‘This is crazy,’ sobs Utah hospital nurse as cop roughs her up, arrests her for doing her job

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,964
18,279
146
not a bad idea. maybe then our tax dollars dont get wasted on lawsuits from LEO power trippin
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,137
382
126
He should have to forfeit everything he has over it. The nurse should file a civil suit for tort damages both emotional and physical. Body cameras should be required by all police and if an incident occurs without them being present the police should be at fault each and every time.

Guilty until proven innocent? Now now don't let your fear turn you into something you wouldn't like.
 
Reactions: KMFJD

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,964
18,279
146
Guilty until proven innocent? Now now don't let your fear turn you into something you wouldn't like.
body cameras should be mandatory, amd a violation of policy to disable them.

guilty until proven innocent, i wonder what the nurse who was unlawfully dragged from the hospital has to say about that.

i wonder what the patient, whom they didnt have probable cause or a warrant to take a blood sample, would have to say about that.
 
Reactions: Puffnstuff

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,137
382
126
body cameras should be mandatory, amd a violation of policy to disable them.

guilty until proven innocent, i wonder what the nurse who was unlawfully dragged from the hospital has to say about that.

i wonder what the patient, whom they didnt have probable cause or a warrant to take a blood sample, would have to say about that.

I agree body cams should be mandatory and disabling them should be reprimanded. In this case Payne and his supervisor were in the wrong. That doesn't change my opinion of innocent until proven guilty as the best policy.
 
Last edited:

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,964
18,279
146
I agree body cams should be mandatory and disabling them should be reprimanded. In this case Payne and his supervidor were in the wrong. That doesn't change my opinion of innocent until proven guilty as the best policy.
i agree...

but consider that LEO's are not the judge and jury, and will arrest people who are not guilty. if its a lawful arrwst, guilty or not, go for it.

this situation shows how important it is to hold our LEO's accoutable when they willingly go above the law.

just like judges will "make an example" of ordinary citizens, IMO its got to be extremely severe to begin to stop the entrenched mindset that the LEO's are infallible.

i like the idea of malpractice insurance for LEOs
 
Reactions: KMFJD
Dec 10, 2005
24,376
7,266
136
Sadly its an accepted practice in modern society that is reinforced through the media. Just think about all of the tv shows and movies that glamorize law enforcement's abuse of people while making it seem okay that the ends justify the means.
In the movies and TV, it's only bad people having their rights violated, so people see that as okay, and internalize the mentality for real life: ie you must be doing something wrong to be arrested...
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,033
4,798
136
In the movies and TV, it's only bad people having their rights violated, so people see that as okay, and internalize the mentality for real life: ie you must be doing something wrong to be arrested...
Only the tv police are qualified to make that determination while everyone watching cheers them on. Albert Bandura indeed.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
We kind of do. Medical malpractice insurance will keep bad doctors out because they cant keep practicing without insurance. I think it would be great if cops had to carry insurance. If you kill someone then your insurance is dinged for it. You do enough bad and you cant get insurance and no insurance no work.

Medical malpractice (insurance or not) really doesn't do that effectively.
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
We kind of do. Medical malpractice insurance will keep bad doctors out because they cant keep practicing without insurance. I think it would be great if cops had to carry insurance. If you kill someone then your insurance is dinged for it. You do enough bad and you cant get insurance and no insurance no work.

So in the case where an officer is justified in a shooting, their insurance goes up? That makes no sense at all.

- Merg
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
So in the case where an officer is justified in a shooting, their insurance goes up? That makes no sense at all.

- Merg

Yeah I agree it would need some tweaking. But it would wash out the guy that just so happens to have 10 good shoots that went to trial. That guy shouldn’t be on the street either.
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
Yeah I agree it would need some tweaking. But it would wash out the guy that just so happens to have 10 good shoots that went to trial. That guy shouldn’t be on the street either.

If it’s a good shoot, it’s a good shoot. Why should he be penalized for doing his job properly?

- Merg
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
I dont think any human being should be on the streets with a gun after killing 10 people.

I’d say that would be pretty unlikely to happen anyways, but if the shooting is justified, it’s justified.

In fact, while the number of officers involved in lethal shootings is exceptionally low, I’d say that the number of officers involved in multiple lethal shootings is even exponentially lower.

- Merg
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
I’d say that would be pretty unlikely to happen anyways, but if the shooting is justified, it’s justified.

In fact, while the number of officers involved in lethal shootings is exceptionally low, I’d say that the number of officers involved in multiple lethal shootings is even exponentially lower.

