The Fuck Tha Po-lice Thread
- Thread starter Lord Zero
- Start date
If I was wrong I would say it. She was playing jail house lawyer, and operating way above her pay grade, it bit her in the ass.
The only reason I'm even bothering with the argument is the nonstop bashing of the cops. I've grown weary of it, someone has to stick up for them from time to time, and this Internet quarter backs and white knighting is just hilarious and pathetic, yet no one points out the obvious it turns into these long drawn out dramas....
The only reason I'm even bothering with the argument is the nonstop bashing of the cops. I've grown weary of it, someone has to stick up for them from time to time, and this Internet quarter backs and white knighting is just hilarious and pathetic, yet no one points out the obvious it turns into these long drawn out dramas....
If the cop had a warrant you'd have a point. The matter was not urgent where someone's life was in immediate danger. The only injured party in discussion here had been hit head-on and caught on fire. And the cop is trying to get blood drawn from him for admin purposes. If the cop was in the right as you're arguing, he could've got a warrant in a matter of minutes. Beyond that is just bitching and whining about snotiness and cuntiness.
I can't believe I'm about to say this.
@THE FEZ MAN is the only rational person who is calmly stating facts and taking the time to source them and explain them. Everyone else sounds like a hysterical "the police is out to get us" nutjob.
I shouldn't expect anything else from the worst thread on wackbag, but when fez man is the most learned and scholarly person in a discussion, we've officially hit rock bottom.
Mother of God - now Kirk is being rational?!?!?
That's it, I give up.
@THE FEZ MAN is the only rational person who is calmly stating facts and taking the time to source them and explain them. Everyone else sounds like a hysterical "the police is out to get us" nutjob.
I shouldn't expect anything else from the worst thread on wackbag, but when fez man is the most learned and scholarly person in a discussion, we've officially hit rock bottom.
Mother of God - now Kirk is being rational?!?!?
That's it, I give up.
Shockingly, from time to time I am rational. What really bothers me is when a video like that comes out, and only one side is shown, and that one side becomes the only voice that is heard, with NO regard to the other side of the argument, and the jail house / facebook lawyers pop out of the woodwork.
This photo, is my inspiration.
Take out the conduct of the nurse and the cop. Is the request reasonable? A crash, during a criminal act, results in a fatality. The driver of the other car, although a victim, is still a part of the investigation.
The supreme court decision they are citing specifically deals with DUI arrests.
The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. The impact of breath tests on privacy is slight, and the need for BAC testing is great," Alito wrote. But "we reach a different conclusion with respect to blood tests. Blood tests are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availability of the less invasive alternative of a breath test. Respondents have offered no satisfactory justification for demanding the more intrusive alternative without a warrant."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote separately to concur with the Court's stance on warrantless blood tests while dissenting from the Court's acceptance of warrantless breath tests. "Because no governmental interest categorically makes it impractical for an officer to obtain a warrant before measuring a driver's alcohol level, the Fourth Amendment prohibits such searches without a warrant, unless exigent circumstances exist in a particular case," Sotomayor wrote. In other words, Sotomayor would have voided both types of warrantless DUI tests for violating the Fourth Amendment.
The wording, exigent circumstances, is going to be the basis for the officers demands here. The exigent circumstances, which usually applies to warrantless entry, covers escape, evidence, and emergency. The blood work of the victim may fall into the "evidence" category here seeing how its time sensitive.
And I did read the 2007 ruling citing "implied consent"
In light of the foregoing, it is difficult for us to imagine that the United States Supreme Court could muster the assurance that the consequences of alcohol dissipation are so great and the prospects for prompt warrant acquisition so remote that per se exigent circumstance status be awarded to seizures of blood for the purpose of gathering blood-alcohol evidence. Accordingly, we decline to grant per se exigent circumstance status to warrantless seizures of blood evidence. However, it is our opinion that the State did meet its obligation in this case to show that under the totality of the circumstances, both probable cause and exigent circumstances justified its warrantless blood draw.
I'll acknowledge that unlike a suspect in a DUI, where there has to be some suspicion of intoxication, there was no suspicion of the victim here. No probable cause. So it would come down to consent which he was unable to provide.
I'll also acknowledge that this involves a homicide investigation and not a mere petty offense.
I'm curious to know if they even attempted to obtain a warrant. Why they wouldn't even attempt it, or at the least have a consultation with someone from a legal team for the department, or a representative of the Districts attorneys office, is a valid question. I haven't heard it mentioned.
I'm also curious to know why the nurse was the only person arguing with the cop? Why does it come down to just her and not the hospital administrators? There must have been other nurses available to do the draw. Or was she the sole person standing in the way that wouldn't allow it? I get she was on the phone with someone but was there no one present at the hospital in a higher role?
I don't know who was right or wrong, but I don't think the answer is that simple.
The supreme court decision they are citing specifically deals with DUI arrests.
