nurse cuffed by cop for not breaking law

jimbob said:
Unfortunately I have every reason to believe you; my point was that there is something particularly Kafkaesque about being arrested for resisting arrest with no other reason given. That shows either contempt for rules and law and/or utter idiocy
Click to expand...


Yes. Cops regularly demonstrate that they believe they are above the law and rules don't apply to them.

Even being on camera while they are proving that doesn't seem to change them.
 
quadraginta said:
Yes. Cops regularly demonstrate that they believe they are above the law and rules don't apply to them.

Even being on camera while they are proving that doesn't seem to change them.
Click to expand...

To be fair to them, they have plenty of reason to think that such reasons are adequate, which means that it isn't an idiotic reason from their point of view.

The sooner the US realises that police should be organised no lower than a State level, the better.

It wouldn't solve the problems, but it would get rid of the silly two-employee forces which *have* to be amateurish in many aspects. Chief Wiggum actually seems like an affectionate portrait of a US smalltown police officer.
 
jimbob said:
To be fair to them, they have plenty of reason to think that such reasons are adequate, which means that it isn't an idiotic reason from their point of view.

The sooner the US realises that police should be organised no lower than a State level, the better.

It wouldn't solve the problems, but it would get rid of the silly two-employee forces which *have* to be amateurish in many aspects. Chief Wiggum actually seems like an affectionate portrait of a US smalltown police officer.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts - and I wasn't so much disagreeing with you before, as augmenting your point. In my county we have no incorporated towns at all - so there are towns in a sense no local services, and no local governments, everything is run at the county level. This allows us to avoid the abusive, systematically discriminatory practices at the level that we\as seen in, say, Ferguson - although they could, in theory, happen at the county level, there's no 17-person police force to run around acting as the violent end of a white supremacist shakedown operation.

Still not calling them, though, and I don't think that the problem is only a matter of scale, since a group as large as the Chicago PD was running torture chambers until recently (assuming they didn't simply move them). There's stiull a need for a wholesale change in the way American PDs are designed, and end to the Drug War, and an increase in environmental cleanup (particularly lead).
 
Mumbles said:
Agreed on all counts - and I wasn't so much disagreeing with you before, as augmenting your point. In my county we have no incorporated towns at all - so there are towns in a sense no local services, and no local governments, everything is run at the county level. This allows us to avoid the abusive, systematically discriminatory practices at the level that we\as seen in, say, Ferguson - although they could, in theory, happen at the county level, there's no 17-person police force to run around acting as the violent end of a white supremacist shakedown operation.

Still not calling them, though, and I don't think that the problem is only a matter of scale, since a group as large as the Chicago PD was running torture chambers until recently (assuming they didn't simply move them). There's stiull a need for a wholesale change in the way American PDs are designed, and end to the Drug War, and an increase in environmental cleanup (particularly lead).
Click to expand...

Yes, I realised that you were adding context in your previous post.

When you post on your experiences of US policing, your posts make me angry. The UK is far from perfect, but in this, and healthcare, it used to make the same mistakes as the US... but it improved.

UK police forces used to be organised at the town level ( according to a close colleague who's the son of a retired police sergeant) but they changed after the Victorian era.

The reason why the UK police were set up as an unarmed force is also relevant. The Peterloo massacre was as a result of using the army against protesters and the outcry was one reason for a civilian force.

Gun control is another - even after the first world war, the UK was a gun culture but it managed to disarm without any loss of freedom, except around guns.

ETA: Homan square and Baltimore were two reasons why I was thinking that scale wouldn't fix all the problems.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
Yes, I realised that you were adding context in your previous post.

When you post on your experiences of US policing, your posts make me angry. The UK is far from perfect, but in this, and healthcare, it used to make the same mistakes as the US... but it improved.

UK police forces used to be organised at the town level ( according to a close colleague who's the son of a retired police sergeant) but they changed after the Victorian era.

The reason why the UK police were set up as an unarmed force is also relevant. The Peterloo massacre was as a result of using the army against protesters and the outcry was one reason for a civilian force.

Gun control is another - even after the first world war, the UK was a gun culture but it managed to disarm without any loss of freedom, except around guns.

ETA: Homan square and Baltimore were two reasons why I was thinking that scale wouldn't fix all the problems.
Click to expand...

I'll have to remember to read up on Peterloo - I'm not at all knowledgable when it comes to the history of anywhere outside of the US.

