nurse cuffed by cop for not breaking law

[quadraginta]

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

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.

 

[jimbob]

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.

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.

 

[Mumbles]

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.

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).

 

[jimbob]

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).

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.

 

[Mumbles]

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.

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.

 

[SteveL]

"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.

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.

 

[Dave Rogers]

'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.

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

 

[SteveL]

A

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.

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

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'.

 

[Dave Rogers]

ETA: When I used the word 'question', I meant exactly that, not 'ignore'.

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

 

[luchog]

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

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".

 

[quadraginta]

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>

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.

 

[quadraginta]

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>

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.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Payne was told by his own supervisor to arrest Wubble. It remains to be seen how high up the "rotten" in the department extends.

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.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

But it isn't their job to confront some armed lunatic kidnapping someone.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

As a clear danger to the safety of others could the hospital have forcibly committed him to the psych floors?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Cops SHOULD understand about patient's rights, too.

But apparently that is not sufficient, either.

The cop is a paramedic, he should also lose his licence for this.

 

[Belz...]

'Orders' are derived from 'rules'

...no.

 

[quadraginta]

The cop is a paramedic, he should also lose his licence for this.

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.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

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.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

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.