US nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from a patient
Discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/01/ut...
You gotta love the Robocop approach of the US police, I think this will need more than an 'apology' to soothe it over...
You gotta love the Robocop approach of the US police, I think this will need more than an 'apology' to soothe it over...
d cop should be f
In copland USA the prevailing instinct is macho. Violence seems the default position when the slightest resistance is met. Now it seems ignorance of the law is mounting. In fairness all we see this side is the worst examples and we wonder if it is endemic or isolated. American reality is catching up with TV.
Already covered here https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Magic919 said:
Already covered here https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Thanks, I didn't read that thread, the title was misleading and implied multiple victim violence. 
Henners said:
Do we know how this is progressing?
You can see the younger, uniformed cops body language when they're outside - not comfortable.
A sacking with no pension would please me.
Likely outcomesYou can see the younger, uniformed cops body language when they're outside - not comfortable.
A sacking with no pension would please me.
1) off blood duty, back to traffic, written reprimand and additional training, then back on blood duty
2) Media stink too large, fired, employed by another county within 3 months as they don't have to train him as he is already a qualified law enforcement officer.
Henners said:
A sacking with no pension would please me.
Criminal charges for unlawful arrest, assault and false imprisonment would please me more. He was just following orders though it seems so I guess a more realistic outcome is a slap on the wrist for him and a lawsuit for the local taxpayers to settle.
Motorrad said:
Criminal charges for unlawful arrest, assault and false imprisonment would please me more.
He was just following orders though it seems so I guess a more realistic outcome is a slap on the wrist for him and a lawsuit for the local taxpayers to settle.
Yep, the issue is that the courts and prosecutors have to work with the police every day going forward, even the hospital relies on the police force for protection, hence that thin blue line is really really thick, average policeman thinks he is above the law simply because he is.He was just following orders though it seems so I guess a more realistic outcome is a slap on the wrist for him and a lawsuit for the local taxpayers to settle.
Cold said:
Yep, she was simply following the legal procedure. Something the cop can familiarise himself with while on suspension.
From the reports, it seems that his local procedure was to make the blood draw. The law around it is complex but with no consent from the driver, an exigence to act is apparent. The nurse probably thought she could flout the law because her 'policy' said she could law that allows for samples to be taken in absence of consent or a warrant. The officer was acting in good faith for the right reasons, and it seems the fact that the patient in this case was a driver involved in a serious car accident is something the news is skimming over. Was it heavy handed to arrest the nurse? He could have perhaps waited to see if she made any attempt to interfere with the blood draw once it was underway. That said, if she was intent on obstructing justice then he probably felt he had no choice but to act.
It doesn't surprise me that an apology has been issued to the nurse before the matter has been investigated as the hand-wringers are already in uproar, as the public are less concerned with facts and due process as they are with shock headlines and shaky handcam footage.
Interesting to see another point of view put forward.
So essentially, we need to know who was "right" - either the cop has lawful access to the driver's blood to aid legitimate investigation.
Or, the nurse was right to defend the patient's right to not have blood drawn unless a court said so, or the patient was genuinely part of a investigation.
Two points thought:
who was providing legal advice to the nurse? If a cop says the driver is part of an investigation, then who was there to say otherwise. The nurse was effectively making that call, and putting herself in the cop's way, and
Do the ends justify the means? Once the cop had decided what he wanted, and the nurse blocked him, what else could he have done? He didn't tazer or batton her, so showed what passes for restraint in the us. Would any cop just allow an investigation to be blocked because someone didn't want to ?
Which takes us back to the first point.
If the cop legitimately though he was right, (and no-one is suggesting he engineered the whole event to beat up a nurse) then either his superior needed to tell him otherwise, or he had to do what he thought was his duty.
Ian
So essentially, we need to know who was "right" - either the cop has lawful access to the driver's blood to aid legitimate investigation.
Or, the nurse was right to defend the patient's right to not have blood drawn unless a court said so, or the patient was genuinely part of a investigation.
Two points thought:
who was providing legal advice to the nurse? If a cop says the driver is part of an investigation, then who was there to say otherwise. The nurse was effectively making that call, and putting herself in the cop's way, and
Do the ends justify the means? Once the cop had decided what he wanted, and the nurse blocked him, what else could he have done? He didn't tazer or batton her, so showed what passes for restraint in the us. Would any cop just allow an investigation to be blocked because someone didn't want to ?
Which takes us back to the first point.
If the cop legitimately though he was right, (and no-one is suggesting he engineered the whole event to beat up a nurse) then either his superior needed to tell him otherwise, or he had to do what he thought was his duty.
Ian
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff