Utah officer fired after nurse's arrest caught on video

I think we wait to see....

... Originally Posted by grean

That's a risky posture around here ...

.... WTF may jump your shit for not leaping to conclusions ...

.... like the good little Know-Nothing he is!

After all ... he predicted Zimmerman would be convicted of "something" for the death of Martin!!!!

He also believes making people suffer and die wasn't a motive of Paddock in Las Vegas ....

But he's the basic Essie loudmouth, Know-Nothing.

Just expels farts: hot, stinky, noisy, and no substance!

BIRCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL: not applicable as the injured party in the hospital was not the at fault driver.
Note that the at fault driver had already been determined.
However, if the guy had been the at fault driver Id agree with you.
Second,
Note that the opinion also states that the driver (in the court case) had actually been arrested. This was not the case for the nurse hospital situation.

Last, nowadays any senior level police officer (and theres always one on duty) has a couple judge contacts on their handhelds. Warrants are easy to obtain with a valid reason.

That is WDF's biggest tool in his tiny toolchest: "telling others what they think." Originally Posted by gnadfly

a constant theme in his posts is the attribution to others motivations of the worst sort

it allows him to setup straw positions to attack, in which he thinks he has entrapped his posting opposition in some sort a gordian knot sewed by his superior intellect

and then he yuks away with crazed emoticons

LL: not applicable ... Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

It was to 2dogs comment. But thanks for the attempt.

My point was (and is) with regard to drawing blood ... the SCOTUS has not shit canned it ... only requires a warrant ... BUT ... LEAVES some wiggle room depending on the circumstances ... for a warrantless draw of blood .. even with force on the arrestee.

.. unfortunately folks have to read the facts carefully ... when the SCOTUS makes "fact specific" decisions ...

.. I'm waiting to see what all the facts are .... kinda like the killing of Brown ... Haven't the loudmouths on here learned anything?

Obaminable sure as shit didn't! And he's a self-proclaimed "law professor"! .... kinda like WTF!!!!

Just because the Supreme Court makes an erroneous ruling on the constitutionality of police actions does not mean that it is not a violation of both amendments.

It is like the ruling the SCOTUS made on eminent domain where the government could take private property from an individual and give it to a developer so that there would be an increase in the tax base. Not sure if you agree with the ruling or not but that does not mean you cannot object to it or fight it.

Just because the Supreme Court makes an erroneous ruling on the constitutionality of police actions does not mean that it is not a violation of both amendments.

It is like the ruling the SCOTUS made on eminent domain where the government could take private property from an individual and give it to a developer so that there would be an increase in the tax base. Not sure if you agree with the ruling or not but that does not mean you cannot object to it or fight it. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

You can swim up that waterfall all you want, but with respect to the particular Constitutional principle associated with drawing blood by LE there is a history of legal opinions that support the Court's decision, which is discussed at length, and given the recent change in the Court and the one to come I doubt it will make a difference. As for the specific event in question and a reason why an opinion is premature without ALL THE FACTS was the nurse physically interfering with the lawful duties of a police officer as expressed by the SCOTUS and his training?

I guess like Rodney King .

.... one has to see "the rest of the story" and should before leaping ... like WTF did when he predicted a conviction of Zimmerman for the killing of Martin.

Until the SCOTUS changes its mind, just like abortion, that's the way it is. It doesn't really matter whether I agree or not, but waiting for the "right case" to overturn their thinking is the only way to do it ... just like abortion.

Have you read the eminent domain case and those following?

2 dogs

'LL and I are both correct as it pertains to quoting court cases.
The facts of what's going on with any situation does need to match prior case details on the critical facts.
The newsies are frequently amusing as they simply walk off the end off the dock on that.

The Supremes case that was quoted had the already arrested for drunk driving folks subject to implied consent law.
Quite different situation with this nurse case event. And the local pd has caved on exactly that issue by modifying policies and firing the cop.

That's a risky posture around here ...

.... WTF may jump your shit for not leaping to conclusions ...

.... like the good little Know-Nothing he is!

After all ... he predicted Zimmerman would be convicted of "something" for the death of Martin!!!!

He also believes making people suffer and die wasn't a motive of Paddock in Las Vegas ....

! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I made a prediction that Zimmer would be convicted just like you jumped the gun and made a prediction that the MOTIVE of the Las Vegas Shooter was to making people suffer and die.

There has been no conclusion that that was the Shooters MOTIVE.

My guess is they will not find his MOTIVE if they haven't found it by now.

LexusLover will be devastated...

. Originally Posted by WTF

NO HE WON"T... He's a Law and Order guy!

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Have you noticed that LexusLover has not given his opinion on the firing? I started this thread stating that LL would not agree with it. I stick by that , until he post something that changes my mind in this regard. He of course will not give his opinion on the matter because it will confirm what I posted.
. Originally Posted by WTF

And LL will not give his opinion because he is the only fucking poster in this forum who thinks the Cop was justified in his actions.






.

2 dogs

'LL and I are both correct as it pertains to quoting court cases.
The facts of what's going on with any situation does need to match prior case details on the critical facts.
The newsies are frequently amusing as they simply walk off the end off the dock on that.

The Supremes case that was quoted had the already arrested for drunk driving folks subject to implied consent law.
Quite different situation with this nurse case event. And the local pd has caved on exactly that issue by modifying policies and firing the cop. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

A major correction ... the case I quoted was 3 cases combined ... a little (apparently) UNknown fact or too often overlooked when "interpreting" cases and applying the "holdings" to a future fact situation.

For instance: Terry vs. Ohio ... somewhat related ... involving the 4th amendment ... and carving an "exception" .... it is more often than not misinterpreted .. even by citing courts ... and is called the "stop and frisk" case as you know, which some people (and courts) have interpreted as the officer having the authority to STOP SOMEONE AND FRISK THEM. That's not what Terry says. And the way "we" know is the case published immediately following Terry in the same volume is New York vs. Sibron, which is two cases combined, and in Sibron the Court explains Terry!!!!

Now honestly, how many have heard and/or read "Sibron"??? (As all those run to the books so they can lie about it!!!)

But officers, who are taught what they are told Terry says, actually believe they can "jack people up" on the street by stopping them and frisking them ... they do, but it's not following Terry's instructions. It's following a misinterpretation, which has morphed over the years in too many cases. Recently Justice Thomas pointed out that fact! Not citing Sibron, but simply critically exploring the language of Terry.

So for the stupid, ignorant bullshitter WTF who struggles to wipe his ass with both hands when it comes to all things "criminal" and his nefarious name-calling ... really needs to take a seat on the bench and fart there out of the way.

Oh, the local pd "caved" in, but that means little in the way of concluding who was right or wrong. That can mean they don't want to pay attorney fees to defend the department or mitigate their exposure because of the pressure ... settling a case doesn't always mean guilt any more than a plea bargain agreed upon means the defendant was guilty of the indictment or information against him.

All the legal opinions in the world still do not make it right.
It is just a part and parcel of the erosion of individual rights in favor of the police state.
It is still, IMHO, a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments.

I am thincking that if the popo department fired him, there is some substance to the allegations. Normally they get free paid vacation while they are under investigation for their criminal acts.

All the legal opinions in the world still do not make it right. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

A serious problem with that philosophy is: What is "right" for you may not be "right" for the person next to you, and vice versa.

Staying on topic: It may not be "right" for the guy being restrained while blood is being drawn to prove he was shit-faced drunk when he sped through a red light and T-boned a family in their car coming home from celebrating "junior's" birthday who are all lined up at the morgue while the ME sorts out whose leg and arm goes where ... after he cleans up their blood from the body parts....for which no "restraint" is needed to check their blood for alcohol levels. Should that guy walk, because he doesn't want his blood tested?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged "mistreatment" of the nurse, who apparently was objecting that the officer who was allegedly trained to draw the blood, may have been following SCOTUS law and departmental policy when doing so. The accused gets "due process" ... so does the cop, who is now the accused! The fact that he's a cop doesn't reduce his rights ... if one thinks so, then that one can't read.

There are no exceptions in the Constitution for "cops"! Any more than there are for Black people, females, or anyone else as long as they are residents and/or citizens of the U.S. and some argue they still have those "rights" even if they aren't.

Even WTF has Constitutional Rights! Especially him!

All impaired, retarded people like him should be protected.