unlawful arrest by LEO

[Texas_Shooter]

If every police officer faced criminal and civil charges for detaining someone then hundreds if not thousands of officers would be liable. Officers temporarily detain people while they check out a story or search a vehicle or let a situation deescalate between two individuals. I think police officers should walk on egg shells and have better interactions with the public but opening them up to that sort of liability (I would think) would essentially hinder them from doing their jobs safely so that everyone can return home at the end of watch. If he has to be made the example and the DA presses charges so be it. Nurse Wubbels at this moment it seems from news articles does not want to take it any further than the apology.

[Peregrino]

Texas Shooter - You and I are never going to see eye to eye on this. What he attempted to force her to do and his reaction when she rightly refused to comply does not equate to the temporary detentions you cite. If she declines to prosecute, that's her decision. I for one will be disappointed because he will have gotten away with violating the public trust. I don't know what your understanding of the concept of a "social contract" is but I contend it's the only thing that maintains a civilized veneer over modern society. His actions (as the actions of any rouge element) violates that compact, provides cause to the anarchists, and weakens the fabric of society. I've spent enough time in countries where the institutions of government were reviled and the social contract didn't exist that I never want to see it here. Unfortunately, we're already on that slippery slope with violent civil unrest and organized movements de-legitimizing the instruments of governance (especially law enforcement). I want this person scapegoated (because his actions make him an ideal sacrifice) to show that the police value the social contract and want to preserve the public trust and confidence. It's probably too little, too late, but it needs to be done.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Texas_Shooter

I think police officers should walk on egg shells and have better interactions with the public but opening them up to that sort of liability (I would think) would essentially hinder them from doing their jobs safely so that everyone can return home at the end of watch.

Curious: How does a lack of immunity from criminal action prevent someone from going home at the end of their watch?

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Texas Shooter - You and I are never going to see eye to eye on this. What he attempted to force her to do and his reaction when she rightly refused to comply does not equate to the temporary detentions you cite. If she declines to prosecute, that's her decision. I for one will be disappointed because he will have gotten away with violating the public trust. I don't know what your understanding of the concept of a "social contract" is but I contend it's the only thing that maintains a civilized veneer over modern society. His actions (as the actions of any rouge element) violates that compact, provides cause to the anarchists, and weakens the fabric of society. I've spent enough time in countries where the institutions of government were reviled and the social contract didn't exist that I never want to see it here. Unfortunately, we're already on that slippery slope with violent civil unrest and organized movements de-legitimizing the instruments of governance (especially law enforcement). I want this person scapegoated (because his actions make him an ideal sacrifice) to show that the police value the social contract and want to preserve the public trust and confidence. It's probably too little, too late, but it needs to be done.

Peregrino Sir,


Very, very well said, IMHO!


Bravo!!!


Holly

[Texas_Shooter]

At no point have I advocated criminal immunity for this officer or any police officer. As we have seen around the country when police officers over step the bounds of law they are charged and found guilty. He did wrong and he should be punished as such. If they break the law they should be held accountable but other than being an asshat as one QP calls him what can they charge him with?

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Texas_Shooter

At no point have I advocated criminal immunity for this officer or any police officer. As we have seen around the country when police officers over step the bounds of law they are charged and found guilty. He did wrong and he should be punished as such. If they break the law they should be held accountable but other than being an asshat as one QP calls him what can they charge him with?

I think Brush Okie lays out an excellent starting point in post #25. YMMV.

[miclo18d]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Because there is a big difference between a legal detention of a suspect to investigate a crime and detaining someone illegally. Oh yea I wore a badge for a few years.

Under California law his charges would be as followed

Assault- threats to use force

Battery- actually using force it putting his hands on her and cuffing her. No need to shove her around

Assault under color of authority.

False imprisonment aka kidnapping.

I don't know Utah law but my guess they have similar laws. Also illegal detention is a Federal issue not a state by state case when it involved law enforcement. This should be the immediate response. Although the FBI/DOJ isn't the most "trustworthy" agency to investigate at the moment.


You can not detain anyone you like, you have to have a probable cause or at least reasonable suspecian they committed a crime. In this case the nurse was NOT suspected of a crime she just failed to comply with an illegal order so he got pissed off and cuffed her up. Any reasonable officer in that case should have known that he could not do that under what was known by the officer at that time. He should have known he could not even legally ask her to do a blood draw. It goes back to if he had enough PC why did he screw around making calls to his LT and everyone else, why not get a warrant or arrest the guy so he could do it LEGALLY. He is just a lazy prick that is used to bullying people is what it comes down to.
i sum this up as the "You want to go to jail tonight?" paradigm. If you don't comply, you go to jail, whether or not you have PC or whether or not you intent to charge someone with a crime. Basically, I'm the police and I can do whatever I want! The threat (and that is what it is) is normally enough to ensure compliance.


Implied consent means if someone is unable to give consent for medical treatment due to age or mental status you can treat their medical condition. It has zero to do with investigating a crime.

Here is the worse part, they very well could have been intoxicated but thanks to this dumb ass cop he will NOT be prosecuted. He fucked up this case so bad the DA would be an idiot to prosecute and I doubt a jury would convict. Remember he may have been intoxicated and killed someone, how about justice for the dead guy? All because some ass hat wanted to cut corners and bully hospital staff.

