ER nurse illegally detained?

[ELB]

...The simple act of drawing blood would have not harmed the patient. If it would have she would have said so.

A blood draw is far more invasive than a trunk search, and it is not harmless. she didn't have to explicitly say so either -- this is subsumed in the whole point of informed consent. Generally a blood draw results in a small harm that heals quickly, but it can have serious consequences even with the most skillful of medical people. There are situations where implied consent would allow one to draw blood and perform other procedures that have inherent and consequential harms, but that implied consent is resting upon the purpose of the procedure being to save the patient's life or prevent greater harm to the patient's health. The blood draw the cop wanted certainly did not fall into this exception.

[OlBill]

Every story is different. Did she physically attempt to stop the officer from drawing blood or did she refused to draw blood?

Who cares. The patient had been omitted to the hospital and was under hospital care. The Officer had no right to preform or demand a blood draw. This Officer ( or two) should be fired.

To me there is a difference.

A police officer tries to open my car trunk after he asks permission for me to open my trunk and I tell him respectfully that, no he does not have probably cause to search my trunk and no he does not have my consent. Do I now have the authority to forcibly stop him from violating my constitutional rights against unreasonable searches, using force if necessary? Did the nurse simply say no I will not draw the blood, or did she move and block his path to the patient and say you may not draw his blood?

The simple act of drawing blood would have not harmed the patient. If it would have she would have said so.

That's not necessarily true. He was a burn patient. Not just a patient. Medical procedures should only be done on patients for the benefit the patient, not the state.

The patient was unconscious. He was therefore the responsibility of the medical professionals, not the police. Unconsciousness is no joke.

The officer did not meet any of the conditions required for drawing the blood and she showed him that.

There is no law there from what I understand that would have allowed him to draw the blood himself under those circunstances. And to think his "training" included considerations of burn patients is a stretch at best. I was just a Special Forces Medic, not a doctor, but I can assure you nobody layed a hand on my patients unless it was to improve their medical condition.

When asked by his fellow officer why they just didn't get a warrant, he replied "They don't have PC." He also said he had been told to arrest her.

This was a set up attempt at humbling and it blew up in their faces.

If he had been drawing the blood and the patient had died, would he have accepted even part of the blame?

He dragged a nurse out if an ER. Her house, in front of her superiors, peers and patients. Then he handcuffed her and put her in a corner to learn her lesson. Did he go back in and draw the blood himself? No. Why not?

I wonder how he'd like getting manhandled and zipped up in his house in front of his shift supervisor and junior officers and a bunch of prisoners?

You can't take back intimidation and humiliation. It doesn't work that way.

[1911 10MM]

Every story is different. Did she physically attempt to stop the officer from drawing blood or did she refused to draw blood?

Who cares. The patient had been omitted to the hospital and was under hospital care. The Officer had no right to preform or demand a blood draw. This Officer ( or two) should be fired.

To me there is a difference.

A police officer tries to open my car trunk after he asks permission for me to open my trunk and I tell him respectfully that, no he does not have probably cause to search my trunk and no he does not have my consent. Do I now have the authority to forcibly stop him from violating my constitutional rights against unreasonable searches, using force if necessary? Did the nurse simply say no I will not draw the blood, or did she move and block his path to the patient and say you may not draw his blood?

The simple act of drawing blood would have not harmed the patient. If it would have she would have said so.

You are wrong. Both the Mayor and police chief have stated the officer was wrong.

[chasfm11]

...The simple act of drawing blood would have not harmed the patient. If it would have she would have said so.

A blood draw is far more invasive than a trunk search, and it is not harmless. she didn't have to explicitly say so either -- this is subsumed in the whole point of informed consent. Generally a blood draw results in a small harm that heals quickly, but it can have serious consequences even with the most skillful of medical people. There are situations where implied consent would allow one to draw blood and perform other procedures that have inherent and consequential harms, but that implied consent is resting upon the purpose of the procedure being to save the patient's life or prevent greater harm to the patient's health. The blood draw the cop wanted certainly did not fall into this exception.

