[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles

Title: Arrested Utah Nurse Had It Coming
Source: Saily Caller
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/04/arrested-utah-nurse-had-it-coming/
Published: Sep 4, 2017
Author: Gregg RE, Associate editor
Post Date: 2017-09-04 18:49:15 by misterwhite
Keywords: None
Views: 15985
Comments: 123

The near-universal outrage surrounding the arrest of Alex Wubbels, the Salt Lake City nurse who was arrested July 26 for refusing to let police officers draw blood from an unconscious crash victim, empowered Wubbels and her attorney to threaten legal action against the police on CNN’s “New Day” on Monday. At the very least, Wubbels says, she’d like to “re-educate” the police department on proper procedure.

Prospective students are advised to steer clear of Wubbels’ courses. Despite reams of inaccurate reporting on the incident, Wubbels was likely legally wrong to obstruct the police officer. The case is a much closer one than it appears.

In a widely-seen video documenting her arrest, Wubbels calmly tells a police officer, Jeff Payne, that hospital policy permits the police to draw blood from patients in only three instances: when the patient consents, when the patient is under arrest, or when the police officer has a warrant.

After a hospital administrator tells Payne he is making a “mistake” by insisting he has the right to obtain the blood, Payne arrests the nurse, who howls her way outside of the building and proceeds to put the “salt” in Salt Lake City.

The hospital’s policy does not have the force of law, even if the local police department agreed to its terms. And crucially, the policy overlooks a well-established exception to the warrant requirement: Police simply do not need a warrant if exigent circumstances justify an urgent search and seizure of evidence. The imminent loss of blood evidence, which would be useful in a drunk-driving case, qualifies as a potentially exigent circumstance.

A quick hypothetical. Let’s say you’re watching an unlikely UCLA comeback in the peace and quiet of your own home on the day before Labor Day, when suddenly your neighbor bursts through your front door with a pile of drugs in his hands. You hear police sirens in the background, and your neighbor says, “They’re coming for me!”

As your neighbor busies himself by tossing his cocaine into your toilet, the doorbell rings, and the police request to come inside. They’ve seen your neighbor running into your house with what they suspect are drugs.

“A-ha,” you say. “I have a policy. No police in my house without my consent, or a warrant, or unless I’m under arrest.”

The police would be justified in pushing you aside – even breaking your door down if necessary – to get to your bathroom. As long as a reasonable person would conclude that evidence is in imminent risk of destruction, the police can enter your home for the limited purpose of preventing that destruction.

If you actively impeded their access to the bathroom, you would likely find yourself at least temporarily detained. (Wubbels was only detained for approximately twenty minutes).

In its reporting of this incident, The New York Times falsely claimed that “the United States Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have the right to draw blood in drunk driving investigations without a warrant.”

But the case the Times cites, Missouri v. McNeely, does not stand for that proposition at all. The court explicitly held in McNeely that some drunk-driving cases could permit warrantless blood draws.

“When officers in drunk-driving investigations can reasonably obtain a warrant before having a blood sample drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so,” the Court wrote. “Circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the alcohol’s dissipation will support an exigency, but that is a reason to decide each case on its facts….”

There are some more complicated questions at play here. The police are on far shakier ground if they demanded the nurse to draw blood for them, as opposed to the police drawing the blood themselves. But the video suggests that the police wanted to draw blood here.

“If she interferes in any way with me getting the blood drawn, she needs to be arrested,” an officer says early on in the video. And The Washington Post has reported that Payne is a trained police phlebotomist, meaning that he is sent to hospitals to collect blood from patients and check for illicit substances.

But the coverage of this incident has focused so much on outrage that outlets cannot agree on even this basic factual issue. CNN has reported that the nurse “refused to let police officers draw blood.” The New York Times reported that the nurse was arrested after “refusing to draw patient’s blood.” News outlets cannot even agree on who was going to draw the blood.

