HorrorMovieFans.com

I'll drive it for you if need be. :p

Also, blood alcohol content is only allowed to be .04 with a CDL license, as opposed to .08. That is including an off-the-job breathalyzer. It should be .24 since I am a professional driver dammit! Now I'm not allowed to drive drunk AT ALL. Jeez.

Jason wrote:I'll drive it for you if need be. :p

Also, blood alcohol content is only allowed to be .04 with a CDL license, as opposed to .08. That is including an off-the-job breathalyzer. It should be .24 since I am a professional driver dammit! Now I'm not allowed to drive drunk AT ALL. Jeez.

This is why a BAC test could easily become an exigent circumstance. Under the right conditions, you could go from impaired to alcohol free in just 2.5-3 hours. Police are trying to get a warrant and cannot get ahold of a magistrate. You explain the situation and how it is lawful to collect the blood from the victim. Now you have people standing in the way with partial knowledge of the law thinking they are supposed to stop you.

The admissibility argument is for the court to decide after the officer has declared an exception, IMO. You can't have every clown who thinks they know the law becoming a barrier to police work.

Foo wrote:

Jason wrote:I'll drive it for you if need be. :p

Also, blood alcohol content is only allowed to be .04 with a CDL license, as opposed to .08. That is including an off-the-job breathalyzer. It should be .24 since I am a professional driver dammit! Now I'm not allowed to drive drunk AT ALL. Jeez.

This is why a BAC test could easily become an exigent circumstance. Under the right conditions, you could go from impaired to alcohol free in just 2.5-3 hours. Police are trying to get a warrant and cannot get ahold of a magistrate. You explain the situation and how it is lawful to collect the blood from the victim. Now you have people standing in the way with partial knowledge of the law thinking they are supposed to stop you.

The admissibility argument is for the court to decide after the officer has declared an exception, IMO. You can't have every clown who thinks they know the law becoming a barrier to police work.

we don't know what, if anything, was said before the start of that footage. you can claim anything you want was said or not said. you keep saying that we don't know the law and exceptions and such. but you're continuing to argue, based on things that we know even less about.

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Foo wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:Am I missing something with the fucking Nurse story? "The incident began when a truck driver was severely burned in a head-on crash with a vehicle that was fleeing from police in Cache County and crossed into on-coming traffic. The driver of the fleeing vehicle was killed." So a fucking dirtbag that was fleeing from police got killed from crossing over into on-coming traffic and put a poor truck driver into a burned induced coma, and the cops want the burn victims blood for fucking what? Am I reading this shit wrong?

Truck driver has a CDL most likely. Giving a blood test after an accident is standard procedure. He could actually lose his license for awhile depending upon how the clown show that is our government looks at him not having the blood test. That is what I was getting at, the evidence can protect the victim.

My father has a CDL for our food business, not the low level kind delivery drivers have, but the hazmat one because we haul fuels and gases, and it is a pain.

Brother Foo, gave me pause with that. Now, the Cops could have illustrated that finer point instead of coming across like they just wanted it. And even then she still resists, fine, it'll be on you Ms. Nurse. No reason to get all militant in a situation where it's more important that this guy is fighting to live, let alone drive a fucking truck again.

It shouldn't have been a conversation with the nurse. He needed to talk to the higher ups using his higher ups.

And that is where I'm with Foo. When time is of the essence. She was in charge because her higher ups were busy or more likely couldn't be bothered. Same for his higher ups, except they may too stupid to even bother with. I'd trust shit getting done right and more efficient from groundlings then I ever would from upper-management weasels.

Her higher ups are literally on the phone though. Clearly telling her not to do that. She no longer has any grounds or authority to make the call. That's now gone. Fine if you want the cop to talk and not his boss. But the cop was clearly arguing for an exception to be made due to circumstance. If they say no and stick to the written rules you're out of luck. The end.

And the cop made a bad call. Walk away and it's on you nurse for him losing his CDL.

