Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: Utah nurse screams 'help me' as she's cuffed by cop for refusing to draw blood on unconscious patient, video shows
Source:
Fox News
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/0 ... cious-patient-video-shows.html
Published: Sep 2, 2017
Author: Fox News
Post Date: 2017-09-02 00:34:39 by Pinguinite
Keywords: None
Views: 10004
Comments: 75
Nurse arrested for refusing to draw unconscious man's blood A Utah nurse screamed “help me” after a cop handcuffed her for refusing to draw blood on an unconscious patient July 26, police body camera footage showed. The video showed University of Utah Hospital nurse Alex Wubbels, an Alpine skier who participated in the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympic games, calmly explaining to Salt Lake Detective Jeff Payne that she could not draw blood from a patient who had been injured in a car accident, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. Wubbels told Payne the patient was required to give consent for a blood sample or be under arrest. Otherwise, she said police needed a warrant. Payne threatened to imprison Wubbels if he was not given the blood sample, according to the video. “I either go away with blood in vials or body in tow,” Payne is shown saying. Wubbels, who was on the phone with her supervisor, explained the situation to the supervisor, who agreed with the nurse and reportedly told the cop, “sir, you’re making a huge mistake because you’re threatening a nurse.” Disturbing video shows Utah nurse dragged away by cop for refusing to draw unconscious patient’s blood https://t.co/y6ZjfDHeyp pic.twitter.com/k3SrUsSjqh — Raw Story (@RawStory) September 1, 2017 Upon hearing that, Payne announced Wubbels was under arrest and physically moved her outside the hospital while she screamed. Wubbels yelled, “Help! Stop! I did nothing wrong!” while being handcuffed. Payne was attempting to get a blood sample from a patient who was burned after being involved in a head-on crash with a pick-up truck driver that was fleeing police, the Washington Post reported. The driver died in the incident. Wubbels was not charged and police have started an internal investigation. Payne initially remained on duty although he was suspended from blood-draw duties. Later on Friday Utah police announced that he had been put on paid administrative leave. Police Chief Mike Brown said in a statement that his department will comply with the investigation into Payne. Salt Lake County's Unified Police Department will run the criminal probe into Payne's actions. Brown and the mayor of Salt Lake City have apologized for the incident and changed their policies to mirror hospital protocols. Christina Judd, a spokesperson for the Salt Lake City Police, said the department was alarmed by what they witnessed in the video. Judd said the department was working to investigate what went wrong and is seeking to repair the “unfortunate rift” it has caused. Wubbels said she had been told of other hospital employees being harassed by officers and this footage proved their claim. She has not pressed charges yet but would consider it if police did not change their ways. “I can’t sit on this video and not attempt to speak out both to re-educate and inform,” Wubbels told The Salt Lake Tribune. Police departments “need to be having conversations about what is appropriate intervention.” The hospital supported Wubbels actions and said it would consider pressing charges. "University of Utah Health supports Nurse Wubbles and her decision to focus first and foremost on the care and well-being of her patient,” said Suzanne Winchester, the hospital's media relations manager. “She followed procedures and protocols in this matter and was acting in her patient’s best interest. We have worked with our law enforcement partners on this issue to ensure an appropriate process for moving forward.” Poster Comment: I was unclear if the cop was expecting the nurse or staff to make the blood draw and they were refusing, or if the cop wanted to draw it himself and the staff was preventing him from doing so. This article clearly states the cop was expecting the staff to do it, in which case the nurse was arrested for refusing to do something the cop wanted. It seems the nurse, so far, is being nice in not suing the cop & department. That's characteristic of a true public servant.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-8) not displayed.
.
.
.
#9. To: misterwhite (#6)
Of course you would - you think anyone here at LF would believe otherwise? Your self-admitted cop-worship is no big secret here. The asshole cop had no fucking reason to demand blood from an unconscious man who had committed no crime and was not suspected of wrong doing. WTF is wrong with you? Why do you even remain in the United States when your fascist tendencies would be more welcome elsewhere? I agree. He had no reason YOU'D accept. But he does't care what you think.