I caught phlebitis from a needle site done in a hospital. The infection required a week in the hospital with IV antibiotics to correct.

While I understand that the officer was responsible for his actions, it was mentioned earlier that the Lieutenant ordered him to bring back blood or a body. That suggests to me that the Lieutenant understood that there was push back and responded with force. He should be at least as culpable for the outcome as the detective was if not more so.

[Jusme]

...The simple act of drawing blood would have not harmed the patient. If it would have she would have said so.

A blood draw is far more invasive than a trunk search, and it is not harmless. she didn't have to explicitly say so either -- this is subsumed in the whole point of informed consent. Generally a blood draw results in a small harm that heals quickly, but it can have serious consequences even with the most skillful of medical people. There are situations where implied consent would allow one to draw blood and perform other procedures that have inherent and consequential harms, but that implied consent is resting upon the purpose of the procedure being to save the patient's life or prevent greater harm to the patient's health. The blood draw the cop wanted certainly did not fall into this exception.

I caught phlebitis from a needle site done in a hospital. The infection required a week in the hospital with IV antibiotics to correct.

While I understand that the officer was responsible for his actions, it was mentioned earlier that the Lieutenant ordered him to bring back blood or a body. That suggests to me that the Lieutenant understood that there was push back and responded with force. He should be at least as culpable for the outcome as the detective was if not more so.

I can't verify it, but from the quotes, and reports, it sounds like the CO was also suspended.

This was definitely a case of, "because I said so" , rather than any justifiable action, on the part of the officers involved. I know the police chief, is being as tactful as possible, and not publicly condemning the actions of his officers, but, with the backlash, and the obviously unjustified actions, I would lean toward their firing. The only issue I have with the investigations, is that an outside agency, should be doing it, like here in Texas, the DPS, will often take over the investigation, of officer misconduct, if, for no other reason, than to remove the cloud of impropriety. JMHO

Edit to add: This investigation, should not have taken a month to complete, they had the body cam video, they had the witnesses, who could give statements, and they have a legal team, to sort out what, if any authority, the officer(s) may have had for their actions. Instead, they sat on it, and took no action, until the video, went public. It looks a whole lot like they were hoping, it would just go away, without anything being done.

[Liberty]

Edit to add: This investigation, should not have taken a month to complete, they had the body cam video, they had the witnesses, who could give statements, and they have a legal team, to sort out what, if any authority, the officer(s) may have had for their actions. Instead, they sat on it, and took no action, until the video, went public. It looks a whole lot like they were hoping, it would just go away, without anything being done.

Once again the greater sin was the cover-up even more so than the original trangressions.

[Pariah3j]

I keep hearing/seeing people say that it was just one bad officer (or 2 if you count his LT who basically ordered him to do so.) But I saw at least 2 or 3 other Cops in the ER - Not one of them attempted to stop him. They are just as culpable in my mind, and as I see it, what is wrong with the Police today. It's not so much that we have the one or 2 bad apples out there 'ruining' it or making the rest of the Police look bad, it's all the supposed good cops not standing up to or stopping the behavior, that I think is what I think ultimately shines the negative light on them.

I'm not trying to bash Police officers, I respect what they do and the hard job they have, but they must be held to a higher standard, not allowed special exceptions. The 'Blue Line' mentality needs to end.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Soccerdad1995]

Until thugs such as these are investigated and prosecuted as aggressively as when regular citizens are investigated and prosecuted, the growing distrust of LEO will not reduce. It is a blatant double standard, and there are multiple layers of law enforcement and the justice system implicit in the lack of equality in eliminating thuggish behavior.

The LEO and his supervisor should face the exact same consequences that I would face if I unlawfully and with force handcuffed their wife / sister, transported them to my car and forced them to sit in the back seat for 20 minutes. An argument could be made that these LEO's should face harsher punishment than a private individual since they are entrusted with greater responsibility by the public. But I would settle for the exact same consequences.

[Soccerdad1995]

My daughter is a heavily armed liberty loving well read nurse and was highly PO'ed about this incident. No right to self defense against an all knowing legalized cabal with badges rulling over the unwashed huddled masses...

