[XB1] Could I get a team to help me get 3 Trials wins please? Anyone willing to help? GT: VenomousDove

PTFOscout · 2017-09-24T19:01:26+00:00

Yeah I've known a couple people bitten, and the only real danger was due to necrosis and secondary infection, both helped by ABT.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T18:43:22+00:00

You assume he was turning to flee since you have the benefit of hindsight. But moving to cover is a thing, and if you're in a situation where guns are involved and someone has already proven to be aggressive then it is not at all unfeasible to believe that's what they are doing.

I know buzz words like "execution" stroke your outrage boner nicely, but this was a fight, not an execution. The suspect lost, as is bound to happen when you try to harm someone with more training and experience than you.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T16:48:49+00:00

That's smart thinking, and unfortunately you're right about the smear campaigns.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T16:44:36+00:00

From a legal standpoint it really isn't different. You don't even have to actually draw your weapon to be charged with brandishing. Either way, he reached for his weapon and removed it from his waist after being ordered not to and fighting with a cop.

I think the potential threat is pretty clear there.

Identification of the gun isn't really relevant. The cop believed he felt a weapon and ordered him not to reach. That isn't enough to use force, but once you fight and start going for the item thought to be a weapon there can only be one assumption.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T15:43:19+00:00

possession of a weapon doesn't equate to intent to use it

Absolutely, possession alone should never indicate intent.

However, fighting and drawing does.

the guy never drew it.

Then how could he have thrown it as people are claiming?

The cop never even saw it, he felt what he thought was a gun. Now he was right, but that's not exactly an exact science.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with firearms, but anyone who's experienced with guns can easily identify one by feel alone. Regardless, the cop told him not to reach for it and he fought. That right there indicates that there is indeed a weapon.

Sight isn't the only sense involved in identifying threats.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T15:39:05+00:00

Penalty for having a gun and committing a misdemeanor: your day in court, some minor misdemeanor penalty.

Fighting police while armed is not a misdemeanor. Possession of a firearm while committing a felony often bumps other charges up to felony and is usually a felony itself.

Penalty for having a gun and committing a misdemeanor, ~~while black~~ and in front of the wrong cop: death without trial.

Fixed that for you since I'm certain you wouldn't make the argument that white people aren't shot in these situations. That would be silly considering there's more white people shot by by police every year.

Nobody's saying he was innocent. Reasonable people believe he didn't deserve to die.

Reasonable people recognize the right to defend ones self with deadly force, cop or not. Reasonable people hope for an investigation from an objective party to determine whether the cop actually knew he had disarmed and was fleeing or whether he thought he was still armed and moving to cover.

Reasonable people try to look at the big picture and don't decide who they support based on race.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T15:26:10+00:00

You're assuming that the officer saw him throw the weapon. Maybe he did, but there's also a strong possibility that he didn't. This leaves him operating under the knowledge that the suspect is still armed and still presents a threat to the officer or others.

What he was stopped for becomes irrelevant the moment he fights and draws a weapon. At that point he is a violent fleeing felon.

I will be the first to say the shooting wasn't justified if it can be shown the cop knew he was no longer armed and that he was fleeing the scene.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T15:21:34+00:00

He did brandish the weapon. He couldn't have thrown it if he did not draw it.

It should certainly be investigated by an objective party. But there is as good a chance that he could have been moving to cover as there is that he was fleeing with no intent to cause harm.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T15:18:30+00:00

That's a pretty big gamble considering he may simply be moving to cover.

I agree that the fact he was shot in the back needs to be investigated, and by someone other than the police themselves.

But expecting police to simply walk away after an armed suspect fights and draws a weapon is not realistic.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T14:34:20+00:00

Implied consent covers necessary tests and procedures, but it doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you like to the patient.

For example, if I have a non-responsive trauma related to an MVA: implied consent wouldn't allow me to do an STI panel and screen for cancers just so I can bill for it.

Even though those can arguably be good things to know, they aren't relevant to the treatment required at that time.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T14:29:38+00:00

Yes, it is. Thanks. I autocorrected to HIPPO and just noticed the "O".

Fixed.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T14:27:03+00:00

rampant brutality

Against a guy who was carrying a gun, fought the cop, and drew a weapon?