No reason that any sane person would accept. But he does't care what you think. Obviously he doesn't care what anybody thinks - he's above the law and can do pretty much anything he wants, at least according to the resident copsucker here. He IS the law and knows it better than some nurse. Obviously.
Obviously, if the cop could have gotten a warrant, then he probably would have, but he likely would have failed to do so as the driver committed no infraction related to the crash. It is a good question though which begs an answer. The victim was, in fact, a part time cop himself. I do not see how it is possible the blood draw could have helped the victim, contrary to the officer's claim, as it could only yield evidence that could hurt him, not help him (I.e. if it turned out that in spite of not committing any driving infraction contributing to the crash, he could have been on drugs or alcohol). Perhaps the cop knew the victim and had some sinister motive. Perhaps, as you speculate, the cop did something to cause the crash and wanted to incriminate the victim somehow, perhaps by tainting the blood sample he wanted in his possession. But clearly there was no legit reason to require the blood draw, and the hospital policy for refusing it reflected that lack of legitimate need. Yes. This question should be part of the investigation, of course.
You contradict the fox news article which clearly states the cop wanted the hospital to do the blood draw. We appreciate the offer to volunteer, but...... no thank you! As is made clear, consent is a non-issue if the cop arrested the nurse for not drawing the blood. Unless you can show a law requiring licensed medical staff to draw blood of third parties upon police demand.
Oh, FU if you're not just trolling every single day. Or even if you are. She needs to take this psycho asshole's house, car, pension, TV - everything. Don't steal from the taxpayers for this pig's arrogant violence.
You contradict the Salt Lake Tribune headline which clearly states: "Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being dragged into police car after refusing to let officer take blood from unconscious victim"
I stated the facts and the law. What you got? Feelings and emotion. F**k you.
Why? It's department policy. They don't need your approval. And they certainly don't need to justify it to you.
Not necessarily. The officer clearly wanted to take the blood and stated as much (he would leave with either blood or body, I think it was). But the SLTrib article does not say who would do the actual blood drawing.
Why? It's department policy. They don't need your approval. And they certainly don't need to justify it to you. Please try not to be too stupid. It's all part of an investigation. If Utah police set up a checkpoint stopping all motorists and doing a blood draw, right on the highway, then the question of why would still be important. By your way of thinking, cops could legally, without any question whatsover, set up such check points every 1/2 mile on a 100 mile interstate, resulting in the death of all drivers due to loss of blood / shock perhaps by no more than about the 80 mile marker. No, such a police tactic would be above and beyond the question of any American citizens, because it's "the law".
So it was just a coincidence that he was at the hospital and he was trained in taking blood? Are you being this dense on purpose?
That implies the answer to that question is then subject to your approval. It's not. So why ask it? To get into an argument with the cops?
"to let officer take blood from unconscious victim". So you think that could mean he wanted the nurse to draw the blood, then place the vial of blood in the unconscious victim's hand, whereupon the cop would then take blood from the victim. That's how you read the headline? Why do you insist on making yourself look so incredibly stupid?
The SLTrib article does not explicitly say who was to draw the blood. The Fox news article, to which the AP contributed, does explicitly say the hospital staff was to draw. And the cop is on admin leave, which was a decision made by me. Just kidding, but you can have some fun with that I'm sure.
Because they can, you assume they would? Congress can set your taxes at 100%. Gosh, if they did that you'd have no money. Let's worry ourselves to death about that, too.
Round and round we go. The Salt Lake Tribune -- a local paper with local reporters -- did explicitly say that the nurse refused to let the officer take blood from unconscious victim. The officer went to the hospital get blood, was trained to draw blood, and was legally allowed to do so. If the hospital had a policy of not drawing blood for any reason, then he, by law, was allowed to do so himself.
Well, since you already established that taking blood from any driver at any time can be done for any reason or no reason whatsoever, then if they were to do as I theorized, then no one has any standing to question it. And you'd say it's okay because of the implied consent law. I get it. The law does not serve the people. The people serve the law. That's why people exist. And if a choice needs to be made of an innocent person dying or the law broken, then the innocent person needs to die. That's how you think. I understand that now.
In which case, he did obtain the blood draw after arresting the obstructing nurse? Or did that not happen?
He's on admin leave for bullshit, politically correct reasons because his linquini-spined supervisors decided to kiss the hospital's ass rather than educate the hospital staff on state law.
But instead, the pig decides to arrest her for not submitting to being his slave against policies she's just read to the pig. She needs to take all his stuff, keep what she likes, sell what she can and burn the remainder on the front lawn of his new tenement shack.
You are sounding like a government salesman pitching for fascism.
They can question it, complain about it, challenge it -- at the appropriate time to the appropriate people. The nurse and her supervisor chose to question it at the wrong time with the wrong person. Furthermore, they went beyond questioning it and actually interfered based on the mistaken belief that they were in the right.
No. That's what you hear.
I assume so. The article doesn't say. Is that important? Does it change any of the facts I cited? Does it change the law?
She was not allowing him to do his lawful duty. His supervisor authorized him to arrest her if she interfered. That's what he did.
If so, it may be because of the absolute enormity of backlash they are receiving as this video has gone viral with near universal condemnation from the general public. Imagine that.... a police department actually caving to the will of the people instead of, if you are right, the law. Such a travesty. Remember what I said about people being much more motivated by emotions rather than cold logic? Well, that video is an absolute killer. And of course it doesn't help the cop at all that the nurse was shown being very logical.
They can question it, complain about it, challenge it -- at the appropriate time to the appropriate people. Sure they can. After the fact, of course. In this case, after a lot of people end up dead from blood loss. That's the appropriate time to question things "properly".
As far as the question of who was to do the blood draw, it sure is. If he didn't do the draw himself, then it shows that he likely arrested her for not doing as he ordered, and not for obstructing his efforts to draw it himself. So yes, very important.
So that's the key? Logic? So if I can logically explain the cop why I was breaking the law by doing 90 in a 45, he'll let me go? And if he doesn't, I can take my case to the Internet to put pressure on the entire department?
You can try, but I don't think you'll be nearly as successful as this nurse was.
Suppose after the first nurse was taken away in handcuffs a second nurse came forward and volunteered to do the blood draw. So to answer your question, I would say that the blood was eventually drawn by another nurse. How can you possibly conclude anything by that?
So basically you're saying that the law is whatever an individual says it is based on how sympathetic they can appear to the general public. That "Rule of Law" stuff is so yesterday.
Oh noes. Not de big screen tee-bee!
In case you've forgotten, the question is simply whether the cop wanted to do the draw himself, or was ordering the hospital staff to do it, because that hinges on the cops reason for arresting the nurse. If the nurse was obstructing as you claim, then after doing the arrest, he would be free to then conduct the blood draw himself. But if he did not obtain any blood draw that day, then it implies that the nurse was ordered by the cop to do the draw but did not do so, and that would likely mean the nurse was not arrested for obstructing the cop from doing it himself, but merely not doing something he ordered, and that makes a big legal difference in the justification, or lack thereof, for the arrest.
It does not matter at all who was going to draw the blood. As a matter of policy, the hospital would not allow non-staffers to draw blood. As to the larger legal question, the hospital was obligated to protect the rights of a vulnerable (unconscious) person from the moment they admitted the patient. They have custodial legal obligations by law in every state. If the cop was some kind of police phlebotomist or something, he should have drawn the blood before the patient came under the protective status of a hospital, i.e. prior to admission.
That "Rule of Law" stuff is so yesterday. As I predicted, your defense of the cop in this case has proven extremely entertaining. Thanks for playing.