Serious problems require serious solutions. I have always been an advocate of if a person with the public trust breaks the law, the punishment should be more severe.

This guy is a complete tool and the "thin blue line" has screwed itself over by carrying his water. Loyalty is a 2 way street. I've even heard this attitude talked about in team rooms. "No matter how screwed up of something that you do, I'll be there to cover your six". I'll tell you something, I won't go to jail for anyone but myself, especially if your doing something illegal.

[bblhead672]

Originally Posted by Texas_Shooter

I think police officers should walk on egg shells and have better interactions with the public but opening them up to that sort of liability (I would think) would essentially hinder them from doing their jobs safely so that everyone can return home at the end of watch.

I'm so sick of hearing this bulls**t crap about cops wanting to do whats necessary so they can just go home at that end of their shift. If that's the kind of job they desire, find one that doesn't run the risk of being killed every shift.

EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN just wants to go home at the end of their workday without being beaten, robbed or murdered by their fellow citizens. Likewise they also want to return home without being wrongfully detained, assaulted, killed or have their possessions confiscated by over zealous armed officers of the state.

I recommend you read the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko. Perhaps then you will understand that this incident is not an outlier by a single LEO.

[GratefulCitizen]

Dealing with individual incidents and dealing with systemic issues require different solutions.
There are laws in place to deal with the individual incident, it just takes a prosecutor willing to do his job.

The systemic solution is simple, but not easy.
Higher pay for LEOs, and make it very easy to lose your job for minor breaches of trust.

High pay and high standards attract the highest quality.

[frostfire]

AFAIK, the head nurse has not filed any suit. She is a better, more noble, graceful person than me for sure.

Yes, ER and PD is normally pretty tight. Every now and then it gets irritating when PD drops a juvie instead of taking him/her to jail but I understand they have their prerogatives and CYA need too.

If this officer desires any redemption or restoration of trust for his department (and profession), he would make a public apology in person to the head nurse. Something along the line of
"Ma'am, I was wrong and I sincerely apologize. I let emotion and work pressure got the best of me. I hurt you and I betrayed my profession. No one should ever be treated like that. To show that I am committed not to ever repeat these mistakes or let other do the same, I have volunteered to give a department-wide briefing over what took place so everyone can learn from my mistake. Whatever legal recourse you wish to take, I understand I must pay for what I did. Thank you for allowing me to apologize in person"

[Peregrino]

frostfire - You're either far less jaded than I or far more generous (probably both ). When I hear a public figure give an apology I can only equate it to damage control; i.e., let's placate the masses so I can get back to doing whatever it was that got me in trouble in the first place. Celebrity "mea culpas" have destroyed any credibility public apologies might once have held. Witness Ms. Kathy Griffin as our latest example.

[Guy]

Find the law firm that represented Disney when that alligator snatched that 2y/o kid and settle out of court with NDA agreement...

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

frostfire - You're either far less jaded than I or far more generous (probably both ).

Neither, just a (very) flawed person.

I probably have committed, almost committed, or contemplated to commit something as egregious as officer bully did. If my turn ever comes, I sure wish for atonement, grace, and mercy.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

When I hear a public figure give an apology I can only equate it to damage control; i.e., let's placate the masses so I can get back to doing whatever it was that got me in trouble in the first place.

You're right, and they can't fix this one with Twitter. I understand that she probably has a desire to move on and - more than a month along - has needed some time to process what happened. But I still hope her attorney will work with her to force a lesson on this department that changes behavior because it is a systemic problem with them. The video I linked in post #9 shows, near the end, yet another officer talking with her (lecturing, really) after she's already cuffed in the car. And he's telling her, basically, "hey, there's no reason not to cooperate with us because if it turns out to be bad evidence in the way it was taken it'll get tossed in court and that's on us [not the nurse]" - which is at best a half-truth. He knows it, or should know it. In my recollection these things don't change until the city's insurer says 'Damn, that hurt." Everything else for them is "optics."

[Animal8526]

Perhaps I'm severely jaded, but the "few bad apples trope" rings false for me these days...

I point towards two general pieces of evidence, nebulous as they may be.

First, with the utter proliferation of video cameras, we are exposed to new instances of "police behaving badly" on seemingly a daily basis, if not certainly weekly. In many of these instances there's a gaggle of supposedly "not bad" apples standing around watching the bad apples do bad apple things.

My limited but not inconsequential background of observing individual and group dynamics has left a long standing belief that individuals will not typically act in a manner that their peer group would not approve of, at least when they are among that peer group.

Which informs my second observation...

In certain, egregious cases of "bad apples acting badly", they worst of behavior is generally recorded on video cameras that the police know full well are recording, but expect that the videos will always remain "in house". Things like police station security cameras, dash cams and body cams. In many of these cases I've seen people ponder how any cop could "be so stupid" to do X or Y when they know that they are being recorded, but I think that' the wrong question. I think the question should be, what kind of "corporate culture" creates and environment where the officer's in question know they are being recorded, but don't care.

My opinion, is of course, worth what you paid for it.