thugs in uniform at it again, this time in Utah
03 Sep 2017, 6:11 pm
I think when truckers are involved in an accident it's required to monitor for illegal substances and alcohol.A trucker friend had a minor accident and he was required to pee in a cup so they could check.He had to do it WITH a nurse present in the room,not very much fun.Its hard to pee with someone in the room with you.
_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi
03 Sep 2017, 11:12 pm
Raptor wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Raptor wrote:
They have to go through the steps of investigating the incident and during that time he'll be on paid leave. It's not a reward but part of the due process for investigations of wrongdoing.
I wonder how long he's worked as a cop. Probably way too long to make a blunder like that. They don't need idiots like that. I wonder if she'll sue them.
The thing about cops is that they are in a public trust position and this ugly little incident (and others like) it undermine that trust. This can't go unanswered, but I still believe the cop (or anyone else) deserves a fair hearing before the firing squad is assembled.
Agreed. There's often a 'and now you know the rest of the story' factor.
03 Sep 2017, 11:17 pm
Campin_Cat wrote:
The thing that *I* don't understand, is THIS:
I thought the guy they wanted the blood, from, was the criminal----but, he DIED, at-the-scene.
Also, how would drawing his blood, protect the trucker? The only think I can figure, is that if they had found "illicit substances", they could argue that he shouldn't've been driving----and, if he wasn't driving, the criminal wouldn't've run-into him; but, then, IMO, one could argue the OPPOSITE, as well..... If the criminal hadn't done whatever he did, that made him a criminal, and tried to evade arrest, he wouldn't've been on the road, EITHER; so..... I dunno.....
Quote:
It all started when a suspect speeding away from police in a pickup truck on a local highway smashed head-on into a truck driver, as local media reported. Medics sedated the truck driver, who was severely burned, and took him to the University of Utah Hospital. He arrived in a comatose state, according to the Deseret News. The suspect died in the crash.
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
I thought the guy they wanted the blood, from, was the criminal----but, he DIED, at-the-scene.
Also, how would drawing his blood, protect the trucker? The only think I can figure, is that if they had found "illicit substances", they could argue that he shouldn't've been driving----and, if he wasn't driving, the criminal wouldn't've run-into him; but, then, IMO, one could argue the OPPOSITE, as well..... If the criminal hadn't done whatever he did, that made him a criminal, and tried to evade arrest, he wouldn't've been on the road, EITHER; so..... I dunno.....
If the blood was illegally obtained without a warrent, it would be inadmissible as evidence. None of this seems to make much sense at this point.
04 Sep 2017, 2:56 am
EzraS wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
The thing that *I* don't understand, is THIS:
I thought the guy they wanted the blood, from, was the criminal----but, he DIED, at-the-scene.
Also, how would drawing his blood, protect the trucker? The only think I can figure, is that if they had found "illicit substances", they could argue that he shouldn't've been driving----and, if he wasn't driving, the criminal wouldn't've run-into him; but, then, IMO, one could argue the OPPOSITE, as well..... If the criminal hadn't done whatever he did, that made him a criminal, and tried to evade arrest, he wouldn't've been on the road, EITHER; so..... I dunno.....
Quote:
It all started when a suspect speeding away from police in a pickup truck on a local highway smashed head-on into a truck driver, as local media reported. Medics sedated the truck driver, who was severely burned, and took him to the University of Utah Hospital. He arrived in a comatose state, according to the Deseret News. The suspect died in the crash.
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
I thought the guy they wanted the blood, from, was the criminal----but, he DIED, at-the-scene.
Also, how would drawing his blood, protect the trucker? The only think I can figure, is that if they had found "illicit substances", they could argue that he shouldn't've been driving----and, if he wasn't driving, the criminal wouldn't've run-into him; but, then, IMO, one could argue the OPPOSITE, as well..... If the criminal hadn't done whatever he did, that made him a criminal, and tried to evade arrest, he wouldn't've been on the road, EITHER; so..... I dunno.....
If the blood was illegally obtained without a warrent, it would be inadmissible as evidence. None of this seems to make much sense at this point.