A very reasonable and believable position. If true, and the cop did want to do it himself but was prevented by the staff, then it would be the cop in violation of law, not withstanding any laws related to implied consent by drivers. True, but a moot point as to the question of the reason for his arresting her. I think it most likely that the cop was demanding the staff do the draw and give him the samples, and was not asking for access to do it himself. I mean, heck, it's a hospital. When you are in a hospital and want something like a blood draw done, one would typically ask a nurse to do it. Prior to the dispute arising, it would be most reasonable for the cop wanting a blood sample to ask the hospital staff to provide one and that he had every expectation of it being provided to him. Even if he was trained, it's not his primary field so that is what a reasonable person would do. Plus there is the matter of sterility. A cop walking into an ER has all his gear all over him, and was presumably at the scene of the accident, so it would not be prudent for staff to allow that under normal circumstances anyway. It is most likely then that the cop wanted the staff to draw the blood and did not attempt to do it himself, at least prior to the arrest.
I think the bigger question is why the cop was demanding a blood draw from a victim who was grievously injured as a result of a high-speed police chase. I think he was hoping to find something in the guy's blood, like a low alcohol level or some prescription or illicit drug that might be claimed to have impaired his driving ability. I think the trooper was collecting blood as a lawfare method, to try to get anything on that driver so they could try to defend against a lawsuit after the cops chased this guy into a head-on crash with him. The circumstances and length of the chase could make a big difference if the victim sues the cops. This legal status of high-speed chases is full of controversy and a lot of lawsuits in various states, CA in particular, some others in FL. Various cities and states have passed laws to try to regulate when and how a high-speed police chase is allowable due to the substantial danger that the perp will crash disastrously into a bystander or another vehicle, exactly as happened here. We need to know a lot more about that police chase and hear why this cop was so determined to collect that blood. And who ordered him to do it and why.
Deckard and I both speculated on this exact point previously. It's not out of the question the cop could have intended to taint the blood samples on his way to the lab, if he was outright crooked. Normally such speculation would be groundless, but given the arrest response was so extreme, such mal intent would set the stage for the harsh response. I think I read once the rule is to not engage in pursuit if the danger the pursuit poses to the public exceeded the danger to the public of not immediately capturing the suspect. Such questions are moot and pointless in conducting the investigation. According to misterwhite.
Comments (50 - 75) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestPut me in charge and she'd be sitting in jail waiting for her trial of obstruction and resisting arrest.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#10. To: Deckard (#9)
The asshole cop had no fucking reason to demand blood from an unconscious man who had committed no crime and was not suspected of wrong doing.
#11. To: misterwhite (#10)
I agree. He had no reason YOU'D accept.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#12. To: Deckard (#11)
he's above the law
#13. To: Deckard (#5)
Why did the psycho cop insist on a blood draw in the first place? The unconscious man was that way because of the police chase that caused the driver of the car being chased to slam into his pick-up truck.
The only possible reason for the badged prick to demand a blood test would be to try and "get" the victim of the accident on some charge in order to cover his own ass just in case his car chase was not "by the book"
#14. To: misterwhite (#6)
The cop was trained in drawing blood. The nurse was trying to prevent him from doing so. She was wrong. The cop was right.
Put me in charge and
#15. To: misterwhite (#6)
(Edited)
She was wrong. The cop was right.
#16. To: Pinguinite (#14)
You contradict the fox news article which clearly states the cop wanted the hospital to do the blood draw.
#17. To: Hank Rearden (#15)
Oh, FU if you're not just trolling every single day. Or even if you are.
#18. To: Pinguinite (#13)
It is a good question though which begs an answer.
#19. To: misterwhite (#16)
You contradict the Salt Lake Tribune headline which clearly states:
"Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being dragged into police car after refusing to let officer take blood from unconscious victim"
#20. To: misterwhite (#18)
#21. To: Pinguinite (#19)
But the SLTrib article does not say who would do the actual blood drawing.
#22. To: Pinguinite (#20)
then the question of why would still be important.
#23. To: Pinguinite (#19)
But the SLTrib article does not say who would do the actual blood drawing.