Officer Payne is now on paid administrative leave. The chief of the Salt Lake City police department has said he is “alarmed” and “sorry.” There is talk of lawsuits and criminal investigation. The mayor of Salt Lake City has called the arrest “completely unacceptable” and apologized.

These are moves are necessitated not by the law, but public relations. Wubbels says in the video that “you can’t put me under arrest.”

Unfortunately, and only because she is a sympathetic nurse up against a faceless Officer Payne in the YouTube era, she may have been right.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-77) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#78. To: Vicomte13 (#75)

and protections under the Constitution,

Protections under the Constitution, my ass. Utah drivers consent to blood draws the moment they pick up their driver's license.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   17:09:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Tooconservative (#63)

Gold Cross Ambulance places detective on administrative leave after controversial nurse arrest

I can't find anything on them getting a blood sample from the lab, probably just a lame rumor.

Sorry about that.

And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head

Hondo68  posted on  2017-09-05   17:09:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Tooconservative (#67)

Gosh. How does that ruling work in states where the drivers have already given their implied consent to blood/breath testing when they apply for a driver's license?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   17:12:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: hondo68, Vicomte13, misterwhite, nolu chan, A K A Stone, kenh, redleghunter (#79) (Edited)

Gold Cross Ambulance places detective on administrative leave after controversial nurse arrest

I visited the linked website and read your story from 10pm last night. Then at the bottom of the page, I noticed a newer story, dated today at 3pm.

SLC detective who arrested nurse fired from part-time paramedic job

“Gold Cross Ambulance in Salt Lake City, Utah has terminated Jeff Payne as a part-time Paramedic effective immediately. Although Jeff was not working for Gold Cross Ambulance at the time of the incident, we take his inappropriate remarks regarding patient transports seriously,” the emergency medical transport company said in a statement released Tuesday. “We acknowledge those concerned individuals who have contacted us regarding this incident and affirm our commitment to serving all members of the community with kindness and respect. We will continue to maintain our values of outstanding patient focused care, safety, and the complete trust of the communities we serve.”

A perfect employee record with the ambulance company for almost 35 years didn't save his part-time gig. Just imagine the legal issues after that statement he made about bringing them only transient homeless patients. That finishes him as an EMT, just from potential lawsuits down the road.

You have to wonder how many arrests he's made over the years as a cop and how those are going to be re-examined in light of what he did to the nurse. I'm sure local defense attorneys will be preparing briefs for new trials, resentencing hearings, etc. He'll be portrayed successfully as a dirty cop.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   17:29:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: misterwhite (#80)

Gosh. How does that ruling work in states where the drivers have already given their implied consent to blood/breath testing when they apply for a driver's license?

I dunno. Isn't that every state in the Union? I assume they have a multistate compact to deal with drivers from out-of-state and all the legal issues that would arise as a result. But I don't have any info on that right now. The question arises somewhat in this case because the truck driver is from Idaho, not Utah. So how does Utah enforce its implied consent laws on residents of other states with the rules for driver interlock and such? Or seizing their license but giving them a 29-day temporary license, etc.? I don't recall reading about such cases but they must come up with some regularity.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   17:33:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: misterwhite (#78)

Protections under the Constitution, my ass. Utah drivers consent to blood draws the moment they pick up their driver's license.

The truck driver is a resident of Idaho. When did Idahoans ever consent to the laws of Utah by getting a license in Idaho?

I suppose some pack of asshole judges will tell us it's the Commerce Clause again, the last refuge of scoundrels in black robes.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   17:37:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Tooconservative (#81)

He'll be portrayed successfully as a dirty cop.

Because he is a dirty cop.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-05   18:33:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: misterwhite (#77) (Edited)

Does this confuse you or is it pretty straightforward?

It's utterly irrelevant. The Supreme Court has spoken on the matter of blood draws, and because we are a federal union with federal supremacy, the Utah state and local laws are utterly obliterated, erased from having any force, by the superior federal law.

