Police: "We only kill black people"

[zombie]

Pressuring people to not display art. revered art in this country that has been honored and displayed for like 70 years, is the same as looking down on a classless fool who doesn't understand respect for others who have given to them?

you can look down on someone all you want. you can look down on them for not playing gone with the wind. you can look down on them for not standing during the anthem. you don't see a difference between holding an opinion or viewpoint, and forcing that opinion or viewpoint onto others?

I can look at a piece of art and say it is shit and look at a person who has no respect for what others have given them and say they are shit. At no point am I stopping anything.

no you're not stopping anything. you're bullying other people to stop it.

I hope so! Bullying is underrated.

good call. those people that bullied the theater to not play gone with the wind would be right there with you.

[Foo]

http://www.standard.net/Courts/2016/05/ ... ommonplace

if she was interfering with what they had the right to do, why was she not charged at all?

Possibly because they recognized she was simply following what she was told.

you mean she was following the law? they knew at the scene that she was following what she was told. he even tried to snatch the phone away from her.

Hospital policy is not interchangeable with the law. I am not sure what the law is, but Utah is a unique place when you consider you have troopers taking blood from DUI suspects. The fact that the trooper was given a directive to arrest those obstructing leads me to believe there is some history at play.

You can be arrested and later they decide to not pursue charges for a variety of reasons.

i didn't see him getting a directive. i saw him losing his patience and making the decision to cuff her and drag her to his car, on his own.

Context. He was informed prior to arrest if they obstructed.

you'd think that hospital staff and supervisors and nurses would be made aware of the laws that they are expected to follow, and that they would be held to that, as policy. *shrug*

In today's world, it is not all that uncommon for politics to play a part, as well.

In defense of the hospital, sometimes law can appear to conflict with their HIPPA laws and regulations. Also, crappily written laws tend to be the norm rather than the exception, forcing all sorts of interpretation, both honest and dishonest.

what about politics? what are you getting at?

they specifically said there needed to be a warrant to get his blood, because he could not consent to it as he was unconscious. that doesn't seem like a question of violation. it seems like clear policy. and if it's the norm that laws can be abused and twisted, that needs to be sorted out.

Again, in Utah there are police, including those conducting traffic stops who can draw blood for testing. Do you think they have a warrant during a roadside DUI stop? What do you think happens if you refuse to give blood at that stop? You get arrested, right?

I am not saying I know Utah law, I am saying that Utah law may be different. I am guessing you dont know anything about Utah law, either. Maybe we should wait and see what develops before lashing out at the police like it is a natural instinct.

There was a terrible crash. Let the police do their job and get justice for the victim. I believe the guy in the hospital from whom they were trying to get blood from was a victim. If his blood comes back clean that night, don't you think his family would want that information?

i'm not lashing out just because he's a cop, or else i wouldn't have defended the cop that this thread was originally about, but that is a convenient way to force your narrative.

but you're right that i don't know the law in utah. and i don't understand the reasoning for taking blood at a traffic stop or anything. but this was at a hospital. and the man who they wanted to take blood from was not ever a suspect, to my knowledge, nor was he breaking any laws (such as speeding, because of your earlier example) as he was unconscious.

There was a terrible accident. Again, I do not know what Utah law allows for, but let's not jump to conclusions because we want to force our anti-cop narrative. This is something that should play out as the laws of that land are interpreted and made clear.

Where I take issue with the nurse is that if you are going to refuse a police search, there is a calm way to react. When she started pulling away, possibly trying to flee, and screaming, she is escalating the situation. Forcing their hand into a physical arrest. If you are going to refuse and they threaten arrest, you calmly comply and pursue rights violations in court.

[Foo]

Pressuring people to not display art. revered art in this country that has been honored and displayed for like 70 years, is the same as looking down on a classless fool who doesn't understand respect for others who have given to them?

you can look down on someone all you want. you can look down on them for not playing gone with the wind. you can look down on them for not standing during the anthem. you don't see a difference between holding an opinion or viewpoint, and forcing that opinion or viewpoint onto others?