No. It's on whoever revoked the CDL. Why misplace the blame away from the authority responsible for the actions.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Foo wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:Am I missing something with the fucking Nurse story? "The incident began when a truck driver was severely burned in a head-on crash with a vehicle that was fleeing from police in Cache County and crossed into on-coming traffic. The driver of the fleeing vehicle was killed." So a fucking dirtbag that was fleeing from police got killed from crossing over into on-coming traffic and put a poor truck driver into a burned induced coma, and the cops want the burn victims blood for fucking what? Am I reading this shit wrong?

Truck driver has a CDL most likely. Giving a blood test after an accident is standard procedure. He could actually lose his license for awhile depending upon how the clown show that is our government looks at him not having the blood test. That is what I was getting at, the evidence can protect the victim.

My father has a CDL for our food business, not the low level kind delivery drivers have, but the hazmat one because we haul fuels and gases, and it is a pain.

Brother Foo, gave me pause with that. Now, the Cops could have illustrated that finer point instead of coming across like they just wanted it. And even then she still resists, fine, it'll be on you Ms. Nurse. No reason to get all militant in a situation where it's more important that this guy is fighting to live, let alone drive a fucking truck again.

It shouldn't have been a conversation with the nurse. He needed to talk to the higher ups using his higher ups.

And that is where I'm with Foo. When time is of the essence. She was in charge because her higher ups were busy or more likely couldn't be bothered. Same for his higher ups, except they may too stupid to even bother with. I'd trust shit getting done right and more efficient from groundlings then I ever would from upper-management weasels.

Her higher ups are literally on the phone though. Clearly telling her not to do that. She no longer has any grounds or authority to make the call. That's now gone. Fine if you want the cop to talk and not his boss. But the cop was clearly arguing for an exception to be made due to circumstance. If they say no and stick to the written rules you're out of luck. The end.

Uh, what makes you believe the hospital has the right to obstruct justice?

If the police request was a lawful one, they are doing just that. Hospitals do not determine law, nor do the police. Courts have ruled on exceptions to arrests, warrants, and consent. Is this one of those? I don't know and neither does anyone else passing judgement.

If the guy could not consent and finds out they ignored this even when he wouldn't have wanted it, that's also injustice. There was a clear rule and it was adhered to. That's enough.

FWIW, the cop's statement was that they were looking for the blood sample to protect the victim himself.

I hope you guys can overcome your cop hating for a moment and think about that situation.

i hope you will overcome your bias and stop trying to push the narrative, that because we question or criticize specific individual cops, it means that we hate all cops.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/01/s ... s-patient/

Looks like the cop is in trouble. Good.

Foo wrote:FWIW, the cop's statement was that they were looking for the blood sample to protect the victim himself.

I hope you guys can overcome your cop hating for a moment and think about that situation.

As I said, the blood and why he needed it is irrelevant here. His conduct towards the nurse was completely unacceptable and criminal. Seems like he's rightly in trouble for his vile actions.

I hope you can overcome your apologist lung for those who abuse their position of power.

Just saying, if he is out trying to protect the victim, it blows all sorts of holes in the bully cop narrative, which is why it is important for those pushing that narrative to declare it irrelevant.

Both the cop and the nurse had the same agenda, yet one inspires people to be on "Team Nurse!". I personally look for a situation where we are all on "Team Victim".

Foo wrote:Just saying, if he is out trying to protect the victim, it blows all sorts of holes in the bully cop narrative, which is why it is important for those pushing that narrative to declare it irrelevant.

Both the cop and the nurse had the same agenda, yet one inspires people to be on "Team Nurse!". I personally look for a situation where we are all on "Team Victim".

but you're firmly on "team cop". *shrug*

Team Victim, ldo

Notice my advocating that they get the evidence, because it benefits the victim.

yeah, notice you also defending the cops actions. and trying to blame people as "anti-cop".

zombie wrote:yeah, notice you also defending the cops actions. and trying to blame people as "anti-cop".

I applaud the cop for not standing in the way of justice for the victim. For stepping up to help a man who suffered tragic injury at the hands of another.

I believe the nurse was trying to do her job. I also believe the higher ups at the hospital were cowards to put the nurse in that position. I also believe most who run hospitals are holier than thou scumbags who exploit people and act like they are saving the world.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:yeah, notice you also defending the cops actions. and trying to blame people as "anti-cop".