Yes, that's the Utah statute. So what? No analysis is needed. The Supreme Court says no warrantless blood draws without consent anywhere in the United States. Utah can't make laws opposed to that. Neither can Puerto Rico or American Samoa, for that matter. Federal Constitutional rights trump state laws and regulations to the contrary, every time.

Federal supremacy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-05   18:37:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Vicomte13 (#84)

I think it has to affect his employability as a cop.

How can he ever testify again in court without the defense impeaching him as a cop willing to violate the rights of defendants, crime victims like the trucker, and any nearby nurses that stand in his way?

Similarly, his past cases will be suspect as well. As will the cases handled by his supervisor who he claims ordered him to assault the nurse. Any case in which the primary evidence was his blood draw is suspect. It would be unreasonable to believe that this is the very first time he violated civil rights under the color of authority.

I read that the nurse is also reconsidering her previous disclaiming of any intention to file a lawsuit. Apparently, the police cam videos made her much angrier about what happened.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   18:44:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Vicomte13 (#85)

The Supreme Court says no warrantless blood draws without consent anywhere in the United States. Utah can't make laws opposed to that.

"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   19:41:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: misterwhite (#87)

"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."

So we are to override everything, abuse and arrest nurses, in order to do a blood draw for CIVIL liability?

Nah.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-05   20:27:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Vicomte13 (#88)

So we are to override everything, abuse and arrest nurses,

It needn't be that way. The cop said it was the first time it had gone this far.

"I'm here to do a blood draw."
"Fine. He's in Room 4."

Boom. Done.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   20:55:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Vicomte13 (#88)

I'm telling you that he has some kind of psychiatric fixation about authority figures. The Germans never loved Hitler as much as this guy loves cops. Especially bad cops.

Maybe his mommy gave him lots of enemas when he was a young child.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   22:17:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: misterwhite (#89)

It needn't be that way. The cop said it was the first time it had gone this far.

"I'm here to do a blood draw." "Fine. He's in Room 4."

Boom. Done.

No.

"I'm here to do a blood draw."

"Let me see your warrant."

"I have none."

"Then you cannot draw blood in this hospital. We need to see a warrant before you can touch a patient."

"Ok." Leaves to get electronic warrant.

Boom. Done.

Instead, the cop lost his EMT job, and will lose his police job, and his supervisor will be severely sanctioned, and Salt Lake City will pay a lot of money in damages, because this cop could not follow the law and take "no" for an answer. He bullied his way forward under color of authority, broke the law, and now he needs to be publicly crucified, to put the appropriate degree of fear into police officers all across the nation.

The only way to get their attention is through a zero tolerance policy. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. When the cops step out of line, they need to be crucified for it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-06   6:29:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Vicomte13 (#91)

"I'm here to do a blood draw."
"Let me see your warrant."
"Your policy for hospital blood draws may require a warrant, but I don't need one. Here's my "warrant" -- a copy of State of Utah law which reads:

41-6a-522. 522. 522. 522. Pe 522. Person incapable of refusal.
Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering the person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection 41-6a-5 520(1), and the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not.

Now get the fuck out of my way or I will have you arrested for obstructing an officer during an investigation.

(Screams follow)

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-06   10:06:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: misterwhite (#92)

(Screams follow)

That's the part you really like, isn't it?

And the Supreme Court has already weighed in, as has been explained to you repeatedly. No state law can overrule the USSC.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-06   10:32:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Tooconservative (#93)

No state law can overrule the USSC.

They're not. The USSC ruled on "A" and the State of Utah is doing "B".

"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-06   10:43:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: misterwhite (#94)

"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."

So you're saying that Utah has the right to suspend the drivers licenses of dead people and that is the purpose of this law?

You've gone around the bend. You need psychiatric help.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-06   11:07:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: Tooconservative (#95)

So you're saying that Utah has the right to suspend the drivers licenses of dead people and that is the purpose of this law?

