# Video RN screaming, dragged into police car d/t refused blood draw on unconscious patient!



## Summit (Sep 1, 2017)

July 31 2017, guy fleeing police crosses median and slams into truck and dies. The truck catches fire severely burning the innocent driver, Mr. Gray, who was taken to SLC University. Police later showed up demanding to the UNCONSCIOUS innocent patient's blood. RN Alex shows them the policy requiring consent, arrest, or a warrant. Hospital administration back up RN Alex. *Police aggressively arrest RN Alex and drag her from the hospital. 

Officer body cam insanity released today:*





NEWSPAPER ARTICLE:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/...at-bars-taking-blood-from-unconscious-victim/

Long video body cam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=47&v=hJPVglqR4yM

In this video, the aggressive officer who is also an EMT can be heard saying that he will ensure all the "transients" are brought to this hospitals ED since they won't cooperate after being told the administrators and privacy officer are on their way.

Original Crash (graphic): 




Interesting note about Alex, she was a 2x Olympian, US Ski Team member, and national champion is Slalom and GS.


----------



## reaper (Sep 1, 2017)

Yes, the officer knew he had no legal ground for blood draw, so he tried to bully it. Utah law allows implied consent for blood draw, if subject is legally arrested. This officer stated that the man was not under arrest.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## NPO (Sep 1, 2017)

News article link is broken, but I googled it. Much is left out of the video, but this is unwarranted escelation. What a fantastic way to break down PD-Hospital relations than to jump at a nurse to arrest her. A calm arrest, whether just or not, would have been appropriate. He seemingly acted like she was actively resisting when he lunged at her. 

Read the whole article online. At the bottom comes what I believe to be the motivation behind this. The unconcious patient was a police officer, and they wanted to blood to clear him of being under the influence. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## reaper (Sep 1, 2017)

NPO said:


> News article link is broken, but I googled it. Much is left out of the video, but this is unwarranted escelation. What a fantastic way to break down PD-Hospital relations than to jump at a nurse to arrest her. A calm arrest, whether just or not, would have been appropriate. He seemingly acted like she was actively resisting when he lunged at her.
> 
> Read the whole article online. At the bottom comes what I believe to be the motivation behind this. The unconcious patient was a police officer, and they wanted to blood to clear him of being under the influence.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


They did not have legal right for blood draw. There was no warrant, pt not under arrest, and pt could not give consent. The officer knew he was wrong and for mad when the Rn showed him the policy and refused to allow the draw.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## NPO (Sep 1, 2017)

reaper said:


> They did not have legal right for blood draw. There was no warrant, pt not under arrest, and pt could not give consent. The officer knew he was wrong and for mad when the Rn showed him the policy and refused to allow the draw.
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


Yes. I'm aware of all of that. Doesn't change my statement. 

My point is, arresting someone, and aggressively arresting someone are not mutually exclusive. He just lunged at her and grabbed her. That's not how you arrest someone that's being civil.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Summit (Sep 1, 2017)

NPO said:


> Yes. I'm aware of all of that. Doesn't change my statement.
> 
> My point is, arresting someone, and aggressively arresting someone are not mutually exclusive. He just lunged at her and grabbed her. That's not how you arrest someone that's being civil.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Why do you expect an officer who would arrest a nurse who was following the law, professional rules, ethics, and policy to make the arrest the "right" way?


----------



## reaper (Sep 1, 2017)

NPO said:


> Yes. I'm aware of all of that. Doesn't change my statement.
> 
> My point is, arresting someone, and aggressively arresting someone are not mutually exclusive. He just lunged at her and grabbed her. That's not how you arrest someone that's being civil.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


I agree with that. But, he should have never been trying to arrest her in the first place. So the guy is an idiot all around!

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## NPO (Sep 1, 2017)

Summit said:


> Why do you expect an officer who would arrest a nurse who was following the law, professional rules, ethics, and policy to make the arrest the "right" way?


I don't. But if he TRULY believed he was right, and he had implied consent, and that she was truly impeding an investigation, and he did have a valid reason to arrest her, a civil arrest would be warranted. The fact that he acted the way he did proves (to me) that he knew he was wrong and was trying to use scare tactics and show the other staff what concequences he is willing to wield. Especially with the transient patient comment. He was delivering punishment, not justice. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## NPO (Sep 1, 2017)

reaper said:


> I agree with that. But, he should have never been trying to arrest her in the first place. So the guy is an idiot all around!
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


Agreed. But officers make bad arrests sometimes, if they believe they are right. 

I just don't believe that he thought he was right. I think he was trying to bully his way into the result that he wanted. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## StCEMT (Sep 1, 2017)

****ing idiot....had everything literally spelled out for him and it was still beyond comprehension....and then tweedle dee standing there in the background.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Sep 1, 2017)

If this bullycop does this in the ED to a charge nurse who is reading to him what the law says then just imagine what he does to everyone else. He needs to be fired. He needs to have his badge and gun taken away. He needs to be in the psych unit.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Sep 1, 2017)

I saw at least two other cops in the background of the video. Further articles demonstrate one is a university cop and the other is possibly a city cop. In any event they needed to intervene with this bullycop and possibly arrest _him._


----------



## VFlutter (Sep 1, 2017)

We are frequently asked by PD for blood draws on accident scenes but usually it isn't an issue when we decline. A few of my colleagues have been threatened with arrest or bullied when refusing. Our primary concern is the medical care of the patient, not collection of forensic evidence. 

Even if he believed he was in the legal right you can not expect a medical provider to violate the hospital policy risking their job or licesne. It also says he was part of the blood draw team which trains officers to be phlebotomist. Not clear if she was refusing to do it personally or preventing him from doing it himself. Either way she had the responsibility as a patient advocate to ensure things were done appropriately. 


Apparently the officer also has a second job with an ambulance transport company and on the video says to another officer that he wouldn't bring the ER any more good patients, just homeless. This guy should lose both jobs. He clearly lacks the ethics for either.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Sep 1, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> If this bullycop does this in the ED to a charge nurse who is reading to him what the law says then just imagine what he does to everyone else.



This. Think about it. 

I know this forum and EMS in general tends to be very pro-LE, but the reality is that cops these days are out of control.


----------



## Tigger (Sep 1, 2017)

Remi said:


> This. Think about it.


Certainly yes. There is little doubt that this officer is problem and has probably been bullying citizens and others for years. Not to mention that he lacks any sort of ability to descalate the situation as he does the opposite almost immediately. Not to mention that if he was ever involved in a use of force investigation that this video would certainly be pulled and that would not be a good look.

*



			I know this forum and EMS in general tends to be very pro-LE, but the reality is that cops these days are out of control.
		
Click to expand...

*I don't understand how you can make this statement based on well, anything. I have been taken to task here and on other boards for calling moron police officers morons, but at no point do I think that this indicative of how the majority of law enforcement acts. Doing your job well is not newsworthy and the fact that social media allows for cell phone videos to be seen by a large audience means that many more people aware of malfeasance than historically so (which is actually a great thing as it hinders law enforcement's ability to alter the narrative on less than well handled events). But that doesn't mean that "cops are out of control," which is just really an unnecessarily inflammatory statement. If you can prove it, by all means.