They weren't looking for evidence to charge him. There were looking for evidence to deflect blame away from them for causing the accident by chasing a guy at high speed just to try and give him a speeding ticket. That's the way the cop's pea brains work. It's OK everybody. The truck driver was drunk anyway. He would have crashed into somebody else, if he hadn't crashed into our speeding suspect first. No harm done. It was just a drunk truck driver who got burned.
04 Sep 2017, 3:48 am
0regonGuy wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
The thing that *I* don't understand, is THIS:
I thought the guy they wanted the blood, from, was the criminal----but, he DIED, at-the-scene.
Also, how would drawing his blood, protect the trucker? The only think I can figure, is that if they had found "illicit substances", they could argue that he shouldn't've been driving----and, if he wasn't driving, the criminal wouldn't've run-into him; but, then, IMO, one could argue the OPPOSITE, as well..... If the criminal hadn't done whatever he did, that made him a criminal, and tried to evade arrest, he wouldn't've been on the road, EITHER; so..... I dunno.....
Quote:
It all started when a suspect speeding away from police in a pickup truck on a local highway smashed head-on into a truck driver, as local media reported. Medics sedated the truck driver, who was severely burned, and took him to the University of Utah Hospital. He arrived in a comatose state, according to the Deseret News. The suspect died in the crash.
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
I thought the guy they wanted the blood, from, was the criminal----but, he DIED, at-the-scene.
Also, how would drawing his blood, protect the trucker? The only think I can figure, is that if they had found "illicit substances", they could argue that he shouldn't've been driving----and, if he wasn't driving, the criminal wouldn't've run-into him; but, then, IMO, one could argue the OPPOSITE, as well..... If the criminal hadn't done whatever he did, that made him a criminal, and tried to evade arrest, he wouldn't've been on the road, EITHER; so..... I dunno.....
If the blood was illegally obtained without a warrent, it would be inadmissible as evidence. None of this seems to make much sense at this point.
They weren't looking for evidence to charge him. There were looking for evidence to deflect blame away from them for causing the accident by chasing a guy at high speed just to try and give him a speeding ticket. That's the way the cop's pea brains work. It's OK everybody. The truck driver was drunk anyway. He would have crashed into somebody else, if he hadn't crashed into our speeding suspect first. No harm done. It was just a drunk truck driver who got burned.
It says the fleeing suspect crashed head-on into the rig.
But whatever reason they wanted the sample as evidence for, it would be inadmissible if illegally obtained.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,251
Location: the island of defective toy santas
04 Sep 2017, 4:44 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
So, the cop arrests this nurse for telling him what he wants to do is against the law. And all caught on video, too. Hopefully this won't end well for him.
being that it happened a month ago, I am wondering if all the official powers are doing their best to suppress the story and protect that bad cop? I suspect nothing will happen to him, he'll collect his pension no problem. I worry for the nurse, though, as that thug's friends will likely target her for future harassment.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
04 Sep 2017, 4:50 am
auntblabby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
So, the cop arrests this nurse for telling him what he wants to do is against the law. And all caught on video, too. Hopefully this won't end well for him.
being that it happened a month ago, I am wondering if all the official powers are doing their best to suppress the story and protect that bad cop? I suspect nothing will happen to him, he'll collect his pension no problem. I worry for the nurse, though, as that thug's friends will likely target her for future harassment.
Well, if the cops had had any plans of suppressing the story, it hasn't worked out as we've all read about it, and reacted to it.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
04 Sep 2017, 10:15 am
Campin_Cat wrote:
The thing that *I* don't understand, is THIS:
I thought the guy they wanted the blood, from, was the criminal----but, he DIED, at-the-scene.
Also, how would drawing his blood, protect the trucker? The only think I can figure, is that if they had found "illicit substances", they could argue that he shouldn't've been driving----and, if he wasn't driving, the criminal wouldn't've run-into him; but, then, IMO, one could argue the OPPOSITE, as well..... If the criminal hadn't done whatever he did, that made him a criminal, and tried to evade arrest, he wouldn't've been on the road, EITHER; so..... I dunno.....
