horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
As for the head of HR getting sacked, that would be actually insane unless s/he knowingly hired people with a history of such illicit access.
Babbylonian said:
Access logs are reviewed at need.
Reviewing of access logs was faulty because it didn't serve the need. More than 60 fired, including some who said they never looked at his file.

You must fire the head of HR because of this debacle. You can't lose more than 60 staff all at once because of some crazy breakdown in management. It's insane.
 
Don't like it? It's a fair point, and I'm unconcerned with what you somehow find "despicable".

If CPD has serious points against Smollett, they can present it at trial.

What's a fair point? Something in your below post I was referring to, or my calling it despicable?

and although this really has nothing to do with the evidence at hand, I think it's interesting that the people howling that this is a "fake crime" are the usual suspects.

Same folks that thought it was okay to shoot Trayvon Martin for walking home.

Let's be honest, and say that they just hate people who aren't white. And then ignore them from there on out.


The only point you made here is that you are angry. The anger is palpable in a lot of your posts. Maybe you should be concerned when people find what you say despicable. People accused you of being racist a few weeks ago. I disagreed and said as much, but the above post doesn't help you, the discussion, or anything at all.

I have no clue what goes through your mind with a story like this. I mean I can't relate to how hard it must be to be black in this society and then to see this kinda stuff, and participate in such a thread.

I understand being emotional but I'm still gonna call it out.
 
Reviewing of access logs was faulty because it didn't serve the need. More than 60 fired, including some who said they never looked at his file.
1. Those people are probably lying.
2. No, the review seems to have found people who inappropriately accessed records. That's a win.

You must fire the head of HR because of this debacle. You can't lose more than 60 staff all at once because of some crazy breakdown in management. It's insane.

I don't think you know what an HR department does. Their involvement here would have been processing the terminations ordered by someone else, almost certainly the CEO/board of directors.

It is made clear to everyone working in the medical field (yearly) with access to patient information that one can be subject to immediate termination for inappropriate use of that information.

I don't get your issue here. Should the large number of people mean that the hospital should be more lenient? In a high-profile situation such as this, that seems ill advised.
 
It's insane when more than 60 people get fired from a hospital. I'm done discussing this. If anyone else thinks it's insane maybe they can grab the baton now.
It's like owing money to a bank.

If you discover one of your employees improperly accessing medically records, your employee has a problem.

If you discover sixty of your employees improperly accessing medically records, your hospital has a problem.
 
If you discover sixty of your employees improperly accessing medically records, your hospital has a problem.
There could definitely be issues with training, but I guarantee that this kind of nonsense goes on all the time. I'm sure there are plenty of medical personnel who don't think the rules/laws apply to them unless they get a check from a tabloid...and get caught.
 
There could definitely be issues with training, but I guarantee that this kind of nonsense goes on all the time. I'm sure there are plenty of medical personnel who don't think the rules/laws apply to them unless they get a check from a tabloid...and get caught.
This kind of nonsense goes on all the time, and yet 99% of hospitals aren't firing scores of people right and left. What makes Smollett's records so special? What problem is the hospital actually trying to solve?
 
This kind of nonsense goes on all the time, and yet 99% of hospitals aren't firing scores of people right and left. What makes Smollett's records so special? What problem is the hospital actually trying to solve?

Actually it doesn't go on all the time. Smollett's minor celebrity has a few people making bad decisions and they will pay for it. When people are caught accessing the records of people they have no right to access they are almost always terminated. Breach of privacy lawsuits are expensive. A lot more expensive than training low level workers, or hiring high level workers.
 
With 17 felony charges it looks like Chicago is going after Smollett in a fierce way. A typical false report perp might get one count and maybe not even a felony count.

Chicago seems to want to give Smollett a real beating, not a fake one. Seventeen felonies and then no jail?


Not necessarily, they could simply be trying to improve their chances of a conviction. I remember a case involving a drug smuggler who tricked people into taking bottles of rum laced with cocaine into the UK. One of the bottles went astray and someone died after drinking cocaine laced rum. In addition to being charged with 'conspiracy to import a prohibited substance' the police added 'failure of duty of care as an employer', the last charge was added simply as a 'back stop', just in case they could not get him on anything else.
 
This kind of nonsense goes on all the time, and yet 99% of hospitals aren't firing scores of people right and left. What makes Smollett's records so special? What problem is the hospital actually trying to solve?
The records would inform a current news story, so more people would be curious or greedy enough to look despite the risk and they were caught because someone checked the logs. In the absence of a reported issue, nobody would be likely to look at the access logs and so most "perps" would never get caught.
 
