Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59aa2f3be4b0354e440a8a3c

Looks like they were actually trying to get a blood alcohol test to prove the driver wasn't intoxicated.

Still completely unacceptable behavior, and I hope the officer isn't thrown under the bus while the dispatcher who told him to make the arrest gets off scott free.. (Officer deserves what he gets, but more so does his supervisor who made the call..)

I agree their behavior was 100% unacceptable. My question though is what if there was a scenario where the cops listen to the nurse and do nothing? The blood isn't taken, and by the time they are able to take blood too much time has passed to determine if the person was or was not intoxicated.

How would the person then prove they weren't intoxicated? To be fair, I have no idea how long the booze stays in your system. So it could be they had plenty of time to wait for him to regain consciousness and then do a test.

But yeah, the officer needs to be fired. As for the dispatcher, at the very least they need to receive punishment equal to what the officer gets. Less punishment is not acceptable, but more punishment certainly is.

Originally posted by Surtur
I agree their behavior was 100% unacceptable. My question though is what if there was a scenario where the cops listen to the nurse and do nothing? The blood isn't taken, and by the time they are able to take blood too much time has passed to determine if the person was or was not intoxicated.

How would the person then prove they weren't intoxicated? To be fair, I have no idea how long the booze stays in your system. So it could be they had plenty of time to wait for him to regain consciousness and then do a test.

But yeah, the officer needs to be fired. As for the dispatcher, at the very least they need to receive punishment equal to what the officer gets. Less punishment is not acceptable, but more punishment certainly is.
You don't have to prove you're NOT intoxicated, they have to prove that you are. If they're unable to do that then it's not the civilian's problem.

Originally posted by darthgoober
You don't have to prove you're NOT intoxicated, they have to prove that you are. If they're unable to do that then it's not the civilian's problem.

Yeah that's what I was most confused about with this story. The burden of proof is on whoever is trying to prove that he was intoxicated. Why the cops are trying to take his blood to prove the opposite is strange and doesn't really make sense. Seems they were engaged in a guilty until proven innocent type of thing.

Props to that nurse, though, she did the right thing and was very brave for not giving in.

That nurse has received several high profile apology phone calls.

If she chooses to sue then she's gonna get hella paid.

Should've shot her.

In the face.

Originally posted by Impediment
That nurse has received several high profile apology phone calls.

If she chooses to sue then she's gonna get hella paid.

I was literally shouting at my radio "SUE THEM!"

The attending physician should've kicked them out of his ER from the beginning.

repeat after me, detective: "would you like that in a pump or a loafer?"

SO that changes what the Nurse did how?

Doesn't change that the nurse did the right thing. Just an amusing twist in the story.

I am just smelling dirty cop shenanigans.

this is confusing. who's good-guy boots are we supposed to lick, then?

https://i.imgur.com/0bKPW0am.png

For you. I would choose the boots with the most shit on them.

You seem to prefer that.