It’s not clear to me that it makes a jot of difference whether the police officer was seeking to make an illegal blood draw to “protect” someone (possibly a fellow officer), or seeking to make an illegal blood draw in order to incriminate someone. The professional duty of the nurse in either scenario is the same, and the actions of the police officer in either scenario deserve identical sanctions.
I thought “assault” was the attempt, and the successful completion of the attempt was “battery.”
Eh, maybe it varies by jurisdiction.
Yes, but the technical legal definition of assault (a credible threat of violence, distinct from actual battery) is obviously different from the colloquial meaning of the word.
You said:
“… they were so eager to protect him …” Was this sarcasm I misunderstood, or did you believe their story about them doing it to protect the victim?
I have an extra comb here somewhere, if you need one…
It seems very unlikely to me that such (blood draw) training would not include The Law. This dude’s job is to enforce The Law. He had damn well better know an infraction when he sees one, it’s only his damn job. It seems much more likely to me that he just doesn’t give a shit what the law says.
Yep that smiley definitely looks like someone who felt a whoosh.
Too often the answer to that question will be, “Sure, I have nothing to hide.”
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
OK. Can someone explain what the fuck kaylasdad point was, then, if he indeed even has one? Because it’s still not clear to me.
That cop reminded me of the now infamous Gary Busey mugshot.
Condescending dude 10 minutes into the video, not the detective but someone else, talking to the nurse while she’s cuffed: “I appreciate that you have a policy, but what I was trying to tell you on the phone is the law.” “Your policy is contravening what I need legally.” On camera and everything. So they’ve been doing this all along.
Yes, this is a totally relevant and significant part of the story! I know, because every article I’ve read on the subject has made a conspicuous point of mentioning it!
I would expect the Police Department, and Detective Payne himself, would be very eager to keep this fact from getting out. Hope he hasn’t posted any compromising YouTube videos! :eek:
No, that’s now how it works. The person making the claim has to provide the cite(s).
Cop picked the wrong person to screw with. It’s hard to imagine a more sympathetic victim to contrast with his thuggery. Maybe if he’d roughed up someone in a wheelchair? ETA: (or a severely burned car crash victim?)
Maybe raping a pregnant woman in order to get some pussy and a little head at the same time?
Well, you responded rather seriously to a seriously sarcastic reply. You were, perhaps, “whooshed” as the sarcasm flew right over your head. Such a rush of wind would probably ruffle your hair… Necessitating a bit a grooming to once again become presentable. A comb would be helpful in said grooming.
Possible crimes he committed: false arrest, kidnapping, assault, civil rights violation under color of law. But despite that I’ll put $100 bucks on the table right now betting that the cop will not be charged with a crime and will not lose his job.
Doesn’t matter. Ignorance of the law is not a defense in court.