The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. The impact of breath tests on privacy is slight, and the need for BAC testing is great," Alito wrote. But "we reach a different conclusion with respect to blood tests. Blood tests are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availability of the less invasive alternative of a breath test. Respondents have offered no satisfactory justification for demanding the more intrusive alternative without a warrant."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote separately to concur with the Court's stance on warrantless blood tests while dissenting from the Court's acceptance of warrantless breath tests. "Because no governmental interest categorically makes it impractical for an officer to obtain a warrant before measuring a driver's alcohol level, the Fourth Amendment prohibits such searches without a warrant, unless exigent circumstances exist in a particular case," Sotomayor wrote. In other words, Sotomayor would have voided both types of warrantless DUI tests for violating the Fourth Amendment.
The wording, exigent circumstances, is going to be the basis for the officers demands here. The exigent circumstances, which usually applies to warrantless entry, covers escape, evidence, and emergency. The blood work of the victim may fall into the "evidence" category here seeing how its time sensitive.
And I did read the 2007 ruling citing "implied consent"
In light of the foregoing, it is difficult for us to imagine that the United States Supreme Court could muster the assurance that the consequences of alcohol dissipation are so great and the prospects for prompt warrant acquisition so remote that per se exigent circumstance status be awarded to seizures of blood for the purpose of gathering blood-alcohol evidence. Accordingly, we decline to grant per se exigent circumstance status to warrantless seizures of blood evidence. However, it is our opinion that the State did meet its obligation in this case to show that under the totality of the circumstances, both probable cause and exigent circumstances justified its warrantless blood draw.
I'll acknowledge that unlike a suspect in a DUI, where there has to be some suspicion of intoxication, there was no suspicion of the victim here. No probable cause. So it would come down to consent which he was unable to provide.
I'll also acknowledge that this involves a homicide investigation and not a mere petty offense.
I'm curious to know if they even attempted to obtain a warrant. Why they wouldn't even attempt it, or at the least have a consultation with someone from a legal team for the department, or a representative of the Districts attorneys office, is a valid question. I haven't heard it mentioned.
I'm also curious to know why the nurse was the only person arguing with the cop? Why does it come down to just her and not the hospital administrators? There must have been other nurses available to do the draw. Or was she the sole person standing in the way that wouldn't allow it? I get she was on the phone with someone but was there no one present at the hospital in a higher role?
I don't know who was right or wrong, but I don't think the answer is that simple.
I always stick up for cops when they're in the right. They weren't here. EVEN if the cop's argument was correct, why didn't he elevate the issue to her supervisor? He's wearing a gun, she's wearing pajamas. It's his responsibility to make sure the situation doesn't escalate, and that her rights are protected.
And again, you have to know you're wrong to admit it. I don't think I'm wrong either, or I wouldn't be arguing this point. The nurse had EVERY responsibility to refuse the drug test, because she is LEGALLY responsible for the rights of patients that can't speak for themselves. If a cop hands you a gun and tells you to shoot a homeless guy in the face, do you think that would hold up as a defense in court? Even civilians can't harm an innocent person, even if they're under duress... let alone someone tasked with being an advocate for an unconscious patient. So instead of the nurse complying with something she knew (as much as you think you know the truth here) to be unconstitutional, she risked arrest defending the rights of a patient.
NO EVIDENCE NEEDED TO BE COLLECTED FROM HIS BLOOD. There was absolutely no suspicion that he was driving under the influence. The person who caused the crash had taken police on a high speed chase and hit the truck after traveling into the oncoming lane. No attorney in the world could pin that on the driver, so to collect blood so that he's "exonerated" is ridiculous. That does not fit into exigent circumstances. And if it did, a judge would agree and he could get a fucking warrant! Or if there was even the slightest chance that the driver was intoxicated, he could arrest him (even while he's unconscious) and draw blood!
And you talk about Facebook/Wackbag lawyers, but you and I are equally (meaning not at all) educated in the law. Actually I took 3 criminal justice classes in community college, so I might be barely more educated in the law. EVERY SINGLE INVOLVED PARTY IN THIS SITUATION HAS THE SAME OPINION. The hospital says the nurse was right. The police department where the victim was a reserve cop said the nurse was right. THE MAYOR AND POLICE CHIEF APOLOGIZED for how the cops acted, and retrained the entire force.
And if I'm wrong, there will be a legal decision regarding this, and we'll find out then. If that's the case, I'll fully admit my mistake. But based on everything else, the cop should have tried to get a warrant or backed off.
And again, you have to know you're wrong to admit it. I don't think I'm wrong either, or I wouldn't be arguing this point. The nurse had EVERY responsibility to refuse the drug test, because she is LEGALLY responsible for the rights of patients that can't speak for themselves. If a cop hands you a gun and tells you to shoot a homeless guy in the face, do you think that would hold up as a defense in court? Even civilians can't harm an innocent person, even if they're under duress... let alone someone tasked with being an advocate for an unconscious patient. So instead of the nurse complying with something she knew (as much as you think you know the truth here) to be unconstitutional, she risked arrest defending the rights of a patient.