----------



## Akulahawk (Sep 1, 2017)

My take on this is simple: the cop had zero legal grounds to require a "legal" blood draw so he tried to bully the hospital into providing a blood sample for him. The patient was unconscious so he couldn't give consent, he wasn't under arrest, so it couldn't be collected for evidence that way, and there wasn't a warrant compelling the collection of blood as evidence. While I'm nearly certain the hospital staff knew the patient's BAC, they couldn't release it to the cop absent a warrant because the cop would have been asking for protected info, nevermind the chain of custody issues... 

Bottom line is the officer was well out of line, the Nurse in this instance has great grounds to sue the officer in his official capacity, possibly personally as well, and his department and she will likely win. The officer likely will ultimately lose his job and possibly lose his ability to be a Police Officer and due to the ethics of what he did, he may lose his EMT cert as well. 

Also, entirely IMHO, it's not that cops are generally getting out of control, it's that because of the widespread availability of cameras, the "bad ones" are far more visible and they're the ones that make the news, not the vast majority of "good cops."


----------



## reaper (Sep 1, 2017)

I know one thing. He screwed up. The nursing boards are exploding over this and they have made this go national overnight. If you ever thought EMS was savage, it can't even compare!!

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## E tank (Sep 1, 2017)

The brutality and illegitimate nature  of the arrest aside, a problem here is that folks do fudge the law and draw blood to either go along in the interests of relationships with the PD or it's just easier to get the blood and move along. Then when someone that makes a legitimate stand comes along, so does the problem because the cops become accustomed to the deferential treatment. This scenario plays out many times a day, short the arrest, with only bad feelings and benign hostile confrontations. 

Not this time. 

If everyone doesn't follow the rule, the ones that do will  look like they're being pr**ks and get hosed.


----------



## Summit (Sep 1, 2017)

UPDATES:
1. Payne on paid admin leave, under criminal investigation. 
2. Mr. Gray (the burn victim) is also a reserve police officer in ID and his dept has thanked Nurse Alex for standing up for his rights.

I wonder if the UT EMS board should be investigating Payne for attempted battery of a patient and for stating he would use personal vengeance and socioeconomic status determine his patient transport decisions?


----------



## E tank (Sep 1, 2017)

I noticed a wedding ring on that nurse....if that were my wife....


----------



## SpecialK (Sep 1, 2017)

America seems like such an ... interesting ... place.

A police constable has powers under the Transport Act to order a blood sample from a patient who is at the hospital on suspicion of a vehicle accident but their doctor must agree there is enough medical evidence to support this.  This is regardless of whether the patient consents, or cannot consent.  The applicable section also remits proceedings against the Crown arising from same.

This is distinctly different from the regular police procedure where patient can refuse and I guess the rationale is a higher standard of proof required; i.e. a police constable must have reasonable cause to suspect, and there must be enough medical evidence for a doctor to concur.


----------



## E tank (Sep 1, 2017)

Yes, interesting. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed by the 4th amendment of the Constitution of the United States has nothing to do with the opinion of a "constable" or physician or "enough" medical evidence, whatever that means. 

Good thing too...that nurse might be in jail right now.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Sep 1, 2017)

Tigger said:


> I don't understand how you can make this statement based on well, anything.



I make this statement based on the fact that scenarios involving excessive force, coercion, lying, and planting evidence are not uncommon. Reports are all over the media, if you just choose not to ignore them. Video evidence of excessive force is uploaded to FB by someone, somewhere, seemingly every day. Minority communities complaining for decades about police abuse, with plenty of objective evidence to back up many of their claims. We have the the highest % of our population in prison of all industrialized nations. Also, even worse, the highest % of our population in prison for non-violent offenses. Baltimore, NYC, and Chicago PD's, all skewered by the DOJ for systemic violations of civil rights. Baltimore cops caught planting evidence. Phoenix sheriff had to be ordered by a federal judge to stop violating civil rights and he ignored the order and was cheered on by many for it. San Jose (I think) has had complaints against the police skyrocket while internal investigations of alleged misconduct decrease. These are just the ones off the top of my head from the past year or so. Police repeatedly shooting unarmed suspects and always - every_single_time - it was the fault of the suspect and never an issue with the temperament of the cop or with their training. The 4th amendment has chipped away to the point that for all practical purposes, it no longer exists.

And for the most part, we just accept it all as the price of having the cops keep us "safe". I don't know if it's that we've been that thoroughly conditioned to submit unquestioningly to authority, or if it is a form of cognitive dissonance.

What is so different about this video, that people actually overwhelmingly support the cop's victim in this case? Just the fact that she wore scrubs instead of a hoodie or a flannel shirt? Because I've seen lots of videos of very similar actions by the cops, but because it's in a parking lot instead of a hospital, and the person is wearing casual clothes instead of a healthcare uniform, the comments are overwhelmingly against the victim. People always just assume that the cops must have had a reason for the rough treatment, and have little or no empathy for the person getting roughed up for some minor "crime".

Guess what? The police aren't your friends. They aren't there to serve and protect you. They'll do that, if it serves their ends. They have no loyalty to the public; their real job is enforcing the will of the government, and protecting themselves and each other. The public is the enemy in their mind, and anyone who doesn't submit to any command is a threat. If this video isn't proof of that mindset (although again, it isn't very different from the hundreds of similar ones out there), I don't know what is.

What this guy did in this video happens every single day, all over the country. The fact that you've never experienced it is utterly irrelevant. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't make it untrue.


----------



## SpecialK (Sep 2, 2017)

E tank said:


> Yes, interesting. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed by the 4th amendment of the Constitution of the United States has nothing to do with the opinion of a "constable" or physician or "enough" medical evidence, whatever that means.
> 
> Good thing too...that nurse might be in jail right now.



A police constable who has enough evidence to suspect somebody has committed an offence under the Transport Act (driving while impaired) may instruct a blood sample be taken from that person provided they are in the hospital AND the doctor agrees there is enough medical evidence to reasonably suspect the person is at the hospital because of a road accident.  There must be enough evidence as opined by the relevant parties; the police are experts in criminal evidence and procedure, and the doctor is an expert in medical evidence.

In practice what happens is the hospital takes blood anyway in most cases and the police just request serum ethanol be included so this provision is a bit redundant to be honest.  I would imagine it was inserted to ensure the public interest of the administration of justice not be impinged.  The idea ambulance personnel be somehow empowered to collect evidentiary blood has been bought up a few times and quickly and fiercely dismissed; nobody wants anything to do with it.

The mate is a copper, might see what he reckons about this ish.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 2, 2017)

SpecialK said:


> A police constable who has enough evidence to suspect somebody has committed an offence under the Transport Act (driving while impaired) may instruct a blood sample be taken from that person provided they are in the hospital AND the doctor agrees there is enough medical evidence to reasonably suspect the person is at the hospital because of a road accident.  There must be enough evidence as opined by the relevant parties; the police are experts in criminal evidence and procedure, and the doctor is an expert in medical evidence.
> 
> In practice what happens is the hospital takes blood anyway in most cases and the police just request serum ethanol be included so this provision is a bit redundant to be honest.  I would imagine it was inserted to ensure the public interest of the administration of justice not be impinged.  The idea ambulance personnel be somehow empowered to collect evidentiary blood has been bought up a few times and quickly and fiercely dismissed; nobody wants anything to do with it.
> 
> The mate is a copper, might see what he reckons about this ish.


