5 ms·

It is important to note that the police officer arrested her because his supervisor ordered him to do so if she refuses. Due to that it is possible that the of

It is important to note that the police officer arrested her because his supervisor ordered him to do so if she refuses. Due to that it is possible that the officer, seeing his job threatened, did not feel he had another choice. Source of this information: http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/31/utah-nurse-arrested-after-complying-with-hospital-policy-that-bars-taking-blood-from-unconscious-victim/ http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/31/utah-nurse-arrested-af... - "Payne [...] said he was advised by Lt. James Tracy, the watch commander on duty that night, to arrest Wubbels for interfering with a police investigation if she refused to let him get the sample [...]" Pretty sad that the washington post would fail to report such a crucial detail.

transverse 9y ago
He was just following orders. Where have I heard that before? His crime is inexcusable.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  1. False equivalence. He did not kill the nurse. 2. Do you really want this to go ignored and for the instigator of the issue to go free?
  - transverse 9y ago
    1. He harmed her emotionally for life and ruined her spotless record. 2. No, the entire supervisory chain is to be extracted out and punished.
    - Mithaldu 9y ago
      > 1. He harmed her emotionally for life and ruined her spotless record. Almost right. Her spotless record is still spotless. As for the emotional harm, he may have had to balance that against the harm done to his family if he were to lose his job. If the USA had a proper and useful social safety net that equation would look different. > 2. Good, then you should at least care about this information being spread.
mnm1 9y ago
Then both him and his supervisor should be fired. It in no way excuses the actions of the officer who knew he was acting illegally, or if he didn't know was not competent to carry out his job duties in the first place.
- candiodari 9y ago
  If you're going to fire every police officer who doesn't know health privacy regulations, you're going to need a bigger line at the unemployment office. I'd be amazed if there were more than 10 cops nationwide that can correctly answer simple questions about those laws.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    When you're a trained phlebotomist as the article states, there is simply no excuse for any negligence surrounding blood withdrawal laws. The police department would not send someone who is not trained in these laws and protocols or else the chief would be in hot water. You are making apologies to protect people whose job it is to know how to draw blood according to appropriate health precautions and legal precedents.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      Perhaps you're right. The officer certainly could have used a lot more grace in handling the situation. Still you can't expect police officers to know the law. In western law it is more or less the case that nobody does. We just act, and check afterwards. We do that by attempting to create consensus between at least 3 people (2 -usually- lawyers and a judge). Getting arrested can happen to anyone and doesn't mean anything. That's theoretical. Practically, I've actually seen the office of a lawyer that took pride in actually having the law in his office. 3 bookcases that each cover an entire wall in his extra-high office were to contain it. He ran out of space in 1993. That did not include either precedents or legal guidelines (the "little" books that are used in most, if not all, practical cases). Just started at constitution and add with whatever congress added.
pskocik 9y ago
The cop's behavior was inexcusable. Even if he had those orders, he could have informed her and arrest her calmly without unecessarily escalating the situation. The loss of temper is a clear sign of him being unfit for duty.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  In an ideal world, yes. In practice, in the USA? This is what your policy makers deem "good enough".
oliwarner 9y ago
Just following orders, eh? Bypassing Gowdin for a second, police officers should independently know procedural and constitutional law if they are to execute or impede it. That his supervisor and colleagues also didn't isn't an excuse.

transverse 9y ago

He was just following orders. Where have I heard that before? His crime is inexcusable.

Mithaldu 9y ago
1. False equivalence. He did not kill the nurse. 2. Do you really want this to go ignored and for the instigator of the issue to go free?
- transverse 9y ago
  1. He harmed her emotionally for life and ruined her spotless record. 2. No, the entire supervisory chain is to be extracted out and punished.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    > 1. He harmed her emotionally for life and ruined her spotless record. Almost right. Her spotless record is still spotless. As for the emotional harm, he may have had to balance that against the harm done to his family if he were to lose his job. If the USA had a proper and useful social safety net that equation would look different. > 2. Good, then you should at least care about this information being spread.

mnm1 9y ago

Then both him and his supervisor should be fired. It in no way excuses the actions of the officer who knew he was acting illegally, or if he didn't know was not competent to carry out his job duties in the first place.

candiodari 9y ago
If you're going to fire every police officer who doesn't know health privacy regulations, you're going to need a bigger line at the unemployment office. I'd be amazed if there were more than 10 cops nationwide that can correctly answer simple questions about those laws.
- uoaei 9y ago
  When you're a trained phlebotomist as the article states, there is simply no excuse for any negligence surrounding blood withdrawal laws. The police department would not send someone who is not trained in these laws and protocols or else the chief would be in hot water. You are making apologies to protect people whose job it is to know how to draw blood according to appropriate health precautions and legal precedents.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    Perhaps you're right. The officer certainly could have used a lot more grace in handling the situation. Still you can't expect police officers to know the law. In western law it is more or less the case that nobody does. We just act, and check afterwards. We do that by attempting to create consensus between at least 3 people (2 -usually- lawyers and a judge). Getting arrested can happen to anyone and doesn't mean anything. That's theoretical. Practically, I've actually seen the office of a lawyer that took pride in actually having the law in his office. 3 bookcases that each cover an entire wall in his extra-high office were to contain it. He ran out of space in 1993. That did not include either precedents or legal guidelines (the "little" books that are used in most, if not all, practical cases). Just started at constitution and add with whatever congress added.

pskocik 9y ago

The cop's behavior was inexcusable. Even if he had those orders, he could have informed her and arrest her calmly without unecessarily escalating the situation. The loss of temper is a clear sign of him being unfit for duty.

Mithaldu 9y ago
In an ideal world, yes. In practice, in the USA? This is what your policy makers deem "good enough".

oliwarner 9y ago

Just following orders, eh? Bypassing Gowdin for a second, police officers should independently know procedural and constitutional law if they are to execute or impede it. That his supervisor and colleagues also didn't isn't an excuse.