So “just following orders”?
Well it worked at Nuremberg didn’t it?
I could be wrong but no crimes against humanity took place in this case, rather it was an inappropriate arrest. Nothing really happened except a nurse was scared, handcuffed and put in a police car for less than an hour. Don’t get me wrong the cop was completely in the wrong but let’s not throw sense out the window.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
A) “Nothing really”?
B) So the other cops had no responsibility defusing the situation 'cause who gives a fuck if the police make an innocent nurse scared, handcuff her and falsely imprison her for an hour. “Just following orders” is fine in that case?
Where the hell is your sense of disproportionate response??? What is this country coming to if we can’t ruin someone’s life forever because they made a bad mistake with significant but ultimately limited consequences? 
Seriously, I think we need to use incidents like this to shine light on the fact that our police are more our masters than our servants these days, and use the episode to work to change that. But Godwinizing the culprit is just stupid. Let him suffer the logical consequences of his behavior, pay whatever debt is deemed proper, and pursue a career in retail sales or something.
I’m saying that there was next to nothing the other officers could have done in the moment that the shit hit the fan. They had imperfect knowledge of what was happening and to get into another cops face at the moment of crisis can be very dangerous. Cops have to show a united front to the outside world and if they all start arguing in front of the public it can lead to very bad situations.
However once she had been arrested it is perfectly acceptable to take the guy aside and try and convince him to do the right thing.
Even before the arrest one of the other officers was warning that he didn’t think the arrest would stick. I suspect more of this sort of talk happened afterwards which is why she was released.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
And I might be tempted to agree with you IF cops were actually held accountable for when they fuck up big time like this. Admit it - in the civilian world a mess up would cost you your job almost immediately. Whith cops it is swept under the rug or at best they get a paid vacation while it is investigated. Maybe the victim gets an apology and the officer takes a one-day sensitivity training.
In fact - until the video went viral that’s EXACTLY what happened here. So why not terrorize the nurse if you think there are no consequences. Even look at your example, was he trying to defuse the situation? Was he telling his partner not to terrorize the nurse? That you don’t treat the public that way? No - it was whether the arrest would stick.
So yeah, maybe it’s not North Korea, maybe it’s not Stalin & Hitler but it IS state-sponsored oppression when cops treat people this way and the other cops and DAs think its ok … unless of course it is made public and even then it’s still OK (according to The State) most of the time.
We’ve already been through this and I’ve already posted a reply to you concerning this. I’ll simply copy and paste:
I encourage you to read the report by the Police Civilian Review Board, linked in my post above.
As part of their formal deescalation program, the SLCPD specifically has implemented an informal intervention code (Code 909) which is to be used when an officer recognizes that another officer has become “frustrated” and to temporarily take over while the agitated officer calms down. This is to allow officers to help each other before the situation gets out of hand and an officer does something to jeopardize their career.
While noting some of his actions, the reports faults a back up officer “W” for not intervening more forcefully with Payne, although they acknowledge it’s a difficult choice to make. By not intervening, W allowed Payne to really fuck up.*
*Not the exact wording of the report, although it would have been refreshing.
[/QUOTE]
I got the coding all screw up above. Let’s try that one again:
We’ve already been through this and I’ve already posted a reply to you concerning this. I’ll simply copy and paste:
Bad call. I wouldn’t hire him for any position that has him dealing with members of the public in any way whatsoever.
And the firing has occurred: Payne fired, his superior officer demoted from Lieutenant to Officer.
Utah police officer fired for treatment of nurse who refused blood draw
I’m a little surprised that he didn’t get warned that he was going to be fired in time for him to resign/retire instead. The story I read says that Payne was expecting to be disciplined, not fired.
Translated: Payne would have gotten away with if if it had just been his word against hers.
Yes, crew resource management. Handy when life-or-death decisions need to be made within a hierarchical command structure, and the person in charge doesn’t have/remember all of the relevant information. Started in the cockpit, spread to other areas of aviation, and has made headway into firefighting and healthcare. Not sure it’s found application in law enforcement yet, but maybe it ought to…
Unsurprisingly, both have appealed their punishment.
The nurse has settled with “all parties,” receives $500,000. The article doesn’t give any details, but says that it will be updated.
I wish that payments such as that would put more pressure on cities to police their police better.
I saw an article stating she’d be using the money to help fund legal help for others trying to get footage from police.
Sounds like you may get your wish.
Ah, TV. There’s a pretty broad gulf between refusing to turn over evidence without a warrant and destroying it when you know law enforcement is seeking it.
No, the time to act to prevent a violation of a person’s civil rights is before they are violated. The nurse was at work. She wasn’t going anywhere; in fact, she had already refused to get out of the way of the officer. There was no reason that her arrest had to be effectuated immediately (even assuming it was justified at all).
One question: will Payne be eligible for any portion of his pension or other benefits? What would determine pension and benefits status in a situation like this?