However in this case the patient the cop wanted the blood sample from was the victim of a crash from someone else who was DUI. There was no reason to suspect he was driving while impaired and he did not cause the accident. Law Enforcement could not arrest him because he literally did nothing wrong and was just a victim of a not at fault accident.


----------



## SpecialK (Sep 2, 2017)

DesertMedic66 said:


> However in this case the patient the cop wanted the blood sample from was the victim of a crash from someone else who was DUI. There was no reason to suspect he was driving while impaired and he did not cause the accident. Law Enforcement could not arrest him because he literally did nothing wrong and was just a victim of a not at fault accident.



Then in this case, I suspect said constable would need to convince a judge (even if at the end of a phone) to issue a warrant.  Good luck mate, because that's not going to happen.  

WTF was he thinking?


----------



## ExpatMedic0 (Sep 2, 2017)

Looks like the cop just "snapped" and was clearly in the wrong.  I really can't see how anyone can defend or justify the cops actions here.

"There's no dispute that the blood draw policy was jointly prepared and in effect for quite some time," according to the RN's attorney. 
The mayor said, "What I saw on the video last night is completely unacceptable."
The police chief apologized and said this was disturbing.
The cop did not care about the police and hospitals own policy and decided to break it.
The cop has been suspended from the blood draw unit and is under review. 
Lastly, Axe Cop would never do this ;-)


----------



## Iaidoka (Sep 2, 2017)

Can't believe this cop hasn't been suspended. The level of ignorance and willful malevolence displayed by this officer only brings disrepute to his calling.
I really hope this poor nurse takes this matter further.


----------



## Chimpie (Sep 2, 2017)

Iaidoka said:


> Can't believe this cop hasn't been suspended.


He's been put on administrative leave.



> The department opened an internal affairs investigation, he said, and Friday evening the police department said Payne and another "employee" were placed on full administrative leave as a result of a criminal investigation into the incident. The department said the second person was an officer, but did not identify that officer.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/01/health/utah-nurse-arrest-police-video/index.html



> Payne initially remained on duty although he was suspended from blood-draw duties. Later on Friday Utah police announced that he had been put on paid administrative leave.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/0...blood-on-unconscious-patient-video-shows.html


----------



## Summit (Sep 2, 2017)

SpecialK said:


> Then in this case, I suspect said constable would need to convince a judge (even if at the end of a phone) to issue a warrant.  Good luck mate, because that's not going to happen.
> 
> WTF was he thinking?


He's even on video saying there is no warrant because there is no probable cause. He knew what he was doing....


----------



## E tank (Sep 2, 2017)

I'd be interested to know what the urgency was all about. The chase suspect was dead, the patient was a commercial driver in the wrong spot at the wrong time... wrap it up and go home. The hand wringing that goes on between the 2 cops over the nurse's refusal is kind of odd, given the circumstances. Especially because any blood from the guy will show any number of CNS depressants at the point they wanted it and any attorney that wanted to could easily discredit it as evidence either way. 

That it was a fatality/injury accident in the conduct of a police chase makes me wonder.


----------



## Summit (Sep 2, 2017)

E tank said:


> I'd be interested to know what the urgency was all about.


Ultimately it devolved into "but muh athoritah!"


----------



## Carlos Danger (Sep 2, 2017)

Summit said:


> Ultimately it devolved into "but muh athoritah!"


Doesn't it always?


----------



## Summit (Sep 2, 2017)

UPDATE:

1. Lt ********* (watch commander) is also on paid administrative leave.

2. Payne is also a Paramedic and was placed on leave by his EMS employer.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Sep 2, 2017)

> In order to be considered an Emergency Medical Technician-Basic, students must take a one semester, six-credit course that includes taking the National Registry Paramedic Test.
> Source: http://heavy.com/news/2017/09/jeff-payne-salt-lake-city-detective-wubbels-arrest-blood-draw/


I never knew I could sit for the medic exam after taking an EMT course! Amazing!


----------



## CANMAN (Sep 3, 2017)

Remi said:


> I make this statement based on the fact that scenarios involving excessive force, coercion, lying, and planting evidence are not uncommon. Reports are all over the media, if you just choose not to ignore them. Video evidence of excessive force is uploaded to FB by someone, somewhere, seemingly every day. Minority communities complaining for decades about police abuse, with plenty of objective evidence to back up many of their claims. We have the the highest % of our population in prison of all industrialized nations. Also, even worse, the highest % of our population in prison for non-violent offenses. Baltimore, NYC, and Chicago PD's, all skewered by the DOJ for systemic violations of civil rights. Baltimore cops caught planting evidence. Phoenix sheriff had to be ordered by a federal judge to stop violating civil rights and he ignored the order and was cheered on by many for it. San Jose (I think) has had complaints against the police skyrocket while internal investigations of alleged misconduct decrease. These are just the ones off the top of my head from the past year or so. Police repeatedly shooting unarmed suspects and always - every_single_time - it was the fault of the suspect and never an issue with the temperament of the cop or with their training. The 4th amendment has chipped away to the point that for all practical purposes, it no longer exists.
> 
> And for the most part, we just accept it all as the price of having the cops keep us "safe". I don't know if it's that we've been that thoroughly conditioned to submit unquestioningly to authority, or if it is a form of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> ...



Great post and completely true. Used to be a LEO years ago, and so glad I got out (for many reasons). John Q. Public also doesn't realize that police officer's actually have zero legal DUTY to protect. While still a LE supporter for the most part, and I certainly don't group all in one basket, in recent years the availability of social media, live streaming, and body cameras has certainly changed my views about alot of things. Knowing how I was trained in the State Police academy, I couldn't agree with your 4th paragraph more....


----------



## SpecialK (Sep 3, 2017)

Summit said:


> Ultimately it devolved into "but muh athoritah!"



Attention wayward police constable ... newsflash mate ... your authority is only devolved from a set of statutory instruments, if you are not compliant with the provisions of same, well, you have no authority, so go take a flying leap would have been my answer.


----------



## Summit (Sep 3, 2017)




----------



## DrParasite (Sep 4, 2017)

Summit said:


> UPDATE:
> 
> 1. Lt ********* (watch commander) is also on paid administrative leave.
> 
> 2. Payne is also a Paramedic and was placed on leave by his EMS employer.


I'm glad the Lt was put on leave too.   from http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/...at-bars-taking-blood-from-unconscious-victim/


> Payne — who says he wanted the blood sample to protect the patient, not punish him — said he was advised by Lt. James Tracy, the watch commander on duty that night, to arrest Wubbels for interfering with a police investigation if she refused to let him get the sample, according to his report.


and to make things clearer from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...duct-in-the-spotlight/?utm_term=.804ee331da4c


> Payne’s lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.


This tells me that it's more than just one bad cop.  When you have a supervisor giving the order to illegally arrest someone than it shows you have a systemic problem within the department.