The records would inform a current news story, so more people would be curious or greedy enough to look despite the risk and they were caught because someone checked the logs. In the absence of a reported issue, nobody would be likely to look at the access logs and so most "perps" would never get caught.
Sounds like most hospitals aren't doing their jobs. Shouldn't routine log checks be part of every hospital's regular policy?
 
Reviewing of access logs was faulty because it didn't serve the need. More than 60 fired, including some who said they never looked at his file.

You must fire the head of HR because of this debacle. You can't lose more than 60 staff all at once because of some crazy breakdown in management. It's insane.

It's OK because they only fired the blacks and the gays.
 
Actually it doesn't go on all the time. Smollett's minor celebrity has a few people making bad decisions and they will pay for it. When people are caught accessing the records of people they have no right to access they are almost always terminated. Breach of privacy lawsuits are expensive. A lot more expensive than training low level workers, or hiring high level workers.

Good point.
Maybe it's just a case of the hospital covering itself in anticipation of a lawsuit.

Just because Smollett is going to jail doesn't mean he can't sue the hospital if his medical privacy was illegally violated.

IOW, maybe they have no choice (or this is the legally prudent choice).

I suppose they may be sued regardless though. But at least they can say that they took swift action to hold those accountable who did it.
 
I’m not sure how routine checking of logs would work, logistically. Yes, nurses, doctors, clerks, billers, etc should only be checking the medical records for patients they need to in order to perform their duties. However, the mere fact that someone accessed a record isn’t enough to tell you much.

I’m the manager for a largish medical practice. We have over 10000 patients in our record system, some of them locally high-profile. If Medical Assistant A looked at records for Patient B, there are any number of legitimate reasons for doing that. Maybe the patient needed a referral and that’s the MA who took the call. Checking the logs isn’t going to help me much to see who might be inappropriately accessing records.

But if Patient B was the subject of a news story and medical information found its way into that news story, I would have a log of everyone who accessed those records. In my clinic, it would probably be almost everyone. But I could probably pinpoint who looked at what around the time the story came out. In a hospital with a few hundred employees, it would be much easier to narrow down who should not have access. That nurse in the neonatal unit had no business looking.

But you are only going to know to look when there’s a problem. Otherwise, how do you know who has a legitimate need to look and who doesn’t? And for every patient who walks in the door? Practically impossible. That’s thousands of access log records every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
16 felonies? Seems excessive.

In fact, it seems like a horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett.

Well, funny, but true.

Remind me, how many white people got charged for calling police on black people just minding their own business? BBQ Becky, PP Patty, etc?

Hell, George Zimmerman straight-out murdered Trayvon Martin, and it took a nationwide march just to get him charged.
 
Well, funny, but true.

Remind me, how many white people got charged for calling police on black people just minding their own business? BBQ Becky, PP Patty, etc?


If you think that what Smollet is accused of doing is anything close to what those morons did I think you need to read this thread a little more carefully.

Anyway - I'll play along. Given what appears to be your self-proclaimed knowledge of policing and the law - please tell me what crime you would charge those idiots with?
(Pro-tip: You have to be able to produce evidence which shows malicious intent. Stupidity is not a crime - nor is being mistaken.)


Hell, George Zimmerman straight-out murdered Trayvon Martin, and it took a nationwide march just to get him charged.



From your posts it appears that you must have some sort of first hand knowledge of what happened that night that was not presented as evidence in the trial.
The only way you could be so sure is if you personally witnessed the shooting or you heard Zimmerman state in his own words that he "straight-out murdered Trayvon Martin."
I must admit that either way I am baffled as to why you wouldn't give such damning evidence to the police.
 
Last edited:
If you think that what Smollet is accused of doing is anything close to what those morons did I think you need to read this thread a little more carefully.

Anyway - I'll play along. Given what appears to be your self-proclaimed knowledge of policing and the law - please tell me what crime you would charge those idiots with?
(Pro-tip: You have to be able to produce evidence which shows malicious intent. Stupidity is not a crime - nor is being mistaken.)






From your posts it appears that you must have some sort of first hand knowledge of what happened that night that was not presented as evidence in the trial.
The only way you could be so sure is if you personally witnessed the shooting or you heard Zimmerman state in his own words that he "straight-out murdered Trayvon Martin."
I must admit that either way I am baffled as to why you wouldn't give such damning evidence to the police.

Not to derail the thread, but it's pretty obvious to anyone looking at the George Zimmerman case to see that he got away with manslaughter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom