User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:41:40 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope the nurse comes to her senses and goes for financial blood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:42:04 PM EDT
[#2]
In a perfect world. that cop would get burned this holiday weekend in a backyard fryer accident - and wake up in the care of everybody he just shit on...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:43:10 PM EDT
[#3]
POS...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:43:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He has a commercial drivers license and was involved in an injury/fatality accident. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why are they wanting to draw blood from the guy in the semi? What the fuck did he do, other than end up on the receiving end of an asshole running from the cops? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:44:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Must have had Comey lead the investigation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paid leave. Internal investigation. Cleared of wrongdoing Taxpayers foot the bill in civil suit Goes home safe Am I missing anything? No civil suit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:45:47 PM EDT
[#6]
How does someone that stupid get a job like that? And cops can't figure out why people hate them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:46:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Get a warrant. Not hard.
We don't draw BAL unless so. Hell we don't draw BAL unless it's a serious concern because some insurance won't pay the medical bill in a trauma if they have a high one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:46:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't think anyone else in Salt Lake City could claim ignorance for assault and kidnapping? All of the other cops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:49:31 PM EDT
[#9]
I have never heard of a department that didn't have someone they could call about legal crap 24/7. Even if the guy here in question didn't know who it was, the supervisor did or knew who did.
Guy fucked up not asking the right people the right questions and simply doing what he was told. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:50:30 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Her choice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paid leave. Internal investigation. Cleared of wrongdoing Taxpayers foot the bill in civil suit Goes home safe Am I missing anything? No civil suit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:51:04 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wife has been an OR RN for 37 years. Showed her the video. She says that cop needs to lose his job, his career and freedom. He is unfit to be a good LEO. Fuck him!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:52:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This....Duces Tecum warrants aren't exactly rocket science to file.......... plus you get an incredibly more detailed lab report than anything the Police Lab is going to come up with. Now, that said, I can't speak for Ut, but in NJ, any Mva with injuries involving a Tractor Trailer, the driver is going to be blood tested.....this is WAY overkill though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:53:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is the nurse correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:54:24 PM EDT
[#14]
The victim draw and the detective's reaction are weird at best. That said, there is a lot of legal spouting off in this thread that is just wrong. Implied consent is absolutely still a valid reason for a forced blood draw. In Florida, if the officer can articulate indications of alcohol involvement, he can compel a blood draw of at least the suspect in any case involving serious bodily injury or death. The scotus case from 2013 or 2014 did not impact Florida's rules all that much because they were already largely in compliance with what the Court ended up deciding.
In the morning when I can think more clearly, I'll look up Florida's current rules. Implied consent is not a cure all in these circumstances, of course. ETA: Like I said, I don't get the victim draw. If victim BAC were an issue, it would show up in the medical blood. Based on the facts, impairment of the victim is a non-issue at least insofar as the traffic hominids is concerned. Could be that an officer articulated PC that the victim was also DUI. At least in Florida, that gives rise to a warrantless blood draw since there is serious bodily injury or death. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:55:02 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why couldn't they just arrest him? Surely there is sufficient probable cause. ETA: Misunderstood. Guy fleeing died and other driver got burned? In that case, who cares about his blood? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:55:37 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a lot of places its policy on fatal crashes to test for impairment on all drivers. You'd be surprised how many times a drunk driver is driving along normally and another vehicle crashes into them. Just because they didn't commit any traffic violations and didn't cause a crash doesn't excuse driving impaired. Though I think this incident was uncalled for. It should be a relatively simple process to obtain a warrant for his blood + it removes liability from the hospital/nurse as well. Technically when you signed for your driver's license you also signed consent for sobriety testing. If you are unconscious you aren't able to refuse and its implied consent to the testing. So I'm not sure what right he violated on the dying man. Though always best to have a warrant. Cover's the nurse/hospital + doesn't leave any openings for court. I think most professional agencies would just do the warrant. I've no doubt in a lot of smaller places they'd just pull the blood based on that. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Everyone so concerned with getting their license they don't bother paying attention to the legalities of it. Lets see a citation. Anywhere in the country will do. ETA: For clarity, I mean as you wrote it - that is, without an arrest. Further, I believe the implied consent is tied to the arrest, not the drivers license. IE, the person without the DL does not get out of a bood test because they have no DL and therefore have no implied consent, while the person with a DL will get a blood test will get one due to the fact they have implied consent from the DL itself. But hey, IDK for sure about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:55:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The victim draw and the detective's reaction are weird at best. That said, there is a lot of legal spouting off in this thread that is just wrong. Implied consent is absolutely still a valid reason for a forced blood draw. In Florida, if the officer can articulate indications of alcohol involvement, he can compel a blood draw of at least the suspect in any case involving serious bodily injury or death. The scotus case from 2013 or 2014 did not impact Florida's rules all that much because they were already largely in compliance with what the Court ended up deciding. In the morning when I can think more clearly, I'll look up Florida's current rules. Implied consent is not a cure all in these circumstances, of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:57:00 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does someone that stupid get a job like that? And cops can't figure out why people hate them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:57:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Implied consent is unamerican. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:57:29 PM EDT
[#20]
It appears that state probably has a law where LE can get a blood draw if an accident causes serious bodily injury or death regardless of the patients condition.
The hospitals policy probably contradicts the states law |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:58:15 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The outcome of the internal investigation was her choice? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paid leave. Internal investigation. Cleared of wrongdoing Taxpayers foot the bill in civil suit Goes home safe Am I missing anything? No civil suit. Her choice not to pursue a civil suit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:58:39 PM EDT
[#22]
I know one thing, I wouldn't want to be a cop from that jurisdiction seeking emergency treatment at that hospital after that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:59:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't like it? Don't drive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:59:22 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
RIF. Her choice not to pursue a civil suit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:59:55 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't like it? Don't drive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Implied consent is unamerican. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:00:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't like it? Don't drive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Implied consent is unamerican. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:01:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It appears that state probably has a law where LE can get a blood draw if an accident causes serious bodily injury or death regardless of the patients condition. The hospitals policy probably contradicts the states law |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:01:55 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Implied consent is unamerican. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The victim draw and the detective's reaction are weird at best. That said, there is a lot of legal spouting off in this thread that is just wrong. Implied consent is absolutely still a valid reason for a forced blood draw. In Florida, if the officer can articulate indications of alcohol involvement, he can compel a blood draw of at least the suspect in any case involving serious bodily injury or death. The scotus case from 2013 or 2014 did not impact Florida's rules all that much because they were already largely in compliance with what the Court ended up deciding. In the morning when I can think more clearly, I'll look up Florida's current rules. Implied consent is not a cure all in these circumstances, of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:02:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got that. The assault and kidnapping were what I was talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
RIF. Her choice not to pursue a civil suit. I was correcting the poster on the civil suit part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:02:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sarcasm? If not, that's silly. Don't drive if you don't like implied consent. It's printed right on my FL DL. I put more than one dirtbag in county jail based on implied consent laws and their refusal to provide breath samples after being arrested for DUI. (In my old jurisdiction the blow was at the jail post arrest.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The victim draw and the detective's reaction are weird at best. That said, there is a lot of legal spouting off in this thread that is just wrong. Implied consent is absolutely still a valid reason for a forced blood draw. In Florida, if the officer can articulate indications of alcohol involvement, he can compel a blood draw of at least the suspect in any case involving serious bodily injury or death. The scotus case from 2013 or 2014 did not impact Florida's rules all that much because they were already largely in compliance with what the Court ended up deciding. In the morning when I can think more clearly, I'll look up Florida's current rules. Implied consent is not a cure all in these circumstances, of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:03:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Odd, I never mentioned that. I was correcting the poster on the civil suit part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:03:20 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does someone that stupid get a job like that? And cops can't figure out why people hate them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:03:35 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The victim draw and the detective's reaction are weird at best. That said, there is a lot of legal spouting off in this thread that is just wrong. Implied consent is absolutely still a valid reason for a forced blood draw. In Florida, if the officer can articulate indications of alcohol involvement, he can compel a blood draw of at least the suspect in any case involving serious bodily injury or death. The scotus case from 2013 or 2014 did not impact Florida's rules all that much because they were already largely in compliance with what the Court ended up deciding. In the morning when I can think more clearly, I'll look up Florida's current rules. Implied consent is not a cure all in these circumstances, of course. ETA: Like I said, I don't get the victim draw. If victim BAC were an issue, it would show up in the medical blood. Based on the facts, impairment of the victim is a non-issue at least insofar as the traffic hominids is concerned. Could be that an officer articulated PC that the victim was also DUI. At least in Florida, that gives rise to a warrantless blood draw since there is serious bodily injury or death. The officers even admit that they only want to draw his blood to "help" the victim which is probably a farce |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:03:35 PM EDT
[#34]
More than one cop has asked me if they could do it. Theoretically yes, under the right circumstances. However, I tell them this is one of those just because you can doesn't mean you should situations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:04:40 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
QualificationsThe minimum requirements to become a Salt Lake City Police Officer are as follows:"possession of GED certificate." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:05:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm serious as a heart attack. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The victim draw and the detective's reaction are weird at best. That said, there is a lot of legal spouting off in this thread that is just wrong. Implied consent is absolutely still a valid reason for a forced blood draw. In Florida, if the officer can articulate indications of alcohol involvement, he can compel a blood draw of at least the suspect in any case involving serious bodily injury or death. The scotus case from 2013 or 2014 did not impact Florida's rules all that much because they were already largely in compliance with what the Court ended up deciding. In the morning when I can think more clearly, I'll look up Florida's current rules. Implied consent is not a cure all in these circumstances, of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:06:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Although that Arizona has recently ruled that if someone refuses treatment and is transported anyways, an officer cannot get a grey-top through the medical draw exception. It is still a question how this would apply to someone who cannot give consent due to being unconscious.
Which 's why I tell them, especially in the world of 10 minute telephonic warrants, to get a SW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:10:58 PM EDT
[#38]
"She's the one who told me no."
Another scumbag with a badge. Shocker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:11:19 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which 's why I tell them, especially in the world of 10 minute telephonic warrants, to get a SW. Its not that hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:12:46 PM EDT
[#40]
Funny how people assume the nurse knows the law better than the police
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:14:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Here's what I don't get...
EVEN IF there were good legal standing to draw blood, that's for the cop to get the blood, not for 'specific nurse X' to draw the blood. What if a nurse says 'sorry, it's my break time' or 'sorry my shift ended' or 'sorry I am taking a sick day rather than doing this' or even 'sorry I quit'....would you then slap them with an 'interfering' charge? Yes, I know this question is academic because the truth is there was no legal right to gather blood from the victim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:16:00 PM EDT
[#42]
This has been SOP for a few decades now.
The cops want the victim's blood because if it turns out he was drinking or on pain killers or cold medicine, he will share the blame, his insurance will be liable for a portion of the total costs, and he could face criminal prosecution. That's all this is about. The cops want that blood before his liver and kidneys filter out any drugs or alcohol. I'm surprised they need consent when there was a fatality. I know in California they have actually found the victim 100% liable if he was drunk, even if the other guy was at fault (but sober.) This was during the salad days of MADD in the 80's. Maybe the law has changed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:16:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's what I don't get... EVEN IF there were good legal standing to draw blood, that's for the cop to get the blood, not for 'specific nurse X' to draw the blood. What if a nurse says 'sorry, it's my break time' or 'sorry my shift ended' or 'sorry I am taking a sick day rather than doing this' or even 'sorry I quit'....would you then slap them with an 'interfering' charge? Yes, I know this question is academic because the truth is there was no legal right to gather blood from the victim. Then get another nurse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:17:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After being arrested? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:17:55 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cop needs to get fucked for this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:19:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These cops need to be held criminally negligent when the law is broken. Arrest someone falsely like this? Charge the cop. Misrepresent the law? Charge the cop. I know for a fact that a lawyer can be held criminally liable for misrepresenting statutes and case law in the court, to the judge, in the state of North Carolina. Cops should know every law they enforce, and not enforce the ones they don't know. It baffles me that the only "real" repercussions are administrative, and most of those are wrist-slaps. Cops sitting in jail cells for this behavior will put a definitive end to the bullshit. Not lost vacation, not a reprimand, criminal charges. Let them face the same fate as those who are falsely arrested. If a regular citizen breaks the law unintentionally, because they are ignorant of it, they can get nailed. The police can make a wrongful arrest, and best case scenario let you off after ruining your day or week, worst case scenario (assuming you do get off) you get found innocent in court after spending thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees and probably nearly bankrupting yourself or loosing your job, and it's just "well you were cleared, you aren't in jail, have a nice day." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:19:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This has been SOP for a few decades now. The cops want the victim's blood because if it turns out he was drinking or on pain killers or cold medicine, he will share the blame, his insurance will be liable for a portion of the total costs, and he could face criminal prosecution. That's all this is about. The cops want that blood before his liver and kidneys filter out any drugs or alcohol. I'm surprised they need consent when there was a fatality. I know in California they have actually found the victim 100% liable if he was drunk, even if the other guy was at fault (but sober.) This was during the salad days of MADD in the 80's. Maybe the law has changed? Simple |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:20:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Funny how people assume the nurse knows the law better than the police |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:20:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well here's the thing, even if the administration didn't give a shit about their employees, they absolutely give a fuck about their liability if conducting unlawful test. The damn rules are there for a reason. The cops signed off on the requirements, and the nurse was 100% right to call the administration. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, "I have hospital administration on the way." Like hospital administration gives a flying fuck about their employees.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:21:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Funny how people assume the nurse knows the law better than the police 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