Quote:
It all started when a suspect speeding away from police in a pickup truck on a local highway smashed head-on into a truck driver, as local media reported. Medics sedated the truck driver, who was severely burned, and took him to the University of Utah Hospital. He arrived in a comatose state, according to the Deseret News. The suspect died in the crash.
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
I thought the guy they wanted the blood, from, was the criminal----but, he DIED, at-the-scene.
Also, how would drawing his blood, protect the trucker? The only think I can figure, is that if they had found "illicit substances", they could argue that he shouldn't've been driving----and, if he wasn't driving, the criminal wouldn't've run-into him; but, then, IMO, one could argue the OPPOSITE, as well..... If the criminal hadn't done whatever he did, that made him a criminal, and tried to evade arrest, he wouldn't've been on the road, EITHER; so..... I dunno.....
Quote:
His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
Then the lieutenant is the one who should be under scrutiny now.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Campin_Cat
Veteran
Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
04 Sep 2017, 12:53 pm
EzraS wrote:
If the blood was illegally obtained without a warrent, it would be inadmissible as evidence. None of this seems to make much sense at this point.
Yep, I agree. It seems, though, that this officer was not aware that it was illegal:
Quote:
In Thursday's news conference, Wubbels's attorney Karra Porter said that Payne believed he was authorized to collect the blood under "implied consent," according to the Tribune. But Porter said "implied consent" law changed in Utah a decade ago. And in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood tests were illegal. Porter called Wubbels's arrest unlawful.
.....OR, like Raptor pointed-out, because his lieutenant ordered him to arrest her, he was bound-and-determined, to follow his order----and, because he was ordered by his lieutenant, I agree with Raptor, that his lieutenant should be held, accountable, as well. How, on EARTH, could there be "implied consent", from an UNconscious person? I'm sure glad, for that SC ruling!!
Another thing that I find interesting, is that this incident happened over a month, ago, and I don't know how the nurse got the video (I guess her attorney obtained it, from a news agency, or something - cuz it was recorded, the article said, on one of the cop's BodyCams), but, unfortunately, this is the way it's looking..... NO ONE knew of this incident, when it happened (no one other than those, involved, of course), and would've never, probably, known about it, until the nurse held a Press Conference, and showed the video----and, the only reason she did this, IMO, was because the department, priorly, presumably, had done NOTHING about the incident. Only AFTER the video was made public, did the police chief and mayor, even apologize, to the nurse (again, according to the article, in the OP).
She was on "The Today Show", this morning----and, I WISH I had gotten on here, right-away, and posted what she said, cuz I (like most ASDers) am not confident that my memory will serve, me, now----but, I found her interview:
https://www.today.com/video/utah-nurse-tells-the-story-of-her-arrest-in-today-exclusive-1039036995541
I can't watch the video, cuz I have limited bandwidth----but, IIRC, the gist of what she said, was that she was making this public, because it didn't seem like the PD was going to do anything, about the incident; and, I can't blame her, cuz, if, for no other reason, than because the PD needs to know that the law (according to the what the article cited, that the nurse's attorney, said) was changed, TEN-years-ago (OR, as I suspect, they DO know that - but, haven't run into a NURSE, who knew it, before [and/or, one who wasn't gonna be intimidated, by the cops], and they've been throwing their weight, around, and drawing blood, whenever they wanted; and, then, if that's true, I can't defend the police, on this one).
_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
04 Sep 2017, 1:17 pm
Campin_Cat wrote:
EzraS wrote:
If the blood was illegally obtained without a warrent, it would be inadmissible as evidence. None of this seems to make much sense at this point.
Yep, I agree. It seems, though, that this officer was not aware that it was illegal:
Quote:
In Thursday's news conference, Wubbels's attorney Karra Porter said that Payne believed he was authorized to collect the blood under "implied consent," according to the Tribune. But Porter said "implied consent" law changed in Utah a decade ago. And in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood tests were illegal. Porter called Wubbels's arrest unlawful.