I have cited the law many times. I know you can read.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-06   11:12:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: misterwhite (#94)

The USSC ruled on "A" and the State of Utah is doing "B".

You can repeat your bogus claim ad nauseum and that still makes you wrong. In fact - no one else on the entire internet, cops, civilians, lawyers, judges agree with the bullshit you've posted.

Doesn't that tell you something? Are you the only one in the entire world who is right and everyone else is wrong?

Good luck with that.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-09-06   13:54:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#96)

Warrantless Blood Draw Stopped by Utah Nurse Was Legal in Another Reality (The facts and the law are on Alex Wubbels' side.)

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-09-07   7:03:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: misterwhite (#96)

You don't know the law. You need a dose of ass kicking. You deserve it. Peon.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-07   7:30:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: misterwhite (#92)

I want you to scream in pain.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-07   7:32:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: misterwhite (#92)

Now get the fuck out of my way or I will have you arrested for obstructing an officer during an investigation.

Yep, that's how Payne played it. Now he's under criminal investigation, has lost one job, and will soon lose another, and may serve jail time.

Your attitude is that of a violent criminal who commits violent crimes under color of authority.

Payne is a criminal who got caught on camera. He abused authority, assaulted a woman and wrongfully detained her. He was egged on by his watch supervisor.

So they're going to be punished as the criminals they are, crucified before the whole public as an example, and police forces around the country will adjust to the state of the law, and not commit this particular crime again.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-07   9:22:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Deckard (#97)

Good luck with that.

What the law is, is decided by the political process, which is fundamentally democratic at its root. Payne and his supervisor managed to make themselves the poster children for police abuse, and they're going to be made examples of by the political, legal, judicial and media system.

They cannot be successfully defended, and they won't be.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-07   9:24:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: misterwhite (#96) (Edited)

I have cited the law many times. I know you can read.

You have cited the wrong law. You have cited some puny state statute. States bow before the might of the Federal Government and the Federal Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has spoken. The state law is crushed and erased, because in this land, the Supreme Court of the United States is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and - regardless of your opinion of it - state law is an ant that is squashed by federal supremacy.

"States Rights" over against federal power was settled at Appomattox. It does not exist. It has not existed for 152 years. it will not be resurrected for this case.

Some states still had laws on their books barring interracial marriage until a few years ago. But the Supreme Court spoke on the matter in 1967, and by that decision erased all authority of all states, individually or combined, on the matter. All federal, state and local laws to the contrary were erased by the supreme authority over the law exercised by the Supreme Court of the United States.

So, you can quote the "law" all you want, but that law no longer exists any more than a law against interracial marriage that sits, unrepealed, on the books. Those dead laws that haven't been repealed stand there like Confederate monuments, silent testimony to the supremacy of the federal government, Supreme Court, and federal law. The local people in the state made a law, and the federal government erased the law completely by one opinion.

States are completely subordinate to the Supreme Court and federal law on matters of the federal Constitution. You have quoted a "law" that is NOT a law at all, because the Supreme Court's decision erased that law.

So you're NOT quoting the law. You're effectively quoting the words on a Confederate monument and pretending that a defeated, voided, erased opinion of an inferior authority - the state of Utah - still has any force in the face of the majestic, supreme, overwhelming and unquestionably absolute authority of the Supreme Court to completely nullify the will of the people of Utah and replace it by one standard that is not what is in their now-dead law.

Same thing with gay marriage. It's a constitutional fact. States have statutes that say otherwise, but those statutes are not laws. They are monuments to a defeated resistance, nothing more.

That's the way it is. You're not quoting law. You're quoting dead statutes. voided by higher authority. Utah has no authority to stand against the Supreme Court.

No matter how much you want to refight the Civil War, the outcome of the Civil War stands, which means that Utah's OPINION on the matter - expressed in that voided law - is erased by the supreme, absolute and unassailable power of the Supreme Court.