Others can correct me, but I believe that you do have the right to defend yourself against an unlawful arrest, at least in Texas. This is as it should be, and gets at the fundamental reason why we have the RKBA in the first place, IMHO.

[BHill]

It's a shame that these LEOs are making it harder on the good folks giving it a honest effort to do thing right. Sometimes stuff happens but they went far beyond not sure or not knowing. Ego and authority have no place together.

[parabelum]

My daughter is a heavily armed liberty loving well read nurse and was highly PO'ed about this incident. No right to self defense against an all knowing legalized cabal with badges rulling over the unwashed huddled masses...

Others can correct me, but I believe that you do have the right to defend yourself against an unlawful arrest, at least in Texas. This is as it should be, and gets at the fundamental reason why we have the RKBA in the first place, IMHO.

I don't have link on hand but I believe that in Texas you may not resist arrest, even if unlawful. I think Ford vs. State is relevant but IANAL.

Gestapo style, I know.

[Soccerdad1995]

My daughter is a heavily armed liberty loving well read nurse and was highly PO'ed about this incident. No right to self defense against an all knowing legalized cabal with badges rulling over the unwashed huddled masses...

Others can correct me, but I believe that you do have the right to defend yourself against an unlawful arrest, at least in Texas. This is as it should be, and gets at the fundamental reason why we have the RKBA in the first place, IMHO.

I don't have link on hand but I believe that in Texas you may not resist arrest, even if unlawful. I think Ford vs. State is relevant but IANAL.

Gestapo style, I know.

I just read section 38.03 of the Texas penal code, and it appears that you are correct, unfortunately. So there is basically no right to protect yourself against an abusive and tyrannical government or government agent.

Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.

(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 277, Sec. 1, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

This is not a good thing. At all. At least we still have the "self evident" right to overthrow the government and replace it with one that will better protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness per the Declaration of Independence.

[parabelum]

Don't want to steer this tread away but maybe 38.03 ought to be on the menu next go around for little revision.

[chasfm11]

]


I can't verify it, but from the quotes, and reports, it sounds like the CO was also suspended.

This was definitely a case of, "because I said so" , rather than any justifiable action, on the part of the officers involved. I know the police chief, is being as tactful as possible, and not publicly condemning the actions of his officers, but, with the backlash, and the obviously unjustified actions, I would lean toward their firing. The only issue I have with the investigations, is that an outside agency, should be doing it, like here in Texas, the DPS, will often take over the investigation, of officer misconduct, if, for no other reason, than to remove the cloud of impropriety. JMHO

Edit to add: This investigation, should not have taken a month to complete, they had the body cam video, they had the witnesses, who could give statements, and they have a legal team, to sort out what, if any authority, the officer(s) may have had for their actions. Instead, they sat on it, and took no action, until the video, went public. It looks a whole lot like they were hoping, it would just go away, without anything being done.

I hope that you can see this link. I tried to get a non-Facebook version but couldn't locate one.

There is body cam video of the Lieutenant that, for me, calls into question is continued certification as a police officer. I realize that the host of the show on the video could have cherry picked the comments and taken them out of context but they seem pretty clear to me.

https://www.facebook.com/DeFrancoNation ... 773349407/

[anygunanywhere]

I keep hearing/seeing people say that it was just one bad officer (or 2 if you count his LT who basically ordered him to do so.) But I saw at least 2 or 3 other Cops in the ER - Not one of them attempted to stop him. They are just as culpable in my mind, and as I see it, what is wrong with the Police today. It's not so much that we have the one or 2 bad apples out there 'ruining' it or making the rest of the Police look bad, it's all the supposed good cops not standing up to or stopping the behavior, that I think is what I think ultimately shines the negative light on them.

I'm not trying to bash Police officers, I respect what they do and the hard job they have, but they must be held to a higher standard, not allowed special exceptions. The 'Blue Line' mentality needs to end.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

If I remember correctly some of the uniformed individuals were hospital security, and possibly university LEO. There is plenty to object to in this event but the main aggressors were SLCPD.