.....OR, like Raptor pointed-out, because his lieutenant ordered him to arrest her, he was bound-and-determined, to follow his order----and, because he was ordered by his lieutenant, I agree with Raptor, that his lieutenant should be held, accountable, as well. How, on EARTH, could there be "implied consent", from an UNconscious person? I'm sure glad, for that SC ruling!!
Another thing that I find interesting, is that this incident happened over a month, ago, and I don't know how the nurse got the video (I guess her attorney obtained it, from a news agency, or something - cuz it was recorded, the article said, on one of the cop's BodyCams), but, unfortunately, this is the way it's looking..... NO ONE knew of this incident, when it happened (no one other than those, involved, of course), and would've never, probably, known about it, until the nurse held a Press Conference, and showed the video----and, the only reason she did this, IMO, was because the department, priorly, presumably, had done NOTHING about the incident. Only AFTER the video was made public, did the police chief and mayor, even apologize, to the nurse (again, according to the article, in the OP).
She was on "The Today Show", this morning----and, I WISH I had gotten on here, right-away, and posted what she said, cuz I (like most ASDers) am not confident that my memory will serve, me, now----but, I found her interview:
https://www.today.com/video/utah-nurse-tells-the-story-of-her-arrest-in-today-exclusive-1039036995541
I can't watch the video, cuz I have limited bandwidth----but, IIRC, the gist of what she said, was that she was making this public, because it didn't seem like the PD was going to do anything, about the incident; and, I can't blame her, cuz, if, for no other reason, than because the PD needs to know that the law (according to the what the article cited, that the nurse's attorney, said) was changed, TEN-years-ago (OR, as I suspect, they DO know that - but, haven't run into a NURSE, who knew it, before (or, one who wasn't gonna be intimidated, by them), and they've been throwing their weight, around, and drawing blood, whenever they wanted; and, then, if that's true, I can't defend the police, on this one).
On a good note they didnt tase her (an almost common practice for any reason it seems...), rough her up too much, or take her to jail and charge her. That aside, I still see it as a false arrest with a lieutenant that probably wasn't even on the scene driving it. Most cops seem okay when it's just one of them that you're dealing with, but as thier numbers increase they take on a wolf pack mentality.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
04 Sep 2017, 6:09 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
So, the cop arrests this nurse for telling him what he wants to do is against the law. And all caught on video, too. Hopefully this won't end well for him.
being that it happened a month ago, I am wondering if all the official powers are doing their best to suppress the story and protect that bad cop? I suspect nothing will happen to him, he'll collect his pension no problem. I worry for the nurse, though, as that thug's friends will likely target her for future harassment.
Well, if the cops had had any plans of suppressing the story, it hasn't worked out as we've all read about it, and reacted to it.
They thought they could just sweep it under the carpet, and everybody would just forget about it. But they weren't counting on the fact the the nurse and the hospital weren't going to just forget about it, and would finally decide to go public about it.
04 Sep 2017, 6:29 pm
EzraS wrote:
0regonGuy wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
The thing that *I* don't understand, is THIS:
I thought the guy they wanted the blood, from, was the criminal----but, he DIED, at-the-scene.
Also, how would drawing his blood, protect the trucker? The only think I can figure, is that if they had found "illicit substances", they could argue that he shouldn't've been driving----and, if he wasn't driving, the criminal wouldn't've run-into him; but, then, IMO, one could argue the OPPOSITE, as well..... If the criminal hadn't done whatever he did, that made him a criminal, and tried to evade arrest, he wouldn't've been on the road, EITHER; so..... I dunno.....
Quote:
It all started when a suspect speeding away from police in a pickup truck on a local highway smashed head-on into a truck driver, as local media reported. Medics sedated the truck driver, who was severely burned, and took him to the University of Utah Hospital. He arrived in a comatose state, according to the Deseret News. The suspect died in the crash.
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
I thought the guy they wanted the blood, from, was the criminal----but, he DIED, at-the-scene.
Also, how would drawing his blood, protect the trucker? The only think I can figure, is that if they had found "illicit substances", they could argue that he shouldn't've been driving----and, if he wasn't driving, the criminal wouldn't've run-into him; but, then, IMO, one could argue the OPPOSITE, as well..... If the criminal hadn't done whatever he did, that made him a criminal, and tried to evade arrest, he wouldn't've been on the road, EITHER; so..... I dunno.....