You may not admit it. Payne didn't. He will kneel before that superior law and be whipped by it and submit to it nevertheless, because he is weak and it is strong.

You believe in the rule of the strongest. The Federal Supreme Court and federal law are stronger than Utah and it's now erased law, and most certainly stronger than some detective on the Salt Lake City PD.

The cops do not have a pot to piss in, and they will kneel before the law.

And yes, I am writing this in a way to be as explicitly offensive as possible, pissing all over the notion of "states rights", and exalting federal supremacy PRECISELY BECAUSE I know it pisses you off, and PRECISELY BECAUSE I know that that is how REAL POWER in the REAL WORLD is distributed. I know how much you like the cops to display power. I like power too. And I always go with the highest and most organized powers, because I always like to win. Dying for a weak and lost cause is always stupid. This cop took on a superpower, and he is going to be crushed. I know you hate that, which is precisely why I am exulting in it. You like to see people you consider inferior beaten down by the cops. And I like to see the people you like - cops - on their knees with superior authority to them smashing them in the face with a boot again and again and again.

We're both fascists at heart, you and I, but you go with Hitler, while I go with Truman and the Federal Government of the United States. I back the stronger horse - the one that burns down Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden...and Atlanta. The one that always wins.

You like exercises of police power. So do I. But you're an Imperial Stormtrooper kind of guy. I'm with Darth Vader and the Emperor.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-07   9:35:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite, Tooconservative (#103)

I know how much you like the cops to display power. I like power too. And I always go with the highest and most organized powers, because I always like to win. Dying for a weak and lost cause is always stupid. This cop took on a superpower, and he is going to be crushed. I know you hate that, which is precisely why I am exulting in it. You like to see people you consider inferior beaten down by the cops. And I like to see the people you like - cops - on their knees with superior authority to them smashing them in the face with a boot again and again and again.

We're both fascists at heart, you and I, but you go with Hitler, while I go with Truman and the Federal Government of the United States. I back the stronger horse - the one that burns down Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden...and Atlanta. The one that always wins.

You like exercises of police power. So do I. But you're an Imperial Stormtrooper kind of guy. I'm with Darth Vader and the Emperor.

Wow, wow, wow.

A Pole  posted on  2017-09-07   9:55:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: Vicomte13 (#103)

"Blah, blah, blah ..."

"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil, not criminal, penalties (ie., suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-07   10:09:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: misterwhite (#105)

Utah is a state, an utterly subordinated tax-paying appendage of the United States of America. Utah has no power to enforce any law that the supreme authority over Utah - the federal government of the United States - speaking through the Supreme Court of the United States - says it cannot.

Your Utah laws are mere playthings, void, null, old rules that no longer apply. The federal master has spoke, and the peasant state SHALL obey, or be compelled to by superior armed force that no state nor collection of states can resist.

That is the American system since 1865, and we're not going to change it to save some little dick of a cop in Utah.

You quote Utah law. It has no force in this case. Federal law is supreme, and the Supreme Court of the supreme law and supreme imperial authority in this land has spoken. Therefore, the state of Utah is UTTERLY ERASED in its will and its law, and it law is now reduced to lockstep obedience to the legal imperial master, who resides in Washington DC, not Salt Lake City. The victory of the federal government in the Civil War secured this outcome, and it is the supreme law of the land.

It's fun saying this over and over, because you hate it and it's true.

The fact that you hate it but have to submit to it makes me happy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-07   10:35:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: Vicomte13 (#106)

Utah has no power to enforce any law that the supreme authority over Utah - the federal government of the United States - speaking through the Supreme Court of the United States - says it cannot.

Wow. Pretty specific there. Then show me the Supreme Court ruling that says the State of Utah cannot enforce it's blood draw laws.

You can't. The court ruled on a different matter that you're trying to apply to the State of Utah. Apples and oranges.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-07   10:45:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#104)

Wow, wow, wow.

Vic is not saying anything so novel here. Over the last 15 years, it has become something of a favorite debate topic on whether we should cheer for the Empire or the rebels in Star Wars. This article is typical and introduced a lot of people to the topic.

Weekly Standard: The Case For The Empire

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-07   10:50:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: misterwhite (#107)

Wow. Pretty specific there. Then show me the Supreme Court ruling that says the State of Utah cannot enforce it's blood draw laws.

You can't. The court ruled on a different matter that you're trying to apply to the State of Utah. Apples and oranges.

I don't have to do any of that. The presumption is on my side. You have to overcome it. Payne can't overcome it, so his life will be crushed.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-07   11:06:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: Tooconservative (#108)

My wows are directed to the way vicecount expresses himself.

A Pole  posted on  2017-09-07   12:41:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#110)

You've hung out with us for 15 years or more.

Surely you can't be that surprised that Vic has strong opinions and likes to be a little provocative in prose.

I hope you aren't going to start whining like some SJW snowflake that they've discovered a neo-Confederate hiding under their bed or something.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-07   12:46:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#110)

BTW, don't be so sure that Darth Vader is so unpopular.

They are removing the Robert E. Lee stained glass from the National Cathedral. But no one is trying to remove the Sith Lord gargoyle.

Yep, Darth Vader is on the National Cathedral and has been for a long time now. To me, it's just another argument for razing that obscenity to the ground but most people probably like it.

Long live the Empire! LOL

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-07   14:18:37 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: A Pole (#110)

My wows are directed to the way vicecount expresses himself.

I am the scion of a broken aristocratic French family, a bastard grandson of the Dutch van Oranjie, a legitimate great-grand nephew of J.E.B. Stuart, a former Navy pilot, a world class lawyer, a Catholic, married to a West Indian French woman, raising a US Olympian.

When I'm good, I'm very, very good - Jon Snow good.

And when I'm bad, I'm Tywin Lannister bad. Cardinal Richelieu bad.

My instinct, when presented with a threat of force, is to kill whoever makes it. It's concern for God's opinion on the matter that balks me, not the squeamishness of other men.

I'm a lawyer, I've studied the Common Law. It's taught in schools and generally enforced. But I ALSO know the other law, the Law of the Elite, which is not directly taught in schools, but which is taught through experience and contacts and observations. All societies have two systems of law, ours included. Or, in truth, we have three systems: The Common Law, for the working, middle and managerial class, and professionals. The Law of the Low is for them, and it's quite rough and ready. The Law of the Elite is a special set of unwritten laws that are as real as the statute law, and enforced with their own logic.

It is highly offensive to people in the middle class to hear the Law of the Elite spoken of as a real thing, an entity, separate and apart from the "Common Law", but it is. The Elite are not common, and don't have the same laws applied to them in the same way, except sometimes overzealous cops or prosecutors will pretend that there is only the Common Law and try to make that point by publicly imposing it on one of the lesser Elite.

Nobody at any level makes any bones about their being the Law of the Low. The common middle actually delights in it, because relative to it, the Common Law is quasi elite.

But this is getting esoteric and no subject has come up that invokes it (except, to a degree, the nurse case in Utah...but only to a degree).

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-07   14:38:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: Vicomte13, Tooconservative (#113) (Edited)

experience and contacts and observations. All societies have two systems of law, ours included. Or, in truth, we have three systems

I love this topic. Spin the yarn, please. And do it thoughtfully.

A Pole  posted on  2017-09-07   15:46:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: A Pole (#114)

Ok. Tonight.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-07   16:03:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: Vicomte13 (#115)

Ok. Tonight.

Work hard, please. The topic deserves it :)

A Pole  posted on  2017-09-07   16:26:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: A Pole (#116)

Alright, I promised. Let's begin.

We have to start with the concept of law itself. Don't go running to a dictionary, or a legal dictionary. Spend some time to think about what you think law is. And while you're at it, think through what you mean when you add the definite article in from of the world "law" and say "the law". Think about how that is distinguished from what you mean when you use the indefinite article. What is the difference between "a law" and "the law".

Does capitalization matter? Is there a difference in your mind between "the law", "The Law", "the Law" and "THE Law"? Obviously there is a difference in inflection and tone, but is there a difference in kind?

Now think of the source of law. Is it government? Is it men? Is it specific men? Is it God? Is it nature? Is it a synopsis of men's observations of something? How does "Constitutional Law" differ from "The Law of Physics", and how do they differ from "The Law of Economics"?

Now go back to your original definition of "law". Do the laws of physics or of economics fit within it?

It's a short word, "law", but it carries a lot of freight.

Does law require a legislator? Who legislates the law of physics? the law of economics?

Is the nature of law that it can be broken? Can the law of physics be broken? How about the law of supply and demand? How about the law of torts?

Is obeying the law "good"? Is breaking the law "bad"? Does that depend on what law, or whose law, or how the law got there?

Who decides all of these things? Does the dictionary decide what "law" is? If you think so, did what the dictionary cover all of those different areas of law? Physics? Torts? Criminal? Economics?

It is these philosophical, and indeed philological, things that we must first resolve before any sort of meaningful discussion is even possible, else you will be speaking Greek while I may be speak Latin, or French, or Basque...or Martian.

If I say to you "Might makes Right", have I made a morally normative statement, or have I made a purely descriptive one? Or both? Can you know without context? Have you ever considered , before now, that "Might makes right" might not be a moral statement at all, but a purely descriptive statement, an observation about the world?

You have your prejudices, as do I, and all other adults. To think about this topic properly we have to be able to consider the full stunning scope of it, which may run from theology to the courthouse to the test tube.

I could just skip over all of the philosophy, philology and theology, and jurisprudence, and just cut to the chase: speaking descriptively, there's a different set of laws that apply to very poor people, to average people, and to very powerful people. There's some overlap at the edges, and a lot of pretense that there is only one law, but there are really three laws: the Law of the Poor, the Law of the Common, and the Law of the Elite. You yourself can probably sketch in most of the three sets of laws by just thinking about it. You will find that they persist over the ages, and operate in all cultures, making them in a sense a manifestation of the laws of human nature.

Still speaking descriptively, not normatively, it is generally useful for any lawyer, politician, actor or upwardly mobile person to understand these three sets of law, to understand how they work, and to learn to work as seamlessly as possible with all three systems.

To discuss this at all, though, given the normative passions it is likely to arouse, it is best to start in the world of description first, to go through the mental exercises proposed at the opening of this short essay, rather than plow straight ahead into what amounts to "I should rule the world, and this is my law!" Because the only thing more useless than that is another man's religion. (The utility in "I should rule the world..." is that it is funny and can be unpredictable. Listening to a man dutifully prattle on about his pre-canned off-the-shelf normative fantasies is always dull.)

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-08   19:38:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: Tooconservative (#67)

McNeely seems to be the major direction of the Court but they muddied the waters a bit in their 2016 case, Birchfield v. North Dakota.

At least, I find parsing the two to be difficult.

NYSlimes:

WASHINGTON — The police must obtain warrants to test the blood of motorists arrested on suspicion of drunken driving, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, but no warrants are needed to conduct a breath test.

The case, Birchfield v. North Dakota, No. 14-1468, consolidated with two others, arose from laws that made it a crime for motorists suspected of drunken driving to refuse breath or blood tests.

That has no application whatever to the current case. The unconscious dude was not arrested, he was not asked for a breath test, and he was not even a suspect. He was the victim of the dude running from the cops.

Police can demand submission to a breath test from someone suspectged of drunk driving, and refusal can lead to license suspension, but puncturing the skin with a needle still requires a search warrant.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-08   19:52:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (119 - 123) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com