I can look at a piece of art and say it is shit and look at a person who has no respect for what others have given them and say they are shit. At no point am I stopping anything.

no you're not stopping anything. you're bullying other people to stop it.

I hope so! Bullying is underrated.

good call. those people that bullied the theater to not play gone with the wind would be right there with you.

There we go. No more reason to pretend it is not effective.

[zombie]

There was a terrible accident. Again, I do not know what Utah law allows for, but let's not jump to conclusions because we want to force our anti-cop narrative. This is something that should play out as the laws of that land are interpreted and made clear.

Where I take issue with the nurse is that if you are going to refuse a police search, there is a calm way to react. When she started pulling away, possibly trying to flee, and screaming, she is escalating the situation. Forcing their hand into a physical arrest. If you are going to refuse and they threaten arrest, you calmly comply and pursue rights violations in court.

stop trying to force the narrative that i'm anti-cop.

do you mean when he attempts to grab the phone away from her? that didn't look like an attempt to flee, the way i saw it. why do you only take issue with the way the nurse reacted? why is it not okay to take issue with the way that particular officer reacted?

[zombie]

Pressuring people to not display art. revered art in this country that has been honored and displayed for like 70 years, is the same as looking down on a classless fool who doesn't understand respect for others who have given to them?

you can look down on someone all you want. you can look down on them for not playing gone with the wind. you can look down on them for not standing during the anthem. you don't see a difference between holding an opinion or viewpoint, and forcing that opinion or viewpoint onto others?

I can look at a piece of art and say it is shit and look at a person who has no respect for what others have given them and say they are shit. At no point am I stopping anything.

no you're not stopping anything. you're bullying other people to stop it.

I hope so! Bullying is underrated.

good call. those people that bullied the theater to not play gone with the wind would be right there with you.

There we go. No more reason to pretend it is not effective.

never said it wasn't effective. infringing on people's rights or freedoms can be very effective.

[Foo]

I have been reading up on this. There was a 2016 Supreme Court decision. Basically, although a warrant is required because a blood test is considered a search, it can also fall under the exception for exigent circumstances. Basically, you have a situation where evidence is being destroyed. From what I can see, if the police officer requested the blood to be drawn by a qualified person at the hospital, they should have complied. The battle of admissability should then occur during a trial.

[Foo]

Pressuring people to not display art. revered art in this country that has been honored and displayed for like 70 years, is the same as looking down on a classless fool who doesn't understand respect for others who have given to them?

you can look down on someone all you want. you can look down on them for not playing gone with the wind. you can look down on them for not standing during the anthem. you don't see a difference between holding an opinion or viewpoint, and forcing that opinion or viewpoint onto others?

I can look at a piece of art and say it is shit and look at a person who has no respect for what others have given them and say they are shit. At no point am I stopping anything.

no you're not stopping anything. you're bullying other people to stop it.

I hope so! Bullying is underrated.

good call. those people that bullied the theater to not play gone with the wind would be right there with you.

There we go. No more reason to pretend it is not effective.

never said it wasn't effective. infringing on people's rights or freedoms can be very effective.

If society had more bullying, I think there would be fewer issues with depression and more folks would be productive citizens. Sports used to have great team cultures until they took away the tools to help team build through hazing and bullying.

[Jmac Attack]

Ok, so the guy wasn't a suspect. They didn't have a warrant. The nurse was in the right. She was following Hipaa laws. And if she does allow the cop to do this, she could be sued by the guy. I am on team "Nurse". What if that was you?

Good lord. J-Mac's School of Jurisprudence.

See, this is the shit where you are kind of a dick to me. It's all good. I was just trying to give my opinions and thoughts. At least try to be funny about it. You can be a funny guy, so let's show it!

[Foo]

Ok, so the guy wasn't a suspect. They didn't have a warrant. The nurse was in the right. She was following Hipaa laws. And if she does allow the cop to do this, she could be sued by the guy. I am on team "Nurse". What if that was you?

Good lord. J-Mac's School of Jurisprudence.

See, this is the shit where you are kind of a dick to me. It's all good. I was just trying to give my opinions and thoughts. At least try to be funny about it. You can be a funny guy, so let's show it!

It was funny. I was imagining you in the robe and everything.

Where you go off on the rails is deciding the nurse was correct with so little knowledge. I am not saying I am correct, I am saying that we should not oversimplify a situation where two professionals are arguing about law that applies to them both in a state that neither of us live in.

The posted video is an attempt to say "Look at the boogeyman cop!". I am saying lets try to wait for more facts, perhaps learn a little, and then we can make an actual informed opinion.

[zombie]

I have been reading up on this. There was a 2016 Supreme Court decision. Basically, although a warrant is required because a blood test is considered a search, it can also fall under the exception for exigent circumstances. Basically, you have a situation where evidence is being destroyed. From what I can see, if the police officer requested the blood to be drawn by a qualified person at the hospital, they should have complied. The battle of admissability should then occur during a trial.

"a warrant is required" is all you needed to say. the nurse and hospital were following the law. but they should have complied, because he told them to. with great power comes great authority, or something.

[zombie]

If society had more bullying, I think there would be fewer issues with depression and more folks would be productive citizens. Sports used to have great team cultures until they took away the tools to help team build through hazing and bullying.

there would be fewer issues with depression? how do you figure?

and would you draw a line on how far the bullying should go? is there a point where it's too far? how much of their freedoms and rights is it okay to force people out of?

[Jmac Attack]

I have been reading up on this. There was a 2016 Supreme Court decision. Basically, although a warrant is required because a blood test is considered a search, it can also fall under the exception for exigent circumstances. Basically, you have a situation where evidence is being destroyed. From what I can see, if the police officer requested the blood to be drawn by a qualified person at the hospital, they should have complied. The battle of admissability should then occur during a trial.

"a warrant is required" is all you needed to say. the nurse and hospital were following the law. but they should have complied, because he told them to. with great power comes great authority, or something.

Exactly. And I usually side with the law enforcement side of things. I taught HIPAA classes for Merck Medco (which was Merck and is now Express Scripts), and she was just following the law and she seemed to have her boss or someone to telling her what to do. The cops aggressiveness cannot he excused. She was no criminal.

[Foo]

I have been reading up on this. There was a 2016 Supreme Court decision. Basically, although a warrant is required because a blood test is considered a search, it can also fall under the exception for exigent circumstances. Basically, you have a situation where evidence is being destroyed. From what I can see, if the police officer requested the blood to be drawn by a qualified person at the hospital, they should have complied. The battle of admissability should then occur during a trial.

"a warrant is required" is all you needed to say. the nurse and hospital were following the law. but they should have complied, because he told them to. with great power comes great authority, or something.

Yeah, there are never exceptions, you know, like the one I pointed out that this might apply to.

If a suspect is in a room burning evidence, do you think cops need a warrant to enter the room?

[Jmac Attack]

Ok, so the guy wasn't a suspect. They didn't have a warrant. The nurse was in the right. She was following Hipaa laws. And if she does allow the cop to do this, she could be sued by the guy. I am on team "Nurse". What if that was you?

Good lord. J-Mac's School of Jurisprudence.

See, this is the shit where you are kind of a dick to me. It's all good. I was just trying to give my opinions and thoughts. At least try to be funny about it. You can be a funny guy, so let's show it!

It was funny. I was imagining you in the robe and everything.

Where you go off on the rails is deciding the nurse was correct with so little knowledge. I am not saying I am correct, I am saying that we should not oversimplify a situation where two professionals are arguing about law that applies to them both in a state that neither of us live in.

The posted video is an attempt to say "Look at the boogeyman cop!". I am saying lets try to wait for more facts, perhaps learn a little, and then we can make an actual informed opinion.

I kinda agree, but I didn't go off the rails, lol. But we do see a pretty big picture of what happened. What if that was you, or one of your employees. She was following protocol. The cop was a dick. And I have cop friends and I am not just saying that. I am not anti cop.

[Foo]

I have been reading up on this. There was a 2016 Supreme Court decision. Basically, although a warrant is required because a blood test is considered a search, it can also fall under the exception for exigent circumstances. Basically, you have a situation where evidence is being destroyed. From what I can see, if the police officer requested the blood to be drawn by a qualified person at the hospital, they should have complied. The battle of admissability should then occur during a trial.

"a warrant is required" is all you needed to say. the nurse and hospital were following the law. but they should have complied, because he told them to. with great power comes great authority, or something.

Exactly. And I usually side with the law enforcement side of things. I taught HIPAA classes for Merck Medco (which was Merck and is now Express Scripts), and she was just following the law and she seemed to have her boss or someone to telling her what to do. The cops aggressiveness cannot he excused. She was no criminal.

In your classes, how did you teach hospitals on how to respond to a request for blood when a magistrate could not be located in a timely enough fashion to issue a warrant?

[Foo]

Ok, so the guy wasn't a suspect. They didn't have a warrant. The nurse was in the right. She was following Hipaa laws. And if she does allow the cop to do this, she could be sued by the guy. I am on team "Nurse". What if that was you?

Good lord. J-Mac's School of Jurisprudence.

See, this is the shit where you are kind of a dick to me. It's all good. I was just trying to give my opinions and thoughts. At least try to be funny about it. You can be a funny guy, so let's show it!

It was funny. I was imagining you in the robe and everything.

Where you go off on the rails is deciding the nurse was correct with so little knowledge. I am not saying I am correct, I am saying that we should not oversimplify a situation where two professionals are arguing about law that applies to them both in a state that neither of us live in.

The posted video is an attempt to say "Look at the boogeyman cop!". I am saying lets try to wait for more facts, perhaps learn a little, and then we can make an actual informed opinion.

I kinda agree, but I didn't go off the rails, lol. But we do see a pretty big picture of what happened. What if that was you, or one of your employees. She was following protocol. The cop was a dick. And I have cop friends and I am not just saying that. I am not anti cop.

Where does the video begin? (Hint: not the beginning of the conversation)

Might there be a reason for that? For instance, the cop explaining the reason he is asking for the blood to be drawn and the need to do so in a timely manner? Perhaps the cop citing the laws and his authority in that circumstance.

My employees are told to comply with law enforcement. They are not to play amateur lawyer and start trying to cite the constitution and such. If a situation arises, they comply with the cop and we handle everything later, including an injustice we believe happened.

And yes, this conversation has happened. I have a young employee who I love. He is a black dude with dreads. He smells of weed because he smokes a lot. He has also been robbed in the past and enjoys guns so he has a permit to carry. It is often a discussion I have with him about being an aggressive driver, black, smelling of weed, and having a gun in the car. No matter what he thinks, comply and handle the legal stuff later.

[Foo]

If society had more bullying, I think there would be fewer issues with depression and more folks would be productive citizens. Sports used to have great team cultures until they took away the tools to help team build through hazing and bullying.

there would be fewer issues with depression? how do you figure?

and would you draw a line on how far the bullying should go? is there a point where it's too far? how much of their freedoms and rights is it okay to force people out of?

this is complex and should be its own thread. But yes, I think more bullying would lead to less depression.

[Jmac Attack]

I have been reading up on this. There was a 2016 Supreme Court decision. Basically, although a warrant is required because a blood test is considered a search, it can also fall under the exception for exigent circumstances. Basically, you have a situation where evidence is being destroyed. From what I can see, if the police officer requested the blood to be drawn by a qualified person at the hospital, they should have complied. The battle of admissability should then occur during a trial.

"a warrant is required" is all you needed to say. the nurse and hospital were following the law. but they should have complied, because he told them to. with great power comes great authority, or something.

Exactly. And I usually side with the law enforcement side of things. I taught HIPAA classes for Merck Medco (which was Merck and is now Express Scripts), and she was just following the law and she seemed to have her boss or someone to telling her what to do. The cops aggressiveness cannot he excused. She was no criminal.

In your classes, how did you teach hospitals on how to respond to a request for blood when a magistrate could not be located in a timely enough fashion to issue a warrant?

I would tell them to follow the law. Pretty simple. And you cannot take something without their consent. He needs a warrant. If he did that, then no problemo. From what I gather, he wasn't even a suspect. I could be wrong. I had a 14 hour workday and two band practices. Lol

[Jmac Attack]

Ok, so the guy wasn't a suspect. They didn't have a warrant. The nurse was in the right. She was following Hipaa laws. And if she does allow the cop to do this, she could be sued by the guy. I am on team "Nurse". What if that was you?