If the blood was illegally obtained without a warrent, it would be inadmissible as evidence. None of this seems to make much sense at this point.
They weren't looking for evidence to charge him. There were looking for evidence to deflect blame away from them for causing the accident by chasing a guy at high speed just to try and give him a speeding ticket. That's the way the cop's pea brains work. It's OK everybody. The truck driver was drunk anyway. He would have crashed into somebody else, if he hadn't crashed into our speeding suspect first. No harm done. It was just a drunk truck driver who got burned.
It says the fleeing suspect crashed head-on into the rig.
But whatever reason they wanted the sample as evidence for, it would be inadmissible if illegally obtained.
He crashed because the cops were chasing him to give him a speeding ticket. When you try to make sense of the actions of law enforcement officers, remember you are dealing with individuals with below average intelligence. Police departments have gone to court and won the right to discriminate against job applicants with high intelligence. Court case: Jordan v. The City of New London. The government wants dumb cops who will violate people's rights without asking why, and that's what we have. Dumb cops like this, violating out rights.
04 Sep 2017, 6:36 pm
wowiexist wrote:
At least everyone agrees that the police officer was wrong in this case.
Not everyone. I have seen more then a few boot lickers defending him. Though at least they are in the minority on this one.
04 Sep 2017, 6:54 pm
Campin_Cat wrote:
EzraS wrote:
If the blood was illegally obtained without a warrent, it would be inadmissible as evidence. None of this seems to make much sense at this point.
Yep, I agree. It seems, though, that this officer was not aware that it was illegal:
Or they knew it was illegal, and just didn't give a f**k.
Campin_Cat wrote:
EzraS wrote:
In Thursday's news conference, Wubbels's attorney Karra Porter said that Payne believed he was authorized to collect the blood under "implied consent," according to the Tribune. But Porter said "implied consent" law changed in Utah a decade ago. And in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood tests were illegal. Porter called Wubbels's arrest unlawful.
.....OR, like Raptor pointed-out, because his lieutenant ordered him to arrest her, he was bound-and-determined, to follow his order----and, because he was ordered by his lieutenant, I agree with Raptor, that his lieutenant should be held, accountable, as well. How, on EARTH, could there be "implied consent", from an UNconscious person? I'm sure glad, for that SC ruling!!
Another thing that I find interesting, is that this incident happened over a month, ago, and I don't know how the nurse got the video (I guess her attorney obtained it, from a news agency, or something - cuz it was recorded, the article said, on one of the cop's BodyCams), but, unfortunately, this is the way it's looking..... NO ONE knew of this incident, when it happened (no one other than those, involved, of course), and would've never, probably, known about it, until the nurse held a Press Conference, and showed the video----and, the only reason she did this, IMO, was because the department, priorly, presumably, had done NOTHING about the incident. Only AFTER the video was made public, did the police chief and mayor, even apologize, to the nurse (again, according to the article, in the OP).
She was on "The Today Show", this morning----and, I WISH I had gotten on here, right-away, and posted what she said, cuz I (like most ASDers) am not confident that my memory will serve, me, now----but, I found her interview:
https://www.today.com/video/utah-nurse-tells-the-story-of-her-arrest-in-today-exclusive-1039036995541
I can't watch the video, cuz I have limited bandwidth----but, IIRC, the gist of what she said, was that she was making this public, because it didn't seem like the PD was going to do anything, about the incident; and, I can't blame her, cuz, if, for no other reason, than because the PD needs to know that the law (according to the what the article cited, that the nurse's attorney, said) was changed, TEN-years-ago (OR, as I suspect, they DO know that - but, haven't run into a NURSE, who knew it, before [and/or, one who wasn't gonna be intimidated, by the cops], and they've been throwing their weight, around, and drawing blood, whenever they wanted; and, then, if that's true, I can't defend the police, on this one).
They knew what the reaction was going to be. Multiple times in the video, the cops said that they were always having this problem with the hospital. This was going on for a long time, and just came to a head with this incident.