I applaud the cop for not standing in the way of justice for the victim. For stepping up to help a man who suffered tragic injury at the hands of another.

I believe the nurse was trying to do her job. I also believe the higher ups at the hospital were cowards to put the nurse in that position. I also believe most who run hospitals are holier than thou scumbags who exploit people and act like they are saving the world.

"I applaud the cop for not standing in the way of justice for the victim." <--- is that to say that the nurse was standing in the way of justice?

i haven't seen anything to indicate anyone was doing anything but following orders in the moment. both were doing what they thought was in the best interest of the victim and following the law. the cop seems to have been the one more in the wrong, in this situation, at least if the links that seb posted are accurate.

Just following orders...this excuse is always poor.

I predict the cop will be put through the ringer because that is the politics of the moment. A couple months later, the truth will be in fine print on the back of newspapers or buried in the newsfeed of the HuffPost if the cop was in the right. If he was wrong, they will parade his head on a stick through town square, giving virtual butt pats to each other.

Foo wrote:Just following orders...this excuse is always poor.

I predict the cop will be put through the ringer because that is the politics of the moment. A couple months later, the truth will be in fine print on the back of newspapers or buried in the newsfeed of the HuffPost if the cop was in the right. If he was wrong, they will parade his head on a stick through town square, giving virtual butt pats to each other.

tell me how attempting to pull the phone away from the nurse, then cuffing her and forcibly dragging her out to your car, helps the victim exactly? if you're pro-victim, then what was the benefit to him, in that?

he said he was following orders. you defended him by saying that he was following orders, earlier in this thread. now, it's always a poor excuse.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Just following orders...this excuse is always poor.

I predict the cop will be put through the ringer because that is the politics of the moment. A couple months later, the truth will be in fine print on the back of newspapers or buried in the newsfeed of the HuffPost if the cop was in the right. If he was wrong, they will parade his head on a stick through town square, giving virtual butt pats to each other.

tell me how attempting to pull the phone away from the nurse, then cuffing her and forcibly dragging her out to your car, helps the victim exactly? if you're pro-victim, then what was the benefit to him, in that?

he said he was following orders. you defended him by saying that he was following orders, earlier in this thread. now, it's always a poor excuse.

He was arresting a person obstructing justice and interfering in a police investigation.

Tell me what gives the hospital the right to refuse to tell a police officer conducting an investigation where the victim is.

He believed what he was doing to be correct. He was following what he believed to be a lawful order. She was following hospital policy, which is not law.

Let me give another topical example. Mr. Julio is admitted to the hospital with a gunshot wound. The police come looking for Mr. Julio. The hospital refuses to cooperate and give information because they believe Mr. Julio is illegal and may be deported if they divulge his location. Is this ok?

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Just following orders...this excuse is always poor.

I predict the cop will be put through the ringer because that is the politics of the moment. A couple months later, the truth will be in fine print on the back of newspapers or buried in the newsfeed of the HuffPost if the cop was in the right. If he was wrong, they will parade his head on a stick through town square, giving virtual butt pats to each other.

tell me how attempting to pull the phone away from the nurse, then cuffing her and forcibly dragging her out to your car, helps the victim exactly? if you're pro-victim, then what was the benefit to him, in that?

he said he was following orders. you defended him by saying that he was following orders, earlier in this thread. now, it's always a poor excuse.

He was arresting a person obstructing justice and interfering in a police investigation.

Tell me what gives the hospital the right to refuse to tell a police officer conducting an investigation where the victim is.

He believed what he was doing to be correct. He was following what he believed to be a lawful order. She was following hospital policy, which is not law.

i've said it before, and now once more. hospital policy should be based on law, especially in regard to warrants and the like. if that is not the case, the policy needs to be unfucked. if it is not based on law, then she could/should be sued.

is "following orders" a justifiable reason or always a bad excuse?

as far as i know, from the outside, there is no right for the hospital not to tell the officer where that patient is.

so she was doing something wrong, before he grabbed her?