Unfortunately, the current administration has made it clear that they wish to lock up as many minorities as possible, that they desire a police force that rules through fear and violence, and that they have no interest in moving environmental toxins that seem to contribute to street violence, so things are really only evolving at the state and county levels. Luckily, many of these governments appear to be on board with these efforts.
 
quadraginta said:
"only follow orders"

"only follow the rules"
​
I am detecting a slight discrepancy here.

Can you see it? Or do you need it explained to you?
Perhaps you inadvertently quoted some other source than the post you included in yours and it is an unintentional error?

If the out-of-control cop had followed the rules instead of his orders we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Click to expand...
And I'm detecting some similarity here.

Can you see it?

'Orders' are derived from 'rules', and Payne was following a set of 'rules' (they're just an unwritten set that happens to differ from the set the SLCPD tells us they're following). That's the underlying problem here.

I'd prefer a police force where individuals were able to openly question the 'rules', and the orders that are derived from them.

And, BTW, it's the snarky toned comments (like the one high-lited above) that have been causing me to keep my posting to a minimium on these fora. I'll keep my comments to myself from now on. This thread is only an echo chamber.
 
SteveL said:
'Orders' are derived from 'rules', and Payne was following a set of 'rules' (they're just an unwritten set that happens to differ from the set the SLCPD tells us they're following). That's the underlying problem here.

I'd prefer a police force where individuals were able to openly question the 'rules', and the orders that are derived from them.
Click to expand...

But that, it seemed to me, is exactly what this officer did. He was under orders to disobey the rules, and his response to this was to decide that the importance of following his orders and of gathering evidence as part of his job was greater than the importance of following the rules which govern how and when he is permitted to obtain evidence. On other occasions, police officers have followed the unwritten rule that a person with dark skin acting unusually is an immediate threat to life and limb sufficiently great to warrant the use of deadly force, and have openly questioned the conflicting rules that might indicate otherwise. The USA seems to have a worryingly large number of police officers who have chosen to openly question the laws under which they operate, and to reject them; and the behaviour of their colleagues, who are willing to cover up these instances, are strong support to them in their belief that this open questioning and, on occasions, rejection of the laws under which they operate is reasonable and necessary. The ultimate end of this process, of course, is vigilante justice, in which the laws are called so far into question that they are more or less ignored. I would suggest that such a level of freedom to question and overrule the set of rules known as "laws" is not in fact an end you would be comfortable with.

Dave
 
A
Dave Rogers said:
But that, it seemed to me, is exactly what this officer did. He was under orders to disobey the rules, and his response to this was to decide that the importance of following his orders and of gathering evidence as part of his job was greater than the importance of following the rules which govern how and when he is permitted to obtain evidence.
Click to expand...
I think that the implied 'order' was more "Go ahead and treat this like a routine bust at a crack house" than "I know how much you respect the 4th amendment, but I'm ordering you to violate it".
On other occasions, police officers have followed the unwritten rule that a person with dark skin acting unusually is an immediate threat to life and limb sufficiently great to warrant the use of deadly force, and have openly questioned the conflicting rules that might indicate otherwise. The USA seems to have a worryingly large number of police officers who have chosen to openly question the laws under which they operate, and to reject them; and the behaviour of their colleagues, who are willing to cover up these instances, are strong support to them in their belief that this open questioning and, on occasions, rejection of the laws under which they operate is reasonable and necessary. The ultimate end of this process, of course, is vigilante justice, in which the laws are called so far into question that they are more or less ignored. I would suggest that such a level of freedom to question and overrule the set of rules known as "laws" is not in fact an end you would be comfortable with.

Dave
Click to expand...
I think you and and I are using 'openly' differently. I'm not saying that their actions aren't apparent, I'm saying that (at least in some places) cops can't challenge the unwritten code (i.e. Serpico).

ETA: When I used the word 'question', I meant exactly that, not 'ignore'.
 
Last edited:
SteveL said:
ETA: When I used the word 'question', I meant exactly that, not 'ignore'.
Click to expand...

I can see that, but questioning the law is a prelude to violating it. It seems that some police officers perceive the law as an obstruction to them doing their jobs, and therefore question its value. At that point it becomes less serious to ignore or violate it, because they feel they can claim a higher purpose. In their minds, how is that different from the independence of mind required to question authority?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I can see that, but questioning the law is a prelude to violating it. It seems that some police officers perceive the law as an obstruction to them doing their jobs, and therefore question its value. At that point it becomes less serious to ignore or violate it, because they feel they can claim a higher purpose. In their minds, how is that different from the independence of mind required to question authority?

Dave
Click to expand...


I think you're giving them credit for too much actual thought. Most of them don't act anywhere near that thoughtfully, and their grasp of the law is not always particularly strong. Remember, police in general are not hired for their intellectual ability or education, just the opposite usually.

They act based on culture, based on what they observe other police doing. There is bunker mentality that has taken root in law enforcement culture, hand-in-hand with an attitude of "I am the Authority and must be obeyed".
 
SteveL said:
And I'm detecting some similarity here.

Can you see it?

'Orders' are derived from 'rules', and Payne was following a set of 'rules' (they're just an unwritten set that happens to differ from the set the SLCPD tells us they're following). That's the underlying problem here.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Orders can be derived from rules, and in a perfect world they would be.

They are not necessarily always derived from rules. In this case they very obviously were not.

There is a very extensive body of case law specifically concerning the issue of obeying illegal orders.

An illegal order (among other things) includes an order which is not derived from rules.

The cop who took down the nurse, arrested her, cuffed her, and shoved her into a patrol car was (at least allegedly) trying to execute orders from his immediate superior, but the orders were illegal ones, not derived from the rules.

And, judging from the conversation in the recording, he was even aware of that, so he doesn't even have 'ignorance of the law' as an excuse.
 
Last edited:
SteveL said:
AI think that the implied 'order' was more "Go ahead and treat this like a routine bust at a crack house" than "I know how much you respect the 4th amendment, but I'm ordering you to violate it".

<snip>
Click to expand...


Payne has said that he was specifically instructed by the watch commander on duty, Lt. James Tracy, to arrest Wubbels for interfering with a police investigation if she refused to allow him to take the blood sample he wanted.

I'm not sure how you get "implied" out of that.
 
Ranb said:
Payne was told by his own supervisor to arrest Wubble. It remains to be seen how high up the "rotten" in the department extends.
Click to expand...

Likely to the top like in so many departments. Cops routinely violate the constitutional rights of people and know they will never be called to account. See the polices own words in the DoJ investigation on Ferguson, back when the DoJ had the potential to care about police violating peoples constitutional rights instead of being all for such violations.
 
Jodie said:
If they can't understand the policy/law requiring a warrant for a blood draw working in a hospital then perhaps they shouldn't be cops at all.
Click to expand...

But it isn't their job to confront some armed lunatic kidnapping someone.
 
Beady said:
Just guessing, but since Payne was quite plainly acting in violation of and in the presence of a printed copy of the mutually-agreed-upon policy, why couldn't the other cops have simply pulled him off her, or even have arrested him for assault? Not that the former would ever happen, but it was(?) an option. Come to think of it, could she sue for false imprisonment?

This signature is intended to irritate people.
Click to expand...

As a clear danger to the safety of others could the hospital have forcibly committed him to the psych floors?
 
ponderingturtle said:
The cop is a paramedic, he should also lose his licence for this.
Click to expand...


Don't know about his license, but he lost his job as a paramedic.

His recorded and subsequently publicized comment,

“I‘ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere.”
​
didn't sit well with his employers. Neither did the storm of complaints and irate phone calls they received in the wake of the release of the nurse assault video containing that quote.

I expect that the licensing thing may come up at a later date, but he's probably going to have a fair amount of trouble finding someone else to hire him as a paramedic anyway, license or no.

They aren't as likely to welcome rogue actors as other cop shops seem to be.
 
quadraginta said:
Don't know about his license, but he lost his job as a paramedic.

His recorded and subsequently publicized comment,

“I‘ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere.”
​
didn't sit well with his employers. Neither did the storm of complaints and irate phone calls they received in the wake of the release of the nurse assault video containing that quote.

I expect that the licensing thing may come up at a later date, but he's probably going to have a fair amount of trouble finding someone else to hire him as a paramedic anyway, license or no.

They aren't as likely to welcome rogue actors as other cop shops seem to be.
Click to expand...

That seems only likely as long as the heat around this continues. The thing is that most ambulance companies constantly need staff and a medic is in demand. He might be doing more ALS transports than emergency response but there are a lot of pretty damn shady ambulance companies.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That seems only likely as long as the heat around this continues. The thing is that most ambulance companies constantly need staff and a medic is in demand. He might be doing more ALS transports than emergency response but there are a lot of pretty damn shady ambulance companies.
Click to expand...


I wasn't suggesting that he wouldn't be able to get a job in the ambulance racket at all, just that it wouldn't be as easy as finding another cop shop to take him in, since they would probably view his macho antics as a point in his favor.
 
quadraginta said:
I wasn't suggesting that he wouldn't be able to get a job in the ambulance racket at all, just that it wouldn't be as easy as finding another cop shop to take him in, since they would probably view his macho antics as a point in his favor.
Click to expand...