Personally, I hope she hope she sues the police department.  I also hope the county (who has opened a criminal investigation into this incident) files charges against the detective for battery, wrongful imprisonment, kidnapping, and abuse of power (and anything else they can find applicable).


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 4, 2017)

Remi said:


> I make this statement based on the fact that scenarios involving excessive force, coercion, lying, and planting evidence are not uncommon. Reports are all over the media, if you just choose not to ignore them. Video evidence of excessive force is uploaded to FB by someone, somewhere, seemingly every day. Minority communities complaining for decades about police abuse, with plenty of objective evidence to back up many of their claims. We have the the highest % of our population in prison of all industrialized nations. Also, even worse, the highest % of our population in prison for non-violent offenses. Baltimore, NYC, and Chicago PD's, all skewered by the DOJ for systemic violations of civil rights. Baltimore cops caught planting evidence. Phoenix sheriff had to be ordered by a federal judge to stop violating civil rights and he ignored the order and was cheered on by many for it. San Jose (I think) has had complaints against the police skyrocket while internal investigations of alleged misconduct decrease. These are just the ones off the top of my head from the past year or so. Police repeatedly shooting unarmed suspects and always - every_single_time - it was the fault of the suspect and never an issue with the temperament of the cop or with their training. The 4th amendment has chipped away to the point that for all practical purposes, it no longer exists.


There are bad cops out there. But there also bad EMTs, paramedics, firefighters, nurses, teachers, politicians, priests, rabbis etc.  You name it, and I can find at least one "bad" member of that profession.  But just because one guy is bad doesn't make them all bad. 

And whether you like to believe it or not, a lot of those suspects that cause riots when they get shot by police were actually acting in self defense.  And when they don't, then yes, criminal charges are filed and a trial is held.  I mean, if you were accused, you would want to be able to defend yourself, you wouldn't want to just be convicted by the lynch mob outside right?   And no, I'm not saying all the shootings were justified, but many/most are...





Remi said:


> And for the most part, we just accept it all as the price of having the cops keep us "safe". I don't know if it's that we've been that thoroughly conditioned to submit unquestioningly to authority, or if it is a form of cognitive dissonance.


Cops have a job to do.  And they are trained, in the academy, that they are always right (even when they aren't, or have no legal basis to do what they are trying to do).  And once they initiate an arrest, regardless of if it's a legit arrest or not, they are able to escalate the situation and use force to gain compliance.  The time to argue whether you committed a crime or not is not while you are being arrested; that's what the trial is for.  I have friends in law enforcement, and 99.99% of the time (maybe higher) when they are putting cuffs on someone, it's because said person committed a crime.

Which is why I don't fault the other cops for not getting involved;  the office was making an arrest.  Them interfering once the arrest was initiated was probably only going to make a bad situation worse.


Remi said:


> What is so different about this video, that people actually overwhelmingly support the cop's victim in this case? Just the fact that she wore scrubs instead of a hoodie or a flannel shirt? Because I've seen lots of videos of very similar actions by the cops, but because it's in a parking lot instead of a hospital, and the person is wearing casual clothes instead of a healthcare uniform, the comments are overwhelmingly against the victim. People always just assume that the cops must have had a reason for the rough treatment, and have little or no empathy for the person getting roughed up for some minor "crime".


Seriously?  Your going to go with that argument?  If she had been dressed differently the outcome out be different?  So your going to ignore the fact that she was doing her job.  and the fact that “implied consent” law changed in Utah a decade ago. And in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood tests were illegal.  and the fact that her employers written policy was being enforced, and her supervisor was on the line confirming it.  and the fact that she was unarmed.  and while she was verbally protesting the arrest, she wasn't really resisting the arrest, such as by attacking the cop or attempting to cause him any bodily harm.  Oh, and she's not under the influence of any mind altering substances (except for maybe too much coffee).  

So there are several differences in the circumstances in this arrest and many of the others.  Including the fact that his supervisor said if she won't give you what you want, arrest her.

And yes, with the number of cops who die every year I can totally understand why they see the public as a threat.  Maybe you'd like to look up how many get shot?  https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2017  In case you don't want to actually deal in facts, 3/4 of the way through 2017, there have been 87; 31 were killed by gunfire. Last year there 146 cops killed in the line of duty; 63 from gunfire.

I'm not saying cops are perfect, and there are some bad ones out there.  But there are even more who just want to do their job and make sure they go home to their families at the end of their shift.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Sep 5, 2017)

The hospital just put in a new place effectively banning outside police agencies unless they go through very specific channels. No more barging into a floor and making demands. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fter-appalling-arrest/?utm_term=.332d937cdf64


----------



## Akulahawk (Sep 5, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> Which is why I don't fault the other cops for not getting involved; the office was making an arrest. Them interfering once the arrest was initiated was probably only going to make a bad situation worse.


Another possibility is that the other officers at the scene may have recognized that the arrest wasn't lawful and didn't get involved to keep themselves from being implicated in the resulting circus that has now resulted in 2 officers being placed on paid admin leave and looking at the end of their careers. Most of the officers I'm familiar with would (and do) quite enjoy getting involved when someone is resisting arrest. 


DrParasite said:


> I have friends in law enforcement, and 99.99% of the time (maybe higher) when they are putting cuffs on someone, it's because said person committed a crime.


So do I,and most of the time this is true. The person being cuffed is either cuffed for officer safety while the person is being detained OR the cuffed person is under arrest for a specified crime. Neither was the case here. I know of an unrelated case in San Diego where a person was unlawfully arrested, couldn't be unarrested because there was no crime to unarrest for... and the person who was unlawfully arrested was well compensated for about 2 hours of his time. IIRC the arresting officer in that case also lost his job, probably lost his POST certificate... 

While it is lawful to resist being unlawfully taken into custody, it's a far better (and less self-injurious) to let the cop bury him or herself... the San Diego cop did exactly that. Cops also are taught to (basically) instinctively help out other officers that are involved in a fight. So while I might be legally in the right to badly hurt an officer that is trying to unlawfully arrest me and keeps escalating, at some point other officers get involved and I will be overpowered. It hurts the officer far more later if you don't resist and sue. Why? The officer usually loses qualified immunity... becoming personally liable. If I'm the one being dogpiled on, the fact that I'm legally right can get lost (quite literally) in the fray and my case becomes clouded with a resisting arrest charge (even if wrongfully filed).


----------



## Tigger (Sep 5, 2017)

Remi said:


> I make this statement based on the fact that scenarios involving excessive force, coercion, lying, and planting evidence are not uncommon. Reports are all over the media, if you just choose not to ignore them. Video evidence of excessive force is uploaded to FB by someone, somewhere, seemingly every day. Minority communities complaining for decades about police abuse, with plenty of objective evidence to back up many of their claims. We have the the highest % of our population in prison of all industrialized nations. Also, even worse, the highest % of our population in prison for non-violent offenses. Baltimore, NYC, and Chicago PD's, all skewered by the DOJ for systemic violations of civil rights. Baltimore cops caught planting evidence. Phoenix sheriff had to be ordered by a federal judge to stop violating civil rights and he ignored the order and was cheered on by many for it. San Jose (I think) has had complaints against the police skyrocket while internal investigations of alleged misconduct decrease. These are just the ones off the top of my head from the past year or so. Police repeatedly shooting unarmed suspects and always - every_single_time - it was the fault of the suspect and never an issue with the temperament of the cop or with their training. The 4th amendment has chipped away to the point that for all practical purposes, it no longer exists.
> 
> And for the most part, we just accept it all as the price of having the cops keep us "safe". I don't know if it's that we've been that thoroughly conditioned to submit unquestioningly to authority, or if it is a form of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> ...