#24. To: misterwhite (#23)
#25. To: Pinguinite (#20)
By your way of thinking, cops could legally, without any question whatsover, set up such check points every 1/2 mile on a 100 mile interstate, resulting in the death of all drivers due to loss of blood / shock perhaps by no more than about the 80 mile marker.
#26. To: Pinguinite (#24)
The Fox news article, to which the AP contributed, does explicitly say the hospital staff was to draw.
#27. To: misterwhite (#25)
Because they can, you assume they would?
#28. To: misterwhite (#26)
If the hospital had a policy of not drawing blood for any reason, then he, by law, was allowed to do so himself.
#29. To: Pinguinite (#24)
And the cop is on admin leave, which was a decision made by me.
#30. To: misterwhite (#26)
(Edited)
If the hospital had a policy of not drawing blood for any reason, then he, by law, was allowed to do so himself.
#31. To: misterwhite (#29)
politically correct reasons
#32. To: Pinguinite (#27)
then no one has any standing to question it.
#33. To: buckeroo (#31)
You are sounding like a government salesman pitching for fascism.
#34. To: Pinguinite (#28)
In which case, he did obtain the blood draw after arresting the obstructing nurse?
#35. To: Hank Rearden (#30)
But instead, the pig decides to arrest her for not submitting to being his slave against policies she's just read to the pig.
#36. To: misterwhite (#29)
He's on admin leave for bullshit, politically correct reasons because his linquini-spined supervisors decided to kiss the hospital's ass rather than educate the hospital staff on state law.
#37. To: misterwhite (#32)
#38. To: misterwhite (#34)
I assume so. The article doesn't say. Is that important?
#39. To: Pinguinite (#36)
that the nurse was shown being very logical.
#40. To: misterwhite (#39)
So if I can logically explain the cop why I was breaking the law by doing 90 in a 45, he'll let me go? And if he doesn't, I can take my case to the Internet to put pressure on the entire department?
#41. To: Pinguinite (#38)
then it shows that he likely arrested her for not doing as he ordered, and not for obstructing his efforts to draw it himself.
#42. To: Pinguinite (#40)
You can try, but I don't think you'll be nearly as successful as this nurse was.
#43. To: Hank Rearden (#15)
She needs to take this psycho asshole's house, car, pension, TV - everything.
#44. To: misterwhite (#41)
So to answer your question, I would say that the blood was eventually drawn by another nurse. How can you possibly conclude anything by that?
#45. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite, nolu chan (#24)
The SLTrib article does not explicitly say who was to draw the blood.
#46. To: misterwhite (#42)
So basically you're saying that the law is whatever an individual says it is based on how sympathetic they can appear to the general public.
#47. To: Tooconservative (#45)
As to the larger legal question, the hospital was obligated to protect the rights of a vulnerable (unconscious) person from the moment they admitted the patient. They have custodial legal obligations by law in every state.
If the cop was some kind of police phlebotomist or something, he should have drawn the blood before the patient came under the protective status of a hospital, i.e. prior to admission.
#48. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite, nolu chan (#44)
In case you've forgotten, the question is simply whether the cop wanted to do the draw himself, or was ordering the hospital staff to do it, because that hinges on the cops reason for arresting the nurse.
#49. To: Tooconservative (#48)
I think the trooper was collecting blood as a lawfare method, to try to get anything on that driver so they could try to defend against a lawsuit after the cops chased this guy into a head-on crash with him.
The circumstances and length of the chase could make a big difference if the victim sues the cops. This legal status of high-speed chases is full of controversy and a lot of lawsuits in various states, CA in particular, some others in FL. Various cities and states have passed laws to try to regulate when and how a high-speed police chase is allowable due to the substantial danger that the perp will crash disastrously into a bystander or another vehicle, exactly as happened here.
We need to know a lot more about that police chase and hear why this cop was so determined to collect that blood. And who ordered him to do it and why.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]