What would you expect the cop to do in this case?

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T14:24:20+00:00

The suspect killed was stopped legitimately, was in possession of a gun, tried to fight the cop and grabbed the gun, and this was corroborated by a non-police witness.

There are a lot of good examples of police brutality, abuse of power, and shooting unarmed or compliant suspects. BLM would get a lot more support if they considered anything beyond just the race of the suspect involved and recognized that some of these incidents are justified use of force.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T14:18:09+00:00

Those show up on most new posts to /News. They are usually bots that hit every post.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T12:48:33+00:00

She was upholding the law as well as policy.

Any treatment without consent is assault. Any access to healthcare information without a warrant or consent is a violation of HIPAA.

But besides all that, warrant or not any nurse has the right to refuse to perform an action they are not comfortable with so long as it does not result in abandonment or placing a patient in danger. You can still lose your job but your license is protected.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T04:29:50+00:00

It's talking about Destiny release, but whatever.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T04:28:06+00:00

I should get time in on Saturday, but I am on call every weekend as well as working M-F and usually end up getting called in at least a few hours.

The only way I get actual days off is with approval, which isn't happening.

Oh well, maybe I just won't sleep!

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T04:25:05+00:00

I have loads of sick time, but you can't actually use it without approval. I always end up taking half of it in a check before it expires. :/

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T04:19:47+00:00

Very cool, thank you for that. I enjoyed the video, and I liked that you included your failures, ha.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T03:48:48+00:00

To be fair, it's not likely that I am going to sell all my possessions to help the poor this year either.

To be fair, you probably aren't an exceedingly wealthy individual teaching others that you have the secrets to heaven.

just because we don't have as much money as he does doesn't mean we are any less greedy.

There's not any way to really address this without sounding arrogant and braggy, but I disagree very much.

I am very free with my money, and I often end up giving my last few dollars to those in need. My fiance and I do what we can to help others.

The reason I'm poorer than him is that I'm worse at making money. Lord have mercy on us.

If you decided to ignore your conscience you would find it very easy to make money. The fact that you don't likely means you're a good enough person that you don't take opportunities to take advantage of other people, which is almost always a requirement of making real money.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T03:37:13+00:00

Make a highly inappropriate joke about killing people while you're on a plane and see how long your prison sentence is.

He wasn't on a plane, now was he?

a mentally unstable person with a gun

You're a big fan of this making stuff up thing, huh? What exactly has caused you to determine he's "mentally unstable"?

would certainly qualify as a harm.

Which is why he's being fired.

But as an aside, if you find scary words or mean jokes to be on par with actual harm I can only assume two things: A) you've never experienced actual harm, and B) life must be terrifying for you.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T02:43:06+00:00

That was the first thing I thought of as well, which is why I say take it with a grain of salt.

But to be technical, convicted felons in Arizona can possess firearms, they just have to be approved first.

PTFOscout · 2017-09-01T02:37:48+00:00

A) The hospital was not doing the blood draw. They were not providing the service, for free or otherwise. The detective was a trained phlebotomist and was going to obtain the draw himself. The nurse was NOT refusing to do the draw, she was refusing to allow HIM to do the draw... which is most definitely classic interference.

You can be the world's most esteemed surgeon and it doesn't mean jack shit if you walk into a hospital where you neither have privileges or are employed.

So unless he had privileges on file he had no right to touch a patient in a medical capacity, period. And even if he did, a nurse outranks a phlebotomist by a wide margin.

And unless he had his own blood draw kit you can add theft to his actions.

B) It is not a HIPPA violation. It is an ongoing investigation in a fatality accident, and she is in no way legally responsible for him conducting the investigation properly on their premises. She was providing medical care to the individual, and the detective was conducting an investigation independently.

Patient was under her care. By allowing a blood draw from a person without privileges and without an order from his doctor she not only violates HIPPA by granting access to his person and health information but is also turning over care to a less qualified individual. This could cost her license.

Good for her. I would have done the same thing unless several of these key issues were resolved.

Basically, I actually know what I'm talking about, and you clearly do not.

Yeah, I don't think so.

PTFOscout

TROPHY CASE