Things that I did not say: Police are my friends. That they serve me. That they have any loyalty to me. That I have experienced anything related to this not (though not sure how it could possibly matter for this discussion, something something logical fallacy).

I agree that this crap happens all over the place, all the time, and that nothing is done. While working I see cops overstep what I would consider their duty to be all the time, often times to my benefit. I am not sure how ok I am with this, but it is nice to know that I probably won't get stabbed by a bum as a result. 

So I submit, if there is such a problem, what do you do about it? You've made your position clear (many a time), so what's the next step? I'm not the person that says "if you don't like it go put on a badge and gun and do better." I'll be more practical than that, but I really don't know what to do. There is a lot of case law on law enforcement's "side."


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 5, 2017)

Akulahawk said:


> Another possibility is that the other officers at the scene may have recognized that the arrest wasn't lawful and didn't get involved to keep themselves from being implicated in the resulting circus that has now resulted in 2 officers being placed on paid admin leave and looking at the end of their careers. Most of the officers I'm familiar with would (and do) quite enjoy getting involved when someone is resisting arrest.


I think you misunderstood what I said... When I referred to interfering with the arrest, I was referring to preventing the unlawful arrest from occurring.  My cops that I know would gladly assist another LEO with a person who was resisting arrest, especially if it was a lawful arrest.  As you said, had they assisted, they would be dragged into this embarrassment. 


Akulahawk said:


> and the person who was unlawfully arrested was well compensated for about 2 hours of his time. IIRC the arresting officer in that case also lost his job, probably lost his POST certificate...


And I hope the same thing happens in this case.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Sep 5, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> There are bad cops out there. But there also bad EMTs, paramedics, firefighters, nurses, teachers, politicians, priests, rabbis etc.  You name it, and I can find at least one "bad" member of that profession.  But just because one guy is bad doesn't make them all bad.


Well, no other profession has the legal authority to bring violence upon other people that cops have, and then enjoy the same presumption that "they were only doing what they had to do to keep us safe" that cops enjoy. So cops should be held to a much higher standard for how they interact with the public and should be expected to de-escalate situations, but they are not. These days they are actually trained to do the opposite anytime they sense even the slightest resistance.



DrParasite said:


> Which is why I don't fault the other cops for not getting involved;  the office was making an arrest.  Them interfering once the arrest was initiated was probably only going to make a bad situation worse.


I'm sorry, but if you have the ability and authority to intervene but instead just stand by fat and dumb and watch a cop manhandle an unarmed female who was clearly trying her best to protect her patient by following the law and her employer's policy, you are as much of a piece of crap as the one doing the manhandling.



DrParasite said:


> Seriously?  Your going to go with that argument?  If she had been dressed differently the outcome out be different?


Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say anything about how she was dressed affecting the outcome. I said videos of cops acting just like this guy - unnecessarily escalating situations - are _all over_ the internet, and usually, most of the comments are made in support of the officer under the presumption that no matter what you can plainly see on the video, the victim must somehow have had it coming. I'm sure some do. The only reason _this_ video was different was because it involved a member of the most trusted profession. In other words, it revealed the fact that cops can and often do use violence even against people who clearly don't deserve it.



DrParasite said:


> Including the fact that his supervisor said if she won't give you what you want, arrest her.


All this proves is that, contrary to the "one bad cop" myth, this guy wasn't some lone bad apple. The supervisor himself was encouraging him to arrest someone who was clearly doing nothing wrong, just because they were angry and embarrassed at not being able to march into the unit and break the law themselves.



DrParasite said:


> And yes, with the number of cops who die every year I can totally understand why they see the public as a threat.  Maybe you'd like to look up how many get shot?  https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2017  In case you don't want to actually deal in facts, 3/4 of the way through 2017, there have been 87; 31 were killed by gunfire. Last year there 146 cops killed in the line of duty; 63 from gunfire.


Are you serious? Policing isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous professions. Truck drivers, garbage men, and welders are all more likely to be killed on the job. In 2014 more than 20 pizza delivery guys were shot on the job; many more were attacked physically and robbed. And they aren't even intentionally escalating encounters the way that police very often do.


I stand by my statement that police are out of control. Am I saying that every cop is going out and beating innocent old ladies every shift, just for fun? Of course not. I'm saying there are way too many examples of police misconduct out there to assume that they were all somehow justified, or to dismiss them all as "isolated incidents".  Over the past decades there has been a very real shift in the way that police relate to the public. They no longer view themselves as serving the public, they view themselves as enforcers whose enemy is the very public that their authority is supposedly derived from. They have shifted towards minimizing officer risk at the expense of risk to the public. They dress up like special operators and drive armored vehicles through the streets, mimicking an occupying military force, and displaying a similar mindset. 4th amendment protections have been eroded in order to make it easier for cops to find reasons to exert authority. This is all well documented.

In 5 minutes I could list at least a dozen situations from just the past year or so where police abused their authority and hurt people unnecessarily. In 15 minutes I could probably dig up 20 such examples. I won't bother, because I know you'll dismiss every one for one reason or another. If a few hundred of these come across my news feed each year, how many do you think happen that we never hear about? How many times are members of the public intimidated subtly and just plain treated unfairly by cops? Countless times a year. I've seen it myself many times, working with cops in dense urban areas. 

I will say this: the problem certainly isn't just the fault of the police themselves. Many of the laws that police enthusiastically enforce are simply unjust and unfair, as are many of the penalties for certain crimes. This creates much more pushback and resistance from the "criminals" accused of these crimes than would exist if the laws were simply more reasonable. For example: If I get pulled over and ticketed for speeding, I'll probably be annoyed but I know that speeding could potentially result in my harming others, so I really only have myself to blame. If on the other hand I get pulled over and ticketed for not wearing my seatbelt, I feel rage. It's nobody's f-in business what I do as long as it doesn't harm others. Of course, a $100 ticket is not nearly worth running from the cops or physically fighting them over. If the penalty for not wearing my seatbelt was much more severe however, I would have even more anger - and less incentive to control it with the guy writing me the ticket.

Bottom line is this: cops have a hard job, but they make it much harder on themselves by abusing their authority and treating people unfairly, and in some cases unnecessarily violently. This video is a perfect example of a scenario that is much more common than the law-and-order crowd wants to admit. Respect for and trust in police has steadily fallen for years, is probably at an all-time low, and is probably not going to change trajectory until police change the way that they approach and interact with the public. You can blame that on everyone but the police if you want, but nothing is going to change until the police do.