And in my experience it would be as easy or easier. Everyone is always looking to hire more medics.
 
SteveL said:
And I'm detecting some similarity here.

Can you see it?

'Orders' are derived frominterpretation of 'rules', and Payne was following a set of 'rules' (they're just an unwritten set that happens to differ from the set the SLCPD tells us they're following). That's the underlying problem here.

...
Click to expand...
FTFY
Given that the Police Interpretation of the rules has the postulate "We are right"
 
jimbob said:
.....

UK police forces used to be organised at the town level ( according to a close colleague who's the son of a retired police sergeant) but they changed after the Victorian era.

.......
Click to expand...

Where I live, the old police station, which dated back to 1913, has the county police name engraved into the stonework. It was a county force with jurisdiction over the shire, with its own Chief Constable. The local large town had its own "burgh" police force. If the local regional councils merged, so would the local police forces.

In the mid 1950s a central police college was opened, it ids where all Scottish police officers went to be trained, no matter which force they were in.

In the 1970s, the numerous Scottish police forces were reorganised along with the new regions; Grampian, Lothian and Borders, Strathclyde, Fife etc. They all became county forces, with the counties being made of groups of the original shires and burghs. The smallest was still a police force of just over 500 officers.

A few years back, they all merged to make Police Scotland. One force covers the whole country. The cost savings have been huge, for example, instead of about 40 control rooms, there are now only 3 or 4.

If the history of policing in Scotland shows the USA anything, it is how important merging training was and that all officers should benefit from centralised, quality training.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The cop is a paramedic, he should also lose his licence for this.
Click to expand...

Nitpick: Paramedics and EMTs are certified, not licensed. They have to work under a licensed professional like an MD or a nurse. Unless some charges are forthcoming, or a lawsuit by the patient, it's unlikely his certification would be revoked. But he might be put on probation or have some other restrictions placed on the certification.

It's moot though if no one would hire him now.
 
Nessie said:
......
A few years back, they all merged to make Police Scotland. One force covers the whole country. The cost savings have been huge, for example, instead of about 40 control rooms, there are now only 3 or 4.
......
Click to expand...

How does that work in practice? Do cops transfer freely from one region to another? Or do they identify with and stay in one geographic area? I would suspect policing needs in, say, Glasgow are different from a village in the far north. Are there regional conflicts within the department?

The U.S. has far too many police departments, many small, badly trained and ill-equipped. They should be merged. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine how operations like the NYPD or the LAPD could be function if the top bosses weren't even based in their cities.
 
Bob001 said:
How does that work in practice? Do cops transfer freely from one region to another? Or do they identify with and stay in one geographic area? I would suspect policing needs in, say, Glasgow are different from a village in the far north. Are there regional conflicts within the department?

The U.S. has far too many police departments, many small, badly trained and ill-equipped. They should be merged. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine how operations like the NYPD or the LAPD could be function if the top bosses weren't even based in their cities.
Click to expand...

Large cities tend to have their own police forces, so Greater Manchester, or the Met (London), for example. The LAPD and NYPD would be analogous. I'm not sure how Police Scotland deals with personnel but there has to be more scope for promotion in, say Glasgow or Edinburgh, than the Outer Hebrides

Where I live, Derbyshire, in 2006, there was serious planning to consolidate the force with four other East Midland forces to get better economies of scale, as the forces are quite small; for context Derbyshire Constabulary has about 3,500 employees, of whom just over 2000 are officers. There is cooperation amongst the forces to share overheads.



Derbyshire Constabulary has 3,000 employees, to give an idea of a smallish force.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nitpick: Paramedics and EMTs are certified, not licensed. They have to work under a licensed professional like an MD or a nurse. Unless some charges are forthcoming, or a lawsuit by the patient, it's unlikely his certification would be revoked.
Click to expand...
I couldn't find a "Jeff Payne" in either the national EMT/para registry nor the Utah state EMT/para registry. Either he's registered under a different first/middle name or he's already been revoked.

The medical field, unlike the police, tend to respond to complaints far more quickly and efficiently, but I don't know for certain in this case.
 
The Norseman said:
I couldn't find a "Jeff Payne" in either the national EMT/para registry nor the Utah state EMT/para registry. Either he's registered under a different first/middle name or he's already been revoked.

The medical field, unlike the police, tend to respond to complaints far more quickly and efficiently, but I don't know for certain in this case.
Click to expand...