Good lord. J-Mac's School of Jurisprudence.

See, this is the shit where you are kind of a dick to me. It's all good. I was just trying to give my opinions and thoughts. At least try to be funny about it. You can be a funny guy, so let's show it!

It was funny. I was imagining you in the robe and everything.

Where you go off on the rails is deciding the nurse was correct with so little knowledge. I am not saying I am correct, I am saying that we should not oversimplify a situation where two professionals are arguing about law that applies to them both in a state that neither of us live in.

The posted video is an attempt to say "Look at the boogeyman cop!". I am saying lets try to wait for more facts, perhaps learn a little, and then we can make an actual informed opinion.

I kinda agree, but I didn't go off the rails, lol. But we do see a pretty big picture of what happened. What if that was you, or one of your employees. She was following protocol. The cop was a dick. And I have cop friends and I am not just saying that. I am not anti cop.

Where does the video begin? (Hint: not the beginning of the conversation)

Might there be a reason for that? For instance, the cop explaining the reason he is asking for the blood to be drawn and the need to do so in a timely manner? Perhaps the cop citing the laws and his authority in that circumstance.

My employees are told to comply with law enforcement. They are not to play amateur lawyer and start trying to cite the constitution and such. If a situation arises, they comply with the cop and we handle everything later, including an injustice we believe happened.

And yes, this conversation has happened. I have a young employee who I love. He is a black dude with dreads. He smells of weed because he smokes a lot. He has also been robbed in the past and enjoys guns so he has a permit to carry. It is often a discussion I have with him about being an aggressive driver, black, smelling of weed, and having a gun in the car. No matter what he thinks, comply and handle the legal stuff later.

Foo, I will say that it is awesome that although you hate the weed demon, you are giving this guy a chance, but where are your rights as a citizen? She was following protocol. But when you say the cop has more rights, for better or for worse, I am lost. I would think that out of everyone, you would be the first to stick up for her.

Again, she was doing nothing wrong. Should I watch the video again? Maybe I am missing something. I will watch again. Maybe I am just having a knee jerk reaction.

[Foo]

I have been reading up on this. There was a 2016 Supreme Court decision. Basically, although a warrant is required because a blood test is considered a search, it can also fall under the exception for exigent circumstances. Basically, you have a situation where evidence is being destroyed. From what I can see, if the police officer requested the blood to be drawn by a qualified person at the hospital, they should have complied. The battle of admissability should then occur during a trial.

"a warrant is required" is all you needed to say. the nurse and hospital were following the law. but they should have complied, because he told them to. with great power comes great authority, or something.

Exactly. And I usually side with the law enforcement side of things. I taught HIPAA classes for Merck Medco (which was Merck and is now Express Scripts), and she was just following the law and she seemed to have her boss or someone to telling her what to do. The cops aggressiveness cannot he excused. She was no criminal.

In your classes, how did you teach hospitals on how to respond to a request for blood when a magistrate could not be located in a timely enough fashion to issue a warrant?

I would tell them to follow the law. Pretty simple. And you cannot take something without their consent. He needs a warrant. If he did that, then no problemo. From what I gather, he wasn't even a suspect. I could be wrong. I had a 14 hour workday and two band practices. Lol

Ok, exigent circumstances are part of the law. Do you see why playing amateur lawyer is a bad idea rather than cooperating with law enforcement and then allowing the court to decide the admission of the evidence obtained?

"You are not a lawyer, do not practice law!". You know how many times I heard that over the years during real estate continuing education? Think about all these high profile cases and you are so surprised the person walked free. Limited information combined with lack of legal knowledge creates mistakes.

The nurse could have been 100% correct. From what I have read, the local politicians are apologizing to her but at the same time, the hospital and police are changing the policy. It is one of those dealies where it sounds like the policy and the law did not match, which is not the nurses fault. Where she erred was when the officer stated there was going to be an arrest and she started scrambling away.