----------



## VFlutter (Sep 5, 2017)

I have always supported the police and erred on their side however lately I am starting to realize there really is an issue with police accountability. I feel that officers should be held to a higher ethical and professional standard then they are in most cases. I understand that officers are human, are frequently targets of violence, and have to make split second life and death decisions however when they make a bad decision they need to be held accountable. It is hard to judge when fear, adrenaline, and instinct on both sides are to blame not malice intent however when an officer makes a morally corrupt decision they should be convicted. 

The Shockley case verdict is due anytime now and could cause unrest worse then Ferguson. I can understand the frustration, though I will never condone rioting and violence, if he is acquitted. Unfortunately, despite the morally/ethically irreprehensible actions he took before and after the shooting, "fearing for his life" will probably get him off.


----------



## Bullets (Sep 5, 2017)

E tank said:


> I'd be interested to know what the urgency was all about.



Because the person who caused the accident and put this guy in the hospital was running from the cops. If they can draw blood and prove that he was also drunk, then maybe they can avoid civil litigation when this guy wakes up and sues the pursing department. 

This is one of the main reasons why i got out of Law Enforcement. Too much unethical stuff that i couldnt abide and didnt want to be a part of. Its nice to hear other like @Remi share this sentiment.


----------



## E tank (Sep 5, 2017)

Bullets said:


> Because the person who caused the accident and put this guy in the hospital was running from the cops. If they can draw blood and prove that he was also drunk, then maybe they can avoid civil litigation when this guy wakes up and sues the pursing department.



...I had an idea what the urgency was all about...


----------



## Summit (Sep 6, 2017)

Detective  Payne fired by ambulance service for his remarks about unethical transport decisions:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/...st-is-fired-from-his-part-time-paramedic-job/


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 6, 2017)

Remi said:


> Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say anything about how she was dressed affecting the outcome. I said videos of cops acting just like this guy - unnecessarily escalating situations - are _all over_ the internet, and usually, most of the comments are made in support of the officer under the presumption that no matter what you can plainly see on the video, the victim must somehow have had it coming. I'm sure some do. The only reason _this_ video was different was because it involved a member of the most trusted profession. In other words, it revealed the fact that cops can and often do use violence even against people who clearly don't deserve it.


let me guess... your a BLM supporter, you follow the racebaiting of Rev Jackson, and you think every time the cops shoot a person that it was murder, even if the facts don't support that claim... do I have that right?

And no, the reason this is different is because the whole situation was captured on video, and the cop was legally in the wrong in his reasoning for initiating the arrest.  But again, why let facts get in the way of a good generalization.


Remi said:


> All this proves is that, contrary to the "one bad cop" myth, this guy wasn't some lone bad apple. The supervisor himself was encouraging him to arrest someone who was clearly doing nothing wrong, just because they were angry and embarrassed at not being able to march into the unit and break the law themselves.


no, that proves there is a systematic issue within that particular department, which was exactly what I said previously. 


Remi said:


> Are you serious? Policing isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous professions. Truck drivers, garbage men, and welders are all more likely to be killed on the job. In 2014 more than 20 pizza delivery guys were shot on the job; many more were attacked physically and robbed. And they aren't even intentionally escalating encounters the way that police very often do.


where is the BS flag... I have one somewhere....

Let me see if I can clear up some of your misconceptions.  Truck drivers and garbage men die on the job because of vehicle crashes, and most of them aren't being intentionally targeted.  I don't know what welders die from. But that's a very interesting statistic you provided about pizza delivery guys, stating 20 were shot on the job in 2014.  Does that mean they were all killed? maybe or maybe not.  Lets look at the number of cops who were killed by gunfire in 2014..... The answer is 48.  And that number doesn't include the officers who were shot and did survive.  I'm not even going to waste my time providing number for how many were assaulted, because you won't see the obvious.

Dangerous professions will get you killed.  This we agree on.  But how many of those "dangerous professions" will result in your death at the intentional hands of others?  I hope you know understand the difference. 


Remi said:


> They have shifted towards minimizing officer risk at the expense of risk to the public. They dress up like special operators and drive armored vehicles through the streets, mimicking an occupying military force, and displaying a similar mindset. 4th amendment protections have been eroded in order to make it easier for cops to find reasons to exert authority. This is all well documented.


Ahh, I see it now.  So an officer's life is less valuable to you now.  You'd rather we lose a few more if it kept the public feeling safer.  Those armored vehicles are designed to keep the officers safe; they want to go home to their families at the end of every shift, and I don't blame them one bit.  I'm sorry if you feel threatened by them wanting to remain alive, but I support this 100%.


Remi said:


> In 5 minutes I could list at least a dozen situations from just the past year or so where police abused their authority and hurt people unnecessarily. In 15 minutes I could probably dig up 20 such examples. I won't bother, because I know you'll dismiss every one for one reason or another. If a few hundred of these come across my news feed each year, how many do you think happen that we never hear about? How many times are members of the public intimidated subtly and just plain treated unfairly by cops? Countless times a year. I've seen it myself many times, working with cops in dense urban areas.


So you pick random numbers, don't back them up with facts, acknowledge that in many situations there were justifications for their actions, and then because you can't find any other proof of it, believe it's a systematic conspiracy  that is subtle and not reported?  I'm not sure whether to give you more tin foil for your hat or say try not to loot anything or cause a riot at your next BLM march.


Remi said:


> I will say this: the problem certainly isn't just the fault of the police themselves. Many of the laws that police enthusiastically enforce are simply unjust and unfair, as are many of the penalties for certain crimes. This creates much more pushback and resistance from the "criminals" accused of these crimes than would exist if the laws were simply more reasonable. For example: If I get pulled over and ticketed for speeding, I'll probably be annoyed but I know that speeding could potentially result in my harming others, so I really only have myself to blame. If on the other hand I get pulled over and ticketed for not wearing my seatbelt, I feel rage. It's nobody's f-in business what I do as long as it doesn't harm others. Of course, a $100 ticket is not nearly worth running from the cops or physically fighting them over. If the penalty for not wearing my seatbelt was much more severe however, I would have even more anger - and less incentive to control it with the guy writing me the ticket.


So you are also aware that if you are in a car, involved in a motor vehicle crash, while unrestrained, you become a threat to everyone else in the car too right?  There was even a TV commercial about it 




Or when you do crash, or someone crashs into you, and you suffer a TBI, as well as other injuries because you were unrestrained, why should my insurance rates go up to pay for your injuries, when many of them could have been minimized had you simply followed the law and worn a seatbelt (which is only there for your safety, how unreasonable).

I bet you don't believe motorcycles or bicyclists should have to wear helmets either.

Oh wait, I get it.... you are one of those entitled snowflakes who feel that if they don't like a law, they should just be able to simply not follow it.  Or even worse, you knowingly break the law, and then get made at the officer for doing his job to enforce the law.  I mean, how dare a law enforcement officer enforce the law!!!

or are you one of those people who refuse to follow the law, but when someone catching you doing it, you say "but it's not my fault!!!!"

Maybe when you are ready to accept the consequences for your actions (ie, act like a mature adult), then we can talk more.


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 6, 2017)

Remi said:


> Bottom line is this: cops have a hard job, but they make it much harder on themselves by abusing their authority and treating people unfairly, and in some cases unnecessarily violently. This video is a perfect example of a scenario that is much more common than the law-and-order crowd wants to admit. Respect for and trust in police has steadily fallen for years, is probably at an all-time low, and is probably not going to change trajectory until police change the way that they approach and interact with the public. You can blame that on everyone but the police if you want, but nothing is going to change until the police do.


