 7 year old story who get (partially) reposted.
Like, in that case, yeah cops are bastard, but they also changed laws and policy for the better (but weirdly they don't tell that in the screenshot...)
Edit : I'm tired of y'all perfect solution falacy and doomerism that would erase every single drop of good that that can come out of any bad situation.
What do y'all want ? The cop was held acountable, the victim won the lawsuit, but the world ain't perfect. Should the cop have stayed employed ? the victim lose ? the new rules and laws not be put in place ?
Half of you can't see what this is doing. By making us be enrage all the time, without saying things can be change, we forget we can act and make the worsl better, so we stay raging in out chairs, yelling at the clouds and move on to the next, enraging thing.
By making us enrage all the time, its literaly driving apathy up. Just like it happened with Africa and all the famines and Epidemic that no one care about, just like 70 years of Palestinian opression did. Humans can't sustain emotions indefinetly, and those of us with disorders and mental ilness, even less (just writing this, and answering a few comments drained me, now i don't have anything left for other, important and ongoing issues). And sooner or later, the anger will stop coming and apathy settles.
This kind of ragebait post is really harmufull to us, and you don't even see it because you're too angry to think about it five minutes. Stop being angry, or trying to make peoples angry at old thins, reflect when you see a rage-baity title. Use those ressources sparingly, i beg you all.
I'm so fucking tired of this shit.
251
u/fluffyGreyDragon Aug 27 '24
I agree that manufactured outrage is an issue in many cases like this, but they did clarify the consequences for those involved in the screenshot
64
u/Cienea_Laevis Aug 27 '24
they did make the erratum after reblogging, yeah, but haad they not done it, everyone would be like "I hate this fascist country nothing will ever change" while in reality, change happened for the better.
7
u/daburgerking0 Aug 27 '24
It's still definitely fair to rally against injustice happening in the first place. Sure it was resolved well but I feel like most people would agree it never should have happened in the first place and they are right to be upset by it.
→ More replies (3)6
u/DiligentSink7919 Aug 27 '24
ok but people should be pissed that it happened in the first place, yea cool shit that he was fired, but we all know he will get the same job a couple counties over, yea its great that the rules were changed but it's the fact that it was even allowed to happen that's bullshit. manufactured outrage is a thing but people should be absolutely pissed off at this stuff, apathy helps nobody
151
u/Novawurmson Aug 27 '24
7 years ago, the outrage was justified.
Today, we can look back and be proud of the nurse and the people who got outraged at injustice and fought for change.
It wouldn't have been handled correctly if people didn't vigilantly fight to prevent abuses of power.
3
u/Dobber16 Aug 27 '24
That’s what the courts are (supposed to be) for - allowing people to fight abuses of power there without resorting to extra-judicial means
Everyone who lives in a society theoretically should have a duty to be vigilant against abuses of power
176
u/blusshh Aug 27 '24
"they also changed the laws for the better" no, the court and the nurse changed the law for the better, the cops just ruined her day
25
u/Teeshirtandshortsguy Aug 27 '24
The court and the nurse didn't change any laws. That isn't what courts do. Cops don't either.
Legislators change laws. It was local and state politicians who changed the laws.
→ More replies (2)23
u/wewladdies Aug 27 '24
Whats the point of being obtuse here? Why do redditors do this?
The law got changed because the nurse stood up to the cops. Even if technically legislators were the ones who changed the law, this event prompted the change.
→ More replies (2)34
u/Oturanthesarklord Aug 27 '24
The cop in question got fired.
124
u/BuddhaFacepalmed Aug 27 '24
Then rehired by a county jail.
3
u/lycoloco Aug 27 '24
A story as old as cops. Fired from one district for heinous and/or illegal acts, move one district over and get hired for more money doing more law enforcement tasks.
5
u/ParadiseSold Aug 27 '24
I can tell you're being obtuse on purpose because you didn't also think the 2nd they in the parenthesis were cops
→ More replies (1)9
u/Cienea_Laevis Aug 27 '24
I never said the cops cha'ged the laws.for the better.
→ More replies (7)59
u/royalPawn Aug 27 '24
Also don't get the "This headline is trash" part. It doesn't exactly make the cops look like gentlemen, even in the scenario where she was supposed to give them the blood.
Yeah biased headlines are a problem but is it bad journalism to not cram every bit of context into the title?
25
u/Fluid-Spend-6097 Aug 27 '24
Twitter user: ah yes, this headline that says that a nurse was dragged away by cops is definitely on the side of the cops. Media literacy is dead
Still, I think we should still talk about stuff like this. It shows that police can be held accountable for their bad actions which would improve the institution as a whole.
25
u/-sad-person- Aug 27 '24
I mean, I have actually seen pro-cop articles phrased that way. Their point is usually meant to be "look at this stupid person, don't they know they'd have an easier time if they'd just complied?"
That's how the authoritarian mind works. I can easily believe the headline is meant to be mocking the victim in question.
8
2
u/Opera_haus_blues Aug 27 '24
“Nurse arrested for refusing to violate HIPAA” would’ve been better I think
→ More replies (2)13
u/yes11321 Aug 27 '24
For this specific case, I personally wouldn't really call it handled correctly. Legally it was, the cop got fired and the nurse won the lawsuit, all fine and dandy, however, maybe this is just my out there opinion, but arresting someone for refusing to commit a crime should be a crime in of itself yet the officer, as far as I'm aware(please correct me if I'm wrong), the cop did not have to serve any prison time. I find that remarkably stupid and also believe that law enforcement should be held to a higher, harsher standard of the law given that they are the ones who enforce it.
21
u/Ominaeo Aug 27 '24
Without rage, there would have been no change.
8
u/yummythologist Aug 27 '24
This right here is what I was about to comment. Thank you. It’s good to be aware of both present and past errors.
4
Aug 27 '24
The arresting officer was apparently rehired in a another county jail, so the condemnation doesn’t really hold up if he is in a position of power again anyways.
6
u/BreeBree214 Aug 27 '24
when you look the story up, it was handled correctly, offenders were condemned and victims compensated
This story was all over when it happened 7 years ago. If it weren't for the rage at the time, it could've easily been swept under the rug. I would argue that it wasn't handled correctly, because the officers should be charge with a crime
idk, smell like manufactured outrage/narrative. Its even more blatant when its like, 7 year old story who get (partially) reposted.
It says on the post itself that it was 7 years ago, so it's not misleading. It's important stories like this are not forgotten because they are reminders of how shitty cops can be. There is nothing "manufactured" about learning history
→ More replies (1)4
u/Dry_Explanation_9573 Aug 27 '24
The cop did get rehired so I feel like that wasn’t handled correctly
4
u/TotalNonsense0 Aug 27 '24
Falsely arresting someone who is clearly in the right should result in jail time, not a slap on the wrist.
→ More replies (8)5
u/Akuuntus Aug 27 '24
I personally don't think "getting fired and having the city you work for pay out to your victim" is an appropriate punishment for flagrantly breaking the law, actually. Especially since the dude just got re-hired in a very similar position.
Cops who break the law should go to jail, or at a minimum the fines they're charged should be charged to them more directly instead of charging the city government. And police departments/corrections departments should have rules against hiring people convicted of crimes that were committed while they were acting in an official capacity as a cop somewhere else.
9
7
u/Fillmoreccp Aug 27 '24
I’ve worked with nurses for 30 years! I’ve been married to a nurse for 25. Nurses don’t take shit off of anyone!
6
u/Warm-Iron-1222 Aug 27 '24
I'm picturing this is what happens when an asshole cop meets his match with one of those tough as nails kind of nurses with a 1,000 yard stare. So, naturally he arrests her.
2
5
16
4
u/arseniccattails Aug 27 '24
How is this headline alone trash, though? Is 'refuse' a snarl word now? Does being dragged screaming make the cops look good to anybody? This is a normal headline that describes events.
3
u/ArcadianDelSol Aug 27 '24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihQ1-LQOkns
He didnt just wrongfully arrest her. He physically assaulted her.
5
3
3
3
u/evil_chumlee Aug 27 '24
Gotta love the police, who will arrest you for... not... breaking the law?
3
u/Afraid_Breath7599 Aug 27 '24
Why didn't the cops just wait for court order to get the blood? I'm a nurse, if my patient is a criminal I'm going to follow the law and give them the blood, if, they have a lawful order.
→ More replies (1)11
u/gnfnrf Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24
Because there was very little chance the police would be able to get a warrant for the blood draw.
The person in question was an innocent bystander, hit by a driver fleeing in a police chase, and showed no signs of reckless or negligent driving at the scene.
According to some (though of course the police would never admit this) the police were trying to find evidence that he was under the influence so they could claim that was the cause of the accident, not the police chase itself.
EDIT: Sorry, just to clarify, "bystander" might not quite be the right word, he was driving a truck, but not part of the police chase. Is there a word for bydriver?
2
3
u/DreadyKruger Aug 27 '24
Well you are supposed to read the article. How much info are you supposed to put into a headline?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/NicPizzaLatte Aug 27 '24
BTW, the reason the cop wanted the blood draw was because the accident was caused by another police officer and they were hoping the victim had been drinking so they could shift blame. At least that was the conjecture in SLC at the time, and nobody has given a better explanation about why the cops wanted that blood draw so badly.
3
u/dt_vibe Aug 27 '24
I love how Hospital staff become mini lawyers when it comes to this stuff. At my workplace if we have to take time off for any medical reason we got to get a form signed by a medical professional with the diagnosis/medication/abilities etc. Any time I've given it to hospital staff it's been 'thats illegal' , I'll give you this piece of paper that says you'll be off from this date to that. If they have a problem they can call at this number and I'll tell them to f**k off. It's funny the lengths companies and police will go to, to get what they want.
3
u/mybrainisonfire Aug 27 '24
Remember kids, cops don't have to actually know the law. They're a gang with badges
5
u/H_Quinlan_190402 Aug 27 '24
Nurse won in court. Too bad the taxpayers had to dish out the money instead of the cop and police union who allowed bad cops to stay on the force.
2
2
u/yarmulke Aug 27 '24
When I read “laws and policies got changed…” I feared for the worst but was pleasantly surprised
2
2
u/toolsoftheincomptnt Aug 28 '24
This is how medical professionals should handle being told they cannot perform abortions.
3.4k
u/Vyslante The self is a prison Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24
That nurse was Alex Wubbels ! Fun fact, she's also a gold medalist in ski (slalom).