NO EVIDENCE NEEDED TO BE COLLECTED FROM HIS BLOOD. There was absolutely no suspicion that he was driving under the influence. The person who caused the crash had taken police on a high speed chase and hit the truck after traveling into the oncoming lane. No attorney in the world could pin that on the driver, so to collect blood so that he's "exonerated" is ridiculous. That does not fit into exigent circumstances. And if it did, a judge would agree and he could get a fucking warrant! Or if there was even the slightest chance that the driver was intoxicated, he could arrest him (even while he's unconscious) and draw blood!
And you talk about Facebook/Wackbag lawyers, but you and I are equally (meaning not at all) educated in the law. Actually I took 3 criminal justice classes in community college, so I might be barely more educated in the law. EVERY SINGLE INVOLVED PARTY IN THIS SITUATION HAS THE SAME OPINION. The hospital says the nurse was right. The police department where the victim was a reserve cop said the nurse was right. THE MAYOR AND POLICE CHIEF APOLOGIZED for how the cops acted, and retrained the entire force.
And if I'm wrong, there will be a legal decision regarding this, and we'll find out then. If that's the case, I'll fully admit my mistake. But based on everything else, the cop should have tried to get a warrant or backed off.
Thank you, I read all of those but as usual I'm too lazy to cut and paste them, I still think the simple answer is the nurse was being a cunt, and as the cop stated, as he was hand cufffing her, she was "impeding an investigation" which she was at the time.
The drama that played out in the clips they are showing is the narrative that the media (including facebook) wants to show, a mean "Nazi cop" stomping on the "rights" of a poor nurse who was "just protecting her patient"
When in reality it was a nurse with a big head arguing with a cop that had about enough of listening to her shit
The drama that played out in the clips they are showing is the narrative that the media (including facebook) wants to show, a mean "Nazi cop" stomping on the "rights" of a poor nurse who was "just protecting her patient"
When in reality it was a nurse with a big head arguing with a cop that had about enough of listening to her shit
That 'argument' is invalid here. The key part in all this is the policy the nurse read to the cop. The reason the heads of the hospital and police department agreed to the policy was to avoid shit like this that likely happened before. Bottom line, cop got pissy that the nurse didn't just ignore the policy and let the cop do whatever he wants.
Whether you are right or wrong, both of these statements are incorrect. Taking the second statement first, nobody on wackbag ever admits when they're wrong. So let's not kid ourselves here.
As for you being proven right or wrong via a legal decision, that's unlikely. The only thing that would have prompted a legal decision is if she had drawn the blood and
A) the patient would have sued or
B) he was on something and they used the blood evidence to charge him
The only scenario where a legal decision comes now is if dead guy's family sues, which isn't that likely. This is actually the point that undermines the cop's position the most.
The other option is if the nurse sues, but that's highly unlikely as well, because her understanding of the law was in fact incorrect, as was the officer's, as JB's article pointed out.
In the absence of a true legal decision, and after weighing all the evidence (while dismissing all the hysterical testimony), Judge Piggy is ready to issue his verdict:
The cop shouldn't have asked to draw the blood.
HOWEVER
The nurse should have complied with the request.
As this thread has perfectly illustrated, it's not up to private citizens, including nurses, to interpret the law. It's up to the judicial system. If the request turned out to be a violation of the dude's rights, then any evidence collected would have been thrown out if it ever came to a judicial proceeding.
The nurse faced no consequence for drawing the blood. Her best course of action if she didn't want to was to remove herself from the situation and get a hospital administrator. Instead she chose to play Perry Mason and she got tossed in a cop car like the dunce that she is.
A pair of side notes - right or wrong, I think it's hysterical that the nurse got arrested. As for the wackbag debate, everyone on both sides of the debate should be ashamed that Kirk - KIRK! Was the one who got it right.
As for you being proven right or wrong via a legal decision, that's unlikely. The only thing that would have prompted a legal decision is if she had drawn the blood and
A) the patient would have sued or
B) he was on something and they used the blood evidence to charge him
The only scenario where a legal decision comes now is if dead guy's family sues, which isn't that likely. This is actually the point that undermines the cop's position the most.
The other option is if the nurse sues, but that's highly unlikely as well, because her understanding of the law was in fact incorrect, as was the officer's, as JB's article pointed out.
In the absence of a true legal decision, and after weighing all the evidence (while dismissing all the hysterical testimony), Judge Piggy is ready to issue his verdict:
The cop shouldn't have asked to draw the blood.
HOWEVER
The nurse should have complied with the request.
As this thread has perfectly illustrated, it's not up to private citizens, including nurses, to interpret the law. It's up to the judicial system. If the request turned out to be a violation of the dude's rights, then any evidence collected would have been thrown out if it ever came to a judicial proceeding.
The nurse faced no consequence for drawing the blood. Her best course of action if she didn't want to was to remove herself from the situation and get a hospital administrator. Instead she chose to play Perry Mason and she got tossed in a cop car like the dunce that she is.
A pair of side notes - right or wrong, I think it's hysterical that the nurse got arrested. As for the wackbag debate, everyone on both sides of the debate should be ashamed that Kirk - KIRK! Was the one who got it right.