Bottom line, the cops have a hard job, but entitled pricks like you make it harder on them because you feel that the law shouldn't apply to you.  This video is a perfect example of a cop abusing his authority, and the actions that followed are a perfect example of how a "victim" should respond.  Don't physically fight back (you'll note, she didn't pick up a clipboard and try to smash it into the detective's head).  File complaints with the appropriate people after the fact, demonstrate that you were legally in the right, get an attorney, and if you are at work, have your employer have your back.  Most people don't do this.  Maybe if they did, the bad cops would be removed from their positions.

I don't deny there are bad cops, that there have been good cops who did some bad actions, and there are plenty of cops who really need to be sent packing.  And while trust and respect for law enforcement is at an all time low, part of that is due to the fact that there are certain entitled groups who think the rules shouldn't apply to them, who think the cops are the enemy.  The actions of certain law enforcement officers during the 80s, 90s, and 00s (and earlier generations) didn't help with that perceptions.  But there is also so many who lack any respect for laws on this nation, so why would they even bother to respect it's enforcement officers?

And you're right, cops are horrible at interacting with the public.  And unlike you, I actually found several videos on youtube of cops interacting with the public:














and I'll even give you one of what you consider to be a poor interaction, at least based on the comments





cop upholsters draws his gun on a suspicious person, but doesn't aim it at him.  but the person is suspicious, and keeps his hand his pocket, despite requests by the officer to remove it.  Think the officer was wrong?  he incorrectly escalated the situation?  Many do.

Lets make up a story.  the cop keeps his gun holstered, so when the "victim" here pulls a handgun out of his pocket (which he had been holding onto out of sight, and puts two bullets in the cops head.  the cop has no chance to respond.  could it happen?   Should it be allowed to happen?

btw, here was the city's response http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4676869-181/pd-default-story-headline-xy

I want every cop to go home at the end of every day.  And while there are some bad ones that are in the minority, I still want them to go home at the end of every day.  If you are ok with that not happening, well, then I guess we have nothing more to discuss.


----------



## Akulahawk (Sep 6, 2017)

Remi said:


> They no longer view themselves as serving the public, they view themselves as enforcers whose enemy is the very public that their authority is supposedly derived from. They have shifted towards minimizing officer risk at the expense of risk to the public


Given that Law Enforcement (LE) has zero duty to protect the individual,  you are correct from a certain point of view. Most LE contacts are with people that don't follow the rules so they can sometimes start to think every member of the public is a threat. In fact, they're taught this in the Academy. Until you're a known/proven "good guy" then you're a potential threat.


Remi said:


> So cops should be held to a much higher standard for how they interact with the public and should be expected to de-escalate situations, but they are not. These days they are actually trained to do the opposite anytime they sense even the slightest resistance.


I agree that LE should be held to a higher standard. They should have significant latitude in how they deal with the public and also should have significantly stricter/harsher consequences if they violate the public trust. What has also been found is that there are greater numbers of injuries to LE among those trained in de-escalation vs those not trained it. LE is trained to use a sufficient amount of force to overcome resistance. When you de-escalate, you're looking to minimize the use of force and if that's your mindset and  you get attacked, you're not mentally prepared to respond appropriately because the person is not following your game plan... they get inside your OODA loop and you're stuck reacting that much slower. I'm not saying training them to de-escalate is a bad thing, just that it's probably not taught appropriately for LE purposes.


Chase said:


> there really is an issue with police accountability.


Yes, there is a perception and, to a degree, a reality of this. LE gets to put a "cover" over internal investigations thanks to what's commonly known as the "Law Enforcement Bill of Rights." In short, personnel matters are handled out of the public view and you might only hear of a result of an investigation if it results in firing a cop or if the investigation results in a prosecution.


Bullets said:


> Because the person who caused the accident and put this guy in the hospital was running from the cops. If they can draw blood and prove that he was also drunk, then maybe they can avoid civil litigation when this guy wakes up and sues the pursing department.


The guy they wanted to get blood from was the victim. In this case, the suspect that LE was pursuing crashed into the truck that the victim was driving. LE probably wanted blood to do testing to find out if he was at all potentially impaired and therefore this could lessen the impact upon the department at civil trial by essentially saying that if the victim was somehow impaired, he could have avoided the crash and therefore now shares some liability for the aftermath.


DrParasite said:


> cop upholsters draws his gun on a suspicious person, but doesn't aim it at him. but the person is suspicious, and keeps his hand his pocket, despite requests by the officer to remove it. Think the officer was wrong? he incorrectly escalated the situation? Many do.


As a member of the general public, I generally won't unholster unless I've made the decision to fire. Of course there are a few exceptions to this but they're very specific and I will NOT get into those. Like some here, I have also had LE training. Not as complete as some, but more than the general public. Hands are dangerous. If I can't see your hands, I'm going to have to use "more force" and an overt display of a weapon at low-ready is a use of force. At low-ready, I'm less than 1/4 second from an aimed shot, but that time difference may be sufficient to prevent me from being shot in the first place because I don't have to start from a holstered weapon, having to defeat at least 2 or 3 retention devices during the draw. Even so, I can go from holstered to aimed shot in less than 1.5 seconds but against someone that's already moving, I'm going to get shot first. If I still can't see your hands and you're not following commands to show them, I'm going to have to escalate.

Think about this, someone that's willing to attack LE is easily willing to attack a member of the general public.

Yes, I want LE to go home at the end of their shift. They just need to follow the rules so we can trust that LE wants us to get home too.

And I'll end with this: Please keep this civil. I'm certain this thread is being watched. Thread moderation is a possibility if this starts going off the rails. Posts could be removed and people could start getting time-outs if it goes well off the rails. Again, please keep it civil. Thanks!


----------



## Bullets (Sep 7, 2017)

Akulahawk said:


> The guy they wanted to get blood from was the victim. In this case, the suspect that LE was pursuing crashed into the truck that the victim was driving. LE probably wanted blood to do testing to find out if he was at all potentially impaired and therefore this could lessen the impact upon the department at civil trial by essentially saying that if the victim was somehow impaired, he could have avoided the crash and therefore now shares some liability for the aftermath.


That was my point. Thats why they were in a rush to get blood, to cover themselves. Which of course shines a light on the departments involved. Instead of doing the right thing procedural, lets try and pin it on some random motorist later so we arent as culpable for initiating a pursuit when it most likely wasnt needed.

As far as being held to a higher standard, NYPD shot 9 people at the Empire state Building in 2012. What happened to those cops who accidentally shot 9 people? What would have happened if it was someone with a CCL who accidentally shot 9 people? I am sure that a civilian couldnt just say "Oops, sorry". If youre going to discharge your firearm then you are responsible for every bullet. If that bullet kills someone by accident then they should be prosecuted. I was under the impression that a clear backstop was something cops are trained to recognize before shooting. I know it was when i took my CCL class.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Sep 7, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> Oh wait, I get it.... you are one of those entitled snowflakes who feel that if they don't like a law, they should just be able to simply not follow it.





DrParasite said:


> Bottom line, the cops have a hard job, but entitled pricks like you make it harder on them because you feel that the law shouldn't apply to you.



I'm not sure what is more notable about your ad hominem attacks; the fact that you'd insult someone you know nothing about just because they disagree with you, or the fact that you think someone is "entitled" just because they think abuse of authority is a problem. I also wonder if you'd insult me in person as readily as you do from a computer keyboard? I'm pretty certain that you wouldn't. That tells me a lot about your character.

Look, it is clear that you are one of the many who don't believe in personal accountability or personal responsibility, and who thinks that we need a nanny state to make rules for us to follow so that we don't have think or make decisions for ourselves. People like you think that we need that same nanny state to send police to babysit us and make sure we follow the rules that they set for us, and you even think that having those babysitters abuse their power a certain percentage of the time is a perfectly reasonable price to pay for the feelings of safety and security that having them around brings you. In a nutshell, you prefer the illusion of safety over personal liberty.

I get it. I strongly disagree with it and I think it's a weak-minded, cowardly, brainwashed way to live, but I understand why a majority of people feel that way. It's a scary world and it makes people feel better to think that the government babysitters are looking out for us and protecting us. You don't question it and you don't like other people questioning it because that would require you to face the possibility that they don't actually have our best interests in mind, and/or aren't really capable of providing the security that you so long for.


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 8, 2017)

Remi said:


> I also wonder if you'd insult me in person as readily as you do from a computer keyboard? I'm pretty certain that you wouldn't. That tells me a lot about your character.


No, I'd gladly give you my opinion of you based on your asinine comments in person.  And I'm only giving that opinion based on what you are saying.  But if the shoe fits......

I know you might not like it, but many laws exist to protect stupid people from themselves.  in other cases, they are to prevent people from harming others.  I didn't make the laws, but society does expect everyone to follow them.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your cheap shots at me, and ask you one simple question: since you've been a paramedic for several years, with all the overdoses you have been to, car crashes, assaults, industrial accidents, knife and gun calls, and any other call that either involves a crime or a situation that is regulated industry, do you really think society would be better without any rules?

And I do think law enforcement should be held to a higher standard, and the punishment should be more severe when they violate those standards.


----------



## Summit (Sep 8, 2017)

DA asks FBI to join investigation of SLCPD and Payne re civil rights violations:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/utah-asks-fbi-investigate-police-nurses-rough-arrest-49687024


----------



## Carlos Danger (Sep 10, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> I'm going to ignore the rest of your cheap shots at me,



Nothing I wrote was a cheap shot. I'm not the one who started slinging the personal insults - that was you.



DrParasite said:


> since you've been a paramedic for several years, with all the overdoses you have been to, car crashes, assaults, industrial accidents, knife and gun calls, and any other call that either involves a crime or a situation that is regulated industry, *do you really think society would be better without any rules?*



First of all, that's a straw man. I never said anything about not having any rules. That's at least the second time in this thread that you've accused me of saying something that I did not. Why do you keep making things up?

But it is a good question, and I have a good answer: Laws don't prevent bad things from happening.

I've been to lots of assaults, and every one involved someone breaking laws that already existed. Same with "knife and gun calls". It's already illegal to stab and shoot people. And a large percentage of those crimes involve weapons that are illegally owned anyway. So clearly, the existence of laws against these things doesn't preclude them from happening. I don't think it even minimizes them, because most people don't need a law to keep them from assaulting or shooting others. Most of us refrain from doing those things because we inherently want to avoid violence.

Overdoses? That's a really easy one. Do you think the drug problem has gotten better, or worse? We've waged a "war on drugs" for decades now, spent at least a trillion dollars, and basically gutted the 4th amendment in the name of keeping people from using drugs. What has it gotten us? Are we drug free? Are overdoses on a steep decline? Uh, no. Clearly, drug laws are not working. In fact a really, really good argument can be made that for numerous reasons, we'd be much better off if every drug was at lease decriminalized. This is because most of the problems related to drug use actually have little to do with the drugs themselves, and have much more to do with the black market that is the only place to obtain them.

Traffic laws are no different. Should it be legal to drive recklessly? Of course not, because doing so can result in harm to others, and the one legitimate role for police is to enforce laws that keep a person's choices from harming others. But still, I've driven all over the country and never been anyplace where people didn't basically ignore speed limits unless there was actually a cop in sight. The estimated rate of people driving legally intoxicated has not fallen significantly over the decades, so it's questionable whether DUI laws do much at all. So even when the laws are "legitimate", they don't necessarily help much.

Don't be so naive as to think that laws and babysitters can change human nature. We don't need to be told what to do with our own lives. Even things that ARE bad aren't necessarily best dealt with by criminalization. Jail isn't the answer to everything.


----------



## elshion (Oct 11, 2017)

The cop just got fired


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 11, 2017)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ting-nurse-fired-department-article-1.3554590

Based on his actions, this is an appropriate response.  

I am also hoping criminal charges, as well as charges for civil rights violations, are filed against him for his inappropriate actions.


----------



## PassionMedic (Oct 12, 2017)

[QUbtPayne on paid admin leave, under criminal investigation.
2.Mr. Gray (the burn victim) is also a reserve police officer in ID and his dept has thanked Nurse Alex for standing up for his rights.
[/QUOTE]

Payne has been terminated, his Lt has been demoted and I am so glad that his superiors took this seriously.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 12, 2017)

Well when the FBI is investigating for possible civil rights violations it’s hard not to take things seriously


----------



## Akulahawk (Oct 13, 2017)

Let me see: a firing _and_ a demotion. Sounds like I was a bit prescient on this. The case I was referring to (a little fuzzy on exact details) ended up with an officer fired and two others probably getting a letter of reprimand. This was back in about 2010, though as it turns out the fired officer didn't lose his POST. It did take him a little while to find a new job though, so that had to have hurt a bit! The sergeant that was also there at the time likely won't ever make Lt and may have retired. 

Sure the case could have ended up also being a 1983 action as well against those officers but the city settled out of court. In the case we're discussing in the thread, it went "national" and that makes it much easier to rope the FBI into it. The (now fired) officer can still be charged in this case by the Feds too... This could end very, very badly for him.


----------



## Kevinf (Oct 13, 2017)

Also of note is that the police department didn't seem to take this seriously when it was reported privately. After a lack of action Wubbels went public, it went viral, and boom; suddenly we have apologies, retractions, demotions, firings, and outside investigations.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Oct 13, 2017)

Kevinf said:


> Also of note is that the police department didn't seem to take this seriously when it was reported privately. After a lack of action Wubbels went public, it went viral, and boom; suddenly we have apologies, retractions, demotions, firings, and outside investigations.


That’s the way it always works. They do what’s right when they have choice but to, and only then.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 15, 2017)

I read the publicly available internal affairs report. They damned the sergeant and lieutenant, but they did so only after the massive public outcry. They even said so.


----------



## SandpitMedic (Oct 16, 2017)

In any case he got what he deserved. 
If it was because of public outcry... then I guess the system of the voice of the people still works as it is supposed to.


----------