He may not be an EMT or paramedic. In this state there are a half dozen certifications one can get from phlebotomist to someone who can give a TB skin test. Looks like Utah also has specific phlebotomy certification.

As for the response, no official licensing body is going to act on a news event. There would need to have been a complaint filed. And that could have been done, but we don't know from the news accounts. There is of course, apparent grounds for revoking his certification. Might also be a misdemeanor.
(6) willfully and intentionally making any false or fraudulent interpretation, statement, or representation in the performance of the certified phlebotomist's duties;
(7) any conduct contrary to the recognized standards and ethics of the profession of a certified phlebotomist;
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
He may not be an EMT or paramedic.
Click to expand...
The most recent article linked to described his first being an EMT, working his way up to a paramedic and then moving to the police department while maintaining part-time work on an ambulance crew. The ambulance company has since fired him as stated in that article, so I thought I'd follow up and do a quick search just for anyone's information to see if he's still authorized to perform EMS medical care.
 
The Norseman said:
The most recent article linked to described his first being an EMT, working his way up to a paramedic and then moving to the police department while maintaining part-time work on an ambulance crew. The ambulance company has since fired him as stated in that article, so I thought I'd follow up and do a quick search just for anyone's information to see if he's still authorized to perform EMS medical care.
Click to expand...

Are people required to be certified to work for a commercial ambulance service? They're not government employees, and they probably do more transport than emergency response. They're not answering 911 calls. Could the company just hire licensed drivers if it wanted to?
 
Bob001 said:
Are people required to be certified to work for a commercial ambulance service? They're not government employees, and they probably do more transport than emergency response. They're not answering 911 calls. Could the company just hire licensed drivers if it wanted to?
Click to expand...
Depends on the ambulance service. It's the procedures the person needs certification to do. If the service doesn't provide the procedures then one wouldn't need certification.

Usually ambulance services offer BLS - basic life support, or ALS - advanced life support. ALS is going to need employees with at least some certification, usually EMT or greater.
 
Bob001 said:
Are people required to be certified to work for a commercial ambulance service? They're not government employees, and they probably do more transport than emergency response. They're not answering 911 calls. Could the company just hire licensed drivers if it wanted to?
Click to expand...
Yup, Ginger got it; just driving doesn't require any medical training or certification, but performing any medical services does require it — from the state or county or national level, depending. During transport, if any medical issue arose, the ex-para would not be able to perform any medically-related duties anyway, so really, what's the point? He'd probably have no problem getting hired with another police department even after this fiasco, so there's that.
 
Jodie said:
One would think.
Click to expand...

The supreme court has rule that police never need to endanger themselves by acting in the defense of the populace. And when the criminal is a cop count yourself lucky if they are even willing to testify against the fellow officer.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Depends on the ambulance service. It's the procedures the person needs certification to do. If the service doesn't provide the procedures then one wouldn't need certification.

Usually ambulance services offer BLS - basic life support, or ALS - advanced life support. ALS is going to need employees with at least some certification, usually EMT or greater.
Click to expand...

In NY at least you need an EMT on it to even be counted as an ambulance. ALS requires a full paramedic. If you are not able to provide care you are an ambulette.

This does mean that if you require a stretcher for transport you need an EMT, even if there is no need of medical care.
 
zooterkin said:
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a hospital having its own police force.
Click to expand...

It's not the hospital's, it's the university to which the hospital is also attached.

Even as "used to" that concept as I am, I also cannot wrap my head around it.

I even work for one in the mornings. A coworker and I were recently discussing the dubious legality of faculty/staff and permit-required parking spaces along some of the streets. The streets still belong to the city, this was reaffirmed when citations for violating the campus smoking ban on sidewalks were tossed out a few years back. Campus police still regularly issue parking tickets on those very same streets, however.
 
(eta: see my next post... I misunderstood yours.)


zooterkin said:
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a hospital having its own police force.
Click to expand...



Were they armed? I honestly didn't notice on my single pass through the video?

But I think you meant "armed security"... and over he at least, that doesn't equate to "police force".

You have private security, in hospitals and elsewhere... we have both armed and unarmed depending on the situation.

You, and much of the world, have police and/or military in your airports routinely carrying military style semi-auto rifles. I don't think we have that over here on a daily basis, and I would find it extraordinarily disconcerting (at first, at least).

On the flip side... I can, have and do stand in conversation with our armed police... and never even think about the sidearm they are carrying (except back in the day... when I was shooting, and might have the occasional short convo about what model their department issued and how they liked them).
Normally though... it doesn't even merit a thought. Different social norms, eh?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom