Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 132: WHAT HAPPENED now available in fantasy sections

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dark Young Link posted...

He'd be swimming in money, wouldn't he?

Doubtful. He could sue for what the sample to be repressed? He had no trauma or life altering damage done to him.

The woman losing her job and reputation on the other hand has a massive winner.
---

Corrik posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

Why is anyone even engaging a person who pretends to not understand the moral and legal differences between emergency medical care and what that cop was trying to pull?

It is funny how you say stuff like this while Kenri literally just said drawing someone's blood is assault and that it is better a cop was beaten and could have been killed instead of use force to stop a criminal.

What would YOU call drawing someone's blood without consent?

And also where did Kenri literally say a cop should have been beaten and maybe killed?
---

Even if she sued and won in your crazy scenario (which seems unlikely because in that version she in no way tried to do what she was legally required to herself which would come up in the lawsuit, but I digress), she's still out of a license. Some people actually value their careers.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

Why is anyone even engaging a person who pretends to not understand the moral and legal differences between emergency medical care and what that cop was trying to pull?

It is funny how you say stuff like this while Kenri literally just said drawing someone's blood is assault and that it is better a cop was beaten and could have been killed instead of use force to stop a criminal.

What would YOU call drawing someone's blood without consent?

What would I call a police draw unit for my workplace trying to draw blood on me to clear me of any wrongdoing and remove me from being suspected of a crime which they thought was the legal process and were wrong in doing so?

I would call it a fucking mistake like most normal people would who don't have a hard on for protesting and whining any damn time they can argue someone was wrong.

If my fiance comes in and pinpicks me and draws some of my blood and I am like wtf did you do that for and she says I dunno I always wanted to try it... I am not going to call the cops and say she stabbed and assaulted me and robbed me.

And, if I did, I would be laughed at cuz its stupid.



The cop was wrong. He got fired. He should have been better trained or if trained properly able to follow the laws better. Fair next.

If I was the nurse, I would have complied after saying no multiple times and then protested doing it while making it clear I was reporting it immediately afterwards.

If you think that nurse is going to get fired over that you are illlogical.

The nurse did what she did and she did the right thing by the law. She also had to deal with being handcuffed, put into a squad car, and "fear for her life".

Should she have had to? No. But, she did. And that is that.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

Why is anyone even engaging a person who pretends to not understand the moral and legal differences between emergency medical care and what that cop was trying to pull?

It is funny how you say stuff like this while Kenri literally just said drawing someone's blood is assault and that it is better a cop was beaten and could have been killed instead of use force to stop a criminal.

What would YOU call drawing someone's blood without consent?

And also where did Kenri literally say a cop should have been beaten and maybe killed?

He said the woman who feared to use her weapon cuz the backlash over if she was wrong was a better outcome than her using force to stop a criminal who beat her and I think 2 other officers severely.
---

Corrik... your argument basically boils down to "Do the wrong thing, because you'll sue and make money later".

That's the only reason you've offered so far for the nurse disregarding the law, not to mention her moral compass, and allowing all of this to happen.


Of course if she allowed it to happen, then technically she wasn't forced to. So the police did nothing wrong, thus Not Guilty.

But she's still out of a career because yes you absolutely would get fired for a HIPPA violation.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Corrik... your argument basically boils down to "Do the wrong thing, because you'll sue and make money later".

That's the only reason you've offered so far for the nurse disregarding the law, not to mention her moral compass, and allowing all of this to happen.


Of course if she allowed it to happen, then technically she wasn't forced to. So the police did nothing wrong, thus Not Guilty.

But she's still out of a career because yes you absolutely would get fired for a HIPPA violation.

I am not saying that at all.

Like... at all?
---

That seems to be basically word for word what you're saying, Corrik! If it's not then you really gotta step back and rethink your entire approach to how you word posts.
---

Never once said she should have just done it so she could sue.
---

Corrik posted...

Never once said she should have just done it so she could sue.

I mean you said she should do it because any conviction would be thrown out.

We just assumed you also meant she could sue, because if you didn't, you're literally saying she should have gotten herself fired for no reason??
---

Then why should the nurse have complied?
---

I said If I were her, I would have said no twice and when he got annoyed and visibly upset over it I would have complied only with the caveat that I was only doing so because I was being forced to by him (a police officer) and that I was immediately reporting it to his superiors and mine about what happened.

That she would not get fired over it. The sample would have been void legally even if it was hot. And, if they were stupid enough to try and fire her over it that she would have a massive winning lawsuit. And, no, you wouldn't lose your license over that either.

Would never even be tried and would absolutely be overturned if done via appeal.

That is what I said.
---

Except she likely would have gotten fired over it.
---

But Corrik you're wrong, dude.

She very likely would have been fired by the hospital to protect themselves from liability.

"A cop illegally told me to and I complied" isn't an excuse.
---

You would have broken the law because a police officer told you to(again, you're violating HIPPA). Your reason is irrelevant, because you have a choice not to and you didn't take it.

You more than likely get fired for it, lawfully so. You have no grounds to sue. Not unless the officer threatened you with violence I imagine.


Why go through all of that? When you can just say "No."?
---

Dark Young Link posted...

You would have broken the law because a police officer told you to(again, you're violating HIPPA). Your reason is irrelevant, because you have a choice not to and you didn't take it.

You more than likely get fired for it, lawfully so. You have no grounds to sue. Not unless the officer threatened you with violence I imagine.


Why go through all of that? When you can just say "No."?

You literally have no clue what you are talking about if you say she would have gotten fired and that she has no grounds for a lawsuit. Might as well just say you are talking out of your ass at this point.
---

Corrik posted...

I find it highly unlikely the cop is going to sue his own workplace, especially for trying to clear him of any wrongdoing.

The cop that was injured worked in a different city. Rigby's police thanks the nurse.

https://m.facebook.com/RigbyPoliceID/posts/1283530118423671
---

Corrik posted...

You literally have no clue what you are talking about if you say she would have gotten fired and that she has no grounds for a lawsuit. Might as well just say you are talking out of your ass at this point.

Could say the same about you

;)
---

Corrik posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

You would have broken the law because a police officer told you to(again, you're violating HIPPA). Your reason is irrelevant, because you have a choice not to and you didn't take it.

You more than likely get fired for it, lawfully so. You have no grounds to sue. Not unless the officer threatened you with violence I imagine.


Why go through all of that? When you can just say "No."?

You literally have no clue what you are talking about if you say she would have gotten fired and that she has no grounds for a lawsuit. Might as well just say you are talking out of your ass at this point.

I literally have an Associates in Health Services Management through the Air Force, but yeah I'm clueless.
---

Corrik posted...

You literally have no clue what you are talking about if you say she would have gotten fired and that she has no grounds for a lawsuit. Might as well just say you are talking out of your ass at this point.

I admit it's been 7 years since I've really boned up on the subject. But I literally passed a class teaching this subject. Certificate and everything. This is actually something I know something about.


Was I mistaken in treating you like an actual human being and not a joke poster? Because this attack on me is making me question my decision to have a civil conversation with you.
---

Corrik, you just have no fucking clue how the world works, huh?
---

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

Why is anyone even engaging a person who pretends to not understand the moral and legal differences between emergency medical care and what that cop was trying to pull?

It is funny how you say stuff like this while Kenri literally just said drawing someone's blood is assault and that it is better a cop was beaten and could have been killed instead of use force to stop a criminal.

What would YOU call drawing someone's blood without consent?

And also where did Kenri literally say a cop should have been beaten and maybe killed?

He said the woman who feared to use her weapon cuz the backlash over if she was wrong was a better outcome than her using force to stop a criminal who beat her and I think 2 other officers severely.

I don't want to gloss over how dumb Corrik is being, but this is pretty dumb, yeah.

Like, we shouldn't need to try to out-crazy Corrik, here.
---

The 43-year-old officer, who has not been identified, was responding to a car crash Wednesday when a 28-year-old man who was involved in the accident struck her in the face, then repeatedly smashed her head against the pavement until she passed out. He said the attack went on for several minutes and that two others officers were injured as they tried to pull the suspect away

This very much sounds like the attacker only stopped because either somebody finally physically stopped him, or he assumed the woman was dead.

Saying that's a better outcome than shooting the guy attacking her just because she happened to live is pretty disgusting.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Corrik posted...

You literally have no clue what you are talking about if you say she would have gotten fired and that she has no grounds for a lawsuit. Might as well just say you are talking out of your ass at this point.

I admit it's been 7 years since I've really boned up on the subject. But I literally passed a class teaching this subject. Certificate and everything. This is actually something I know something about.


Was I mistaken in treating you like an actual human being and not a joke poster? Because this attack on me is making me question my decision to have a civil conversation with you.

Can do whatever you wish to. You are an adult who can make decisions as you will.

We will just see whenever the scenario ever happens what the outcome is. I guarrantee the nurse in question would not lose her job.
---

She would have absolutely lost her job. Not from her direct supervisor, but from much higher above.

You don't mess with shit like HIPAA.

It's a toss-up on the lawsuit part, though.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

She would have absolutely lost her job. Not from her direct supervisor, but from much higher above.

You don't mess with shit like HIPAA.

Agree to disagree. If the scenario ever plays out that way in the future we can see the outcome and know who was right.
---

And it really isn't...

As some of you may know, HIPAA does not include a “private right of action.” This means that an individual may not file a claim against a covered entity or a business associate in order to enforce HIPAA or seek damages in response to a HIPAA violation.

The best you can do is file some civil lawsuit for negligence but they don't really turn out too well for the filer very often. (Almost ever).
---

Well, there's just not much "Would she or wouldn't she" to this. It's a definite "Yes, she would have been fired."

When it comes to stuff like HIPAA and other privacy laws, the circumstances literally don't matter. It doesn't matter why you broke the rules. Whether a cop told you to, your life was being threatened, whatever. They literally provide no wiggle room whatsoever. If you break the rules, you lose your job, possibly your license, etc.

It's extremely clear cut, sadly. The situation could be one where the cop was absolutely right for wanting the blood, and if she gave it to him she'd still end up fired. It's literally that much of a "Did you do it?" and that's it. The "Why" is never even asked.

It's the same thing if you give out customer or credit information over the phone as a retail worker, to give an example that you're probably more closely familiar with.
---

Corrik "guarantees" the nurse wouldn't be fired, despite showing ignorance of HIPPA. Yet instead of offering any actual proof for his beliefs, we have to wait for that exact situation to occur to "know for sure".


And I'm the one talking out my ass. Really starting to regret taking you seriously.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Corrik "guarantees" the nurse wouldn't be fired, despite showing ignorance of HIPPA. Yet instead of offering any actual proof for his beliefs, we have to wait for that exact situation to occur to "know for sure".


And I'm the one talking out my ass. Really starting to regret taking you seriously.

Dude, like no offense, but I give two shits what you regret or care about. The situation has never occured. I said she wouldn't lose her job. Deal with it.

I mean, you can sit here and say whatever you want and what you think will happen. Doesn't make you right. Just says what you think. As I have said.

You are over here talking about being an expert on the damn shit and so on and you can't even spell the damn thing right HIPAA not HIPPA. I mean, call me crazy, but I think such an expert wouldn't be making that damn mistake.

So, go grumble how I am not a serious person not worth your time while I could care less for real. You are acting like a baby by basically someone isn't saying what I want to hear or think is right so I am going to whine about it.

Like, I don't know how some of you operate in real life out in the real world if you can't talk to people who don't agree with you.
---

Our feelings are both irrelevant. I just can't help but notice you're trying to avoid the subject when you're being called out. I was under the impression that we were both trying to have a serious discussion here. I see that was not the case for you.


Feelings, typos, what do these accusations of yours do for your argument? Not a damned thing.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Our feelings are both irrelevant. I just can't help but notice you're trying to avoid the subject when you're being called out. I was under the impression that we were both trying to have a serious discussion here. I see that was not the case for you.


Feelings, typos, what do these accusations of yours do for your argument? Not a damned thing.

Huh? I am saying that if the situation occured she wouldn't have lost her job. You are saying you know she would. I think you are talking out your ass. You are thinking I am. Oh well. How discussions go.



I don't know exactly what I am being called out on.

If a terrorist goes into a hospital and says tel me this information. A nurse is gonna give it and not lose her job over it. That is an extreme example.

If she tells a police officer no twice and says she will only do it because she is being forced to and will report him immediately for forcing her while he walks around agitated as fuck and threatening to arredt her, I guarrantee she is not fired.

But, hey you feel what you want and I will what I want. You read a book or something without that situation in context. I applied common sense approach to the real world. One of us is right I assure you. Maybe one day we will find out.


(And all 5 times using the acronym with improper spelling while others in the same topic are using it the right way speaks more to lack of familiarity with it and not a typo. However, I digress as I do not know your credentials on the topic).
---

Corrik posted...

If a terrorist goes into a hospital and says tel me this information. A nurse is gonna give it and not lose her job over it. That is an extreme example.

She would most definitely lose her job, especially if an attack occurred due to giving that information.

It's no different than if she told a mass murderer who threatened to kill her what blood type the patient has so that the murderer can inject the wrong blood into the patient.
---

I suppose that's the difference between you and me Corrik.

You go through all these little steps to justify being a good little boy who never troubles anyone.


I, on the other hand, prefer doing the correct thing.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

I suppose that's the difference between you and me Corrik.

You go through all these little steps to justify being a good little boy who never troubles anyone.


I, on the other hand, prefer doing the correct thing.

Whatever you are referring to... "okay".

Anyways...
---

charmander6000 posted...

Corrik posted...

If a terrorist goes into a hospital and says tel me this information. A nurse is gonna give it and not lose her job over it. That is an extreme example.

She would most definitely lose her job, especially if an attack occurred due to giving that information.

It's no different than if she told a mass murder who threatened to kill her what blood type the patient has so that the murderer can inject the wrong blood into the patient.

Guarrantee you are wrong, but hey, maybe one day we will find out!

(I have no comment on the murdering people thing because that's a tad out there)
---

Corrik posted...

If a terrorist goes into a hospital and says tel me this information. A nurse is gonna give it and not lose her job over it. That is an extreme example.

They would, though.

Just like how convenience store/retail workers/etc. get fired for standing up to robbers.

Policy is policy, and most people up the ladder don't give a shit about you or me down further on it.
---

I feel like we owe @redrocket_pub an apology for wasting so much time on Corrik regarding this....
---

http://www.wral.com/selma-police-officer-suspended-after-handcuffing-er-nurse/11773582/

Interesting lol
---

https://jocoreport.com/cop-who-handcuffed-er-nurse-sued-in-federal-court/

I was under the impression the invasion of privacy ruling on drawing blood came last year?
---

Dark Young Link posted...

I feel like we owe redrocket_pub an apology for wasting so much time on Corrik regarding this....

Among several other users

Seriously, you're all idiots
---

I deal with HIPAA on a daily basis for work. if you break it, no matter the reason, you're done and the hospital gets fined. I've been involved in a bunch of pretty crazy ones where we have to report it to the state, pay for credit monitoring, etc.

what I'm not 100% on is if your blood applies to HIPAA (health information) but given that the hospital had specific policies in place I'd say it's most likely to cover their ass so they don't get sued.
---

transcience posted...

I deal with HIPAA on a daily basis for work. if you break it, no matter the reason, you're done and the hospital gets fined. I've been involved in a bunch of pretty crazy ones where we have to report it to the state, pay for credit monitoring, etc.

what I'm not 100% on is if your blood applies to HIPAA (health information) but given that the hospital had specific policies in place I'd say it's most likely to cover their ass so they don't get sued.

Can you list some examples?
---

nope. that would be breaking the law.
---

transcience posted...

nope. that would be breaking the law.

You could be in general. Like, the most common reason I know of is posting information directly or indirectly on facebook.
---

https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/906513903701467137
---

Tag
---

So did anyone post what happened with Eric Bolling?

Fox News fired him.
Then his son committed suicide.

Holy shit.
---

Holy shit indeed, that's awful :(
---

MrGreenonion posted...

https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/906513903701467137

Not surprising. It's basically the same thing that happened in the campaign (Clinton does a long policy speech and the media only reports on the Trump mentions) or with her earlier post-election interviews (all the media attention is about her "making excuses" for her loss despite that being only one of many questions she was answering).
---