3 ms·

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

by 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.
    - uoaei 9y ago
      >you can't expect police officers to know the law That's a really sad statement. The people enforcing the law should know the law. There is no excuse. We have very cheap digital storage now. There is no excuse.
      - candiodari 9y ago
        Law does not exist outside of interpretation. So I'm not very sure how a storage device would help. For starters, in western (private) law, as long as you don't damage anyone (including the state) you're not doing anything illegal. Even if what you're doing has a law against it. Law only exists between parties that actually interact. Your neighbors do not get to complain to the court that you, say, offered an illegal contract to a tenant, or smoked in a room you agreed in writing not to smoke in. All these principles make law very hard to apply in practice. You should read some "cases". That's what lawyers call law interpretation documents or legal decisions. The idea is that you get, in a text, all the elements needed to come to a correct legal conclusion, then the task is to find that correct legal conclusion. Simple cases have exactly what you need, more complex ones have a lot of details that are either irrelevant, or worse, need to be weighed against others. For instance, in contract law, the legal decision should always be minimal. An illegal contract will be minimally modified to become legal, not destroyed, for instance (which is why you should never sign a contract that you know is illegal, unless you know exact precedents, surprises will ensue). Good luck predicting what such changes will be, if brought before a court. In any practical situation, you're not going to have all the facts, and the number of irrelevant facts is going to outnumber relevant facts by a dozen orders of magnitude.
        uoaei 9y ago
        >Law does not exist outside of interpretation. So I'm not very sure how a storage device would help. You answer your own question with this line: >You should read some "cases". I assume you expect me to look these up on some digital storage medium. >In any practical situation, you're not going to have all the facts While true in the abstract, it's rather dishonest to apply this concept to the case in the article. Police departments won't send people totally nonversed in phlebotomy law to collect blood samples unless they are not doing their job correctly. If they are not doing their job correctly, they deserve reprimand and correction. There's a reason that jurisdictions exist. It is to prevent those who have not studied the particulars of a subset of legal code to exercise power in the absence of comprehension of that subset.

by mnm1 9y ago

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.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    >you can't expect police officers to know the law That's a really sad statement. The people enforcing the law should know the law. There is no excuse. We have very cheap digital storage now. There is no excuse.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      Law does not exist outside of interpretation. So I'm not very sure how a storage device would help. For starters, in western (private) law, as long as you don't damage anyone (including the state) you're not doing anything illegal. Even if what you're doing has a law against it. Law only exists between parties that actually interact. Your neighbors do not get to complain to the court that you, say, offered an illegal contract to a tenant, or smoked in a room you agreed in writing not to smoke in. All these principles make law very hard to apply in practice. You should read some "cases". That's what lawyers call law interpretation documents or legal decisions. The idea is that you get, in a text, all the elements needed to come to a correct legal conclusion, then the task is to find that correct legal conclusion. Simple cases have exactly what you need, more complex ones have a lot of details that are either irrelevant, or worse, need to be weighed against others. For instance, in contract law, the legal decision should always be minimal. An illegal contract will be minimally modified to become legal, not destroyed, for instance (which is why you should never sign a contract that you know is illegal, unless you know exact precedents, surprises will ensue). Good luck predicting what such changes will be, if brought before a court. In any practical situation, you're not going to have all the facts, and the number of irrelevant facts is going to outnumber relevant facts by a dozen orders of magnitude.
      - uoaei 9y ago
        >Law does not exist outside of interpretation. So I'm not very sure how a storage device would help. You answer your own question with this line: >You should read some "cases". I assume you expect me to look these up on some digital storage medium. >In any practical situation, you're not going to have all the facts While true in the abstract, it's rather dishonest to apply this concept to the case in the article. Police departments won't send people totally nonversed in phlebotomy law to collect blood samples unless they are not doing their job correctly. If they are not doing their job correctly, they deserve reprimand and correction. There's a reason that jurisdictions exist. It is to prevent those who have not studied the particulars of a subset of legal code to exercise power in the absence of comprehension of that subset.