- Merg

Right I would pu the number at 3 kills and you are at a desk or doing something else. Sorry. I know we need cops but everyone needs protection. Including the cop. Nobodys brain should have to deal with the fact they killed someone.
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
Right I would pu the number at 3 kills and you are at a desk or doing something else. Sorry. I know we need cops but everyone needs protection. Including the cop. Nobodys brain should have to deal with the fact they killed someone.

I don’t disagree with you, but I don’t think we can put a hard number on it.

One aspect that departments have overlooked in the past and still today is the mental health of their employees. PTSD is a huge issue among first-responders and one of the reasons for the higher than average suicide rate for first responders.

But, we digress...

- Merg
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,547
2,138
146
I have utmost respect for first responders, which often includes the police, actually. Honestly I dread the thought of ever being the first on scene at something bad, much less do it for a living.
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
body cameras should be mandatory, amd a violation of policy to disable them.

For Departments that have instituted BWC’s, that is exactly the case.

I was in San Antonio and spoke to some cops there as I saw they had cameras. Their cameras have an always on 30 second buffer. They cannot turn off the camera, except when using the facilities. It needs to be activated if they are sent to a call or have contact with a citizen. If they want to mute the microphone, they need to get permission from a supervisor.

One officer was telling me that he got in trouble for not activating his camera. He was exiting a building and saw two people fighting so he immediately ran over to take care of that issue and took one of the subjects into custody. As soon as he had the subject in custody, he turned on his camera. He received a reprimand for not turning on his camera before he ran over to the fight.

Apparently, the level of reprimand they receive is oral, written, and then time off.

- Merg
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
please correct me if i'm wrong, did he actually have probable cause?

if not, then lying to get your way is still an abuse of power

No probable cause for seeking blood. Probable cause for placing the nurse under arrest. Which it isn't in hindsight, but statement of saying, "I am given an order by my superior to do this as part of my investigation. Anyone not allowing me to do so is impeding my investigation. Thus I have probable cause to arrest any person impeding the investigation."

I am not sure how more explicit I can be with all these posts.

I am not saying that even that statement is true. I am saying that had he handled it like that, and in a calmer manner, then all this would have blown over much easier without the outrage. Which I am not saying he was right to do even that, but there is quite a bit of difference.

Police: "Maam, I was ordered to draw blood from your patient as part of my investigation. This action was ordered by my superior for me to do."

Nurse: "I cannot allow that based on the rules set out by my supervisor and the policy drafted between this hospital and your department."

Police: "I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately as I was ordered by my supervisor to place anyone under arrest for impeding my investigation I now have to do so. I will place you under arrest temporarily, take you to my vehicle, and contact my supervisor at that time. Hopefully we can clear this mess up after that."



Had the scenario played out that way, this thread wouldn't be here. That is not to say that doing so would have been legal or correct at all for the police officer to even do as I described above. It is NOT. There is a difference in handling though and at most the police officer and supervisor would have gotten a slap on the wrist or verbal reprimand for their decisions/actions. Instead we have the situation where the police officer went overboard and is receiving harsher punishment than the supervisor for his direct actions.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,964
18,279
146
No probable cause for seeking blood. Probable cause for placing the nurse under arrest. Which it isn't in hindsight, but statement of saying, "I am given an order by my superior to do this as part of my investigation. Anyone not allowing me to do so is impeding my investigation. Thus I have probable cause to arrest any person impeding the investigation."

I am not sure how more explicit I can be with all these posts.

I am not saying that even that statement is true. I am saying that had he handled it like that, and in a calmer manner, then all this would have blown over much easier without the outrage. Which I am not saying he was right to do even that, but there is quite a bit of difference.

Police: "Maam, I was ordered to draw blood from your patient as part of my investigation. This action was ordered by my superior for me to do."

Nurse: "I cannot allow that based on the rules set out by my supervisor and the policy drafted between this hospital and your department."

Police: "I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately as I was ordered by my supervisor to place anyone under arrest for impeding my investigation I now have to do so. I will place you under arrest temporarily, take you to my vehicle, and contact my supervisor at that time. Hopefully we can clear this mess up after that."



Had the scenario played out that way, this thread wouldn't be here. That is not to say that doing so would have been legal or correct at all for the police officer to even do as I described above. It is NOT. There is a difference in handling though and at most the police officer and supervisor would have gotten a slap on the wrist or verbal reprimand for their decisions/actions. Instead we have the situation where the police officer went overboard and is receiving harsher punishment than the supervisor for his direct actions.
thats great. we ahould probably hire people who are capable of higher level thinking like youre describing.

i think the Cartman take on LEO's is pretty accurate for many.

thus we have bullshit like this happen.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |