OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 18, 2019 21:14:09 GMT -5
Since this is slow coming out, my guess is the police shot them all! It was not that long ago that police in New Orleans, in a car chase fired over 500 rounds during the chase!!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 19, 2019 23:15:32 GMT -5
Back to the Glendale AZ police officer that tasered the man who was not resisting eleven times include pulling down the subject pants tasered the man in the testicles! The officer have multiple disciplinary action and suspension against him,, why was this man still a cop?? Remember this happened 1 1/2 years ago,, the police only when it made the news did something,,
Along with the worthless Maricopa County prosecutors office! We see this over and over, the failure of the police and joining hand with the prosecutor to cover thing like this up!! Police investigating police works every time.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 19, 2019 23:31:17 GMT -5
And then there is this, Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 19, 2019 23:50:58 GMT -5
Or this one, After the police originally lied about the couple shooting first admit that they had kicked in the door killed the couples dog
when the Husband comes from the back of the house is killed in the gunfight, as is his wife,, I also think they ar lying about the woman reaching for the cops gun. Seems some cop made up the story that this was a drug house!! how do you like that, these two people were killed over some cop lies!! Yea,, by the way the cop that made up the story is still getting paid !! Oh yea,,, conveniently there were no body cameras,,
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 20, 2019 0:27:50 GMT -5
And then there is this, Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House
"Well, we all have to go sometime!" YOUR quote on gun violence.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 20, 2019 8:36:38 GMT -5
Yes Welts, We all will do it some time, But when are harmed by the people sworn to protect them,,
Only for it to be sweep under the rug, nothing changes, except more people die or are injured by police that are never held accountable for their stupid acts,
Ask your self this question,, If this was a gang shootout instead of being police,, would want this "Sweep" under the rug? From the minute one, when learning to handle gun, you are taught, to be aware of your background, never point a gun unless you intend to fire it, always point a gun in a safe direction! These are people that supposedly are highly trained in the handling of a weapon, and on almost every police car it is written "Serve And Protect" not gun down the general public!!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 20, 2019 8:50:31 GMT -5
Here is another one for you Welts, Annnd of course, the first thing any one would do when looking directly up the gun barrel of five police officers would be to reach for his gun,, sure you would,, I am saying the cops are lying thru their teeth,, But when they are the only one holding all the evidence they can get away with it..
also, convincingly, no police videos,,, yet!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 20, 2019 9:06:09 GMT -5
Please note, We have thousands of posts on that SOB, Donald Trump, lying, stretching the truth, making up stories,, How many people have died because of his action? Yet every day I see calls for him to be removed from Office, voted out, impeached!! On the other hand here, Law enforcement shoot, beat, or kills innocent people almost every day!! Then, lie, cover up, seize property from people that are never charge with anything or destroy evidence,, again,,
DEAD Silence from you,, Yea kinda ironic,, "DEAD" is it?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 20, 2019 10:39:04 GMT -5
I wish that AS would stop posting stories of police abuse and unjustifiable killings because there weren't continuously new opportunities to highlight this issue. As long as it happens, I support it being pointed out here.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 20, 2019 12:24:26 GMT -5
Please note, We have thousands of posts on that SOB, Donald Trump, lying, stretching the truth, making up stories,, How many people have died because of his action? Yet every day I see calls for him to be removed from Office, voted out, impeached!! On the other hand here, Law enforcement shoot, beat, or kills innocent people almost every day!! Then, lie, cover up, seize property from people that are never charge with anything or destroy evidence,, again,,
DEAD Silence from you,, Yea kinda ironic,, "DEAD" is it?
I'm interested in the aggregate numbers. Have you looked at data for: i) number of officer-involved shootings by year, ii) number of officers killed/wounded by year, iii) number of innocents wounded/killed by police officers by year? (By "innocents" I mean people neither wielding weapons, nor engaged in felony crimes, nor violently resisting arrest.) These data strike me as crucial for putting the issue into perspective. For instance, 50,000 OIS's/1,000 officers killed/5 innocents killed would constitute, in my view, a shoot-or-be-shot balance sufficiently risk-averse for the public. If changes in protocol pare down police kills to 4 innocents/year at the expense of 1,025 dead officers, or 2 innocents/year at the expense of 1,100 dead officers, then, as abhorrent as unjustified shootings are, letting the public take the bullet (literally) still serves the greater collective good. But if the numbers are, say, 10,000 OIS's/500 officers killed/150 innocents killed, it's hard to believe changes in protocol (emphasis on de-escalation, harsher punishment for bad shoots, etc.) couldn't significantly pare back the 150 number with a less-than-commensurate increase in the 500.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 20, 2019 12:31:17 GMT -5
Yes Welts, We all will do it some time, But when are harmed by the people sworn to protect them,,
Only for it to be sweep under the rug, nothing changes, except more people die or are injured by police that are never held accountable for their stupid acts,
Ask your self this question,, If this was a gang shootout instead of being police,, would want this "Sweep" under the rug? From the minute one, when learning to handle gun, you are taught, to be aware of your background, never point a gun unless you intend to fire it, always point a gun in a safe direction! These are people that supposedly are highly trained in the handling of a weapon, and on almost every police car it is written "Serve And Protect" not gun down the general public!!
"Well, we all have to go sometime was" your response to out-of-control gun violence in the USA. Whether it's by the police, citizen-on-citizen, or mass shootings, dead is dead. Both are problems in the US that need to be addressed. It seems rather disingenuous to constantly whine about police shootings, but be perfectly fine with everyone packing and shooting each other.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 20, 2019 13:20:06 GMT -5
Yes Welts, We all will do it some time, But when are harmed by the people sworn to protect them,,
Only for it to be sweep under the rug, nothing changes, except more people die or are injured by police that are never held accountable for their stupid acts,
Ask your self this question,, If this was a gang shootout instead of being police,, would want this "Sweep" under the rug? From the minute one, when learning to handle gun, you are taught, to be aware of your background, never point a gun unless you intend to fire it, always point a gun in a safe direction! These are people that supposedly are highly trained in the handling of a weapon, and on almost every police car it is written "Serve And Protect" not gun down the general public!!
"Well, we all have to go sometime was" your response to out-of-control gun violence in the USA. Whether it's by the police, citizen-on-citizen, or mass shootings, dead is dead. Both are problems in the US that need to be addressed. It seems rather disingenuous to constantly whine about police shootings, but be perfectly fine with everyone packing and shooting each other. Both issues concern a balance of security and liberty, and AS favours (public) liberty in both cases.
In the context of gun control, "We all have to go sometime" is another way of saying "I acknowledge the risks of bearing arms, but the associated liberty is worth more. Ergo, we should be at peace with the risks." In the context of police shootings, "We all have to go sometime" would mean "I acknowledge the risks of shielding police from prosecution, but saving officers' lives is worth more. Ergo, we should be at peace with police going unpunished for accidentally killing innocents."--the opposite of AS's position. He favours fewer civilian deaths (or, if you will, "greater liberty to engage the police and be engaged by the police without grave risk") at the expense of more police accountability and, likely, more dead police officers. Public liberty over (police) security, the same as before.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Feb 20, 2019 15:23:18 GMT -5
now he's deciding what other posters mean in their posts. Oh great swami know it all. GMAFB.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 20, 2019 15:27:36 GMT -5
"Well, we all have to go sometime was" your response to out-of-control gun violence in the USA. Whether it's by the police, citizen-on-citizen, or mass shootings, dead is dead. Both are problems in the US that need to be addressed. It seems rather disingenuous to constantly whine about police shootings, but be perfectly fine with everyone packing and shooting each other. Both issues concern a balance of security and liberty, and AS favours (public) liberty in both cases.
In the context of gun control, "We all have to go sometime" is another way of saying "I acknowledge the risks of bearing arms, but the associated liberty is worth more. Ergo, we should be at peace with the risks." In the context of police shootings, "We all have to go sometime" would mean "I acknowledge the risks of shielding police from prosecution, but saving officers' lives is worth more. Ergo, we should be at peace with police going unpunished for accidentally killing innocents."--the opposite of AS's position. He favours fewer civilian deaths (or, if you will, "greater liberty to engage the police and be engaged by the police without grave risk") at the expense of more police accountability and, likely, more dead police officers. Public liberty over (police) security, the same as before. Here is where the two intersect: In a society in which bearing arms is right that is difficult to limit to any meaningful extent, police officers are put in a position that it is more likely that they will encounter an armed individual. A desire for self preservation thus creates a quicker trigger finger. We do need to do a better job of teaching de-escalation skills to police officers.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 20, 2019 16:11:22 GMT -5
"Well, we all have to go sometime was" your response to out-of-control gun violence in the USA. Whether it's by the police, citizen-on-citizen, or mass shootings, dead is dead. Both are problems in the US that need to be addressed. It seems rather disingenuous to constantly whine about police shootings, but be perfectly fine with everyone packing and shooting each other. Both issues concern a balance of security and liberty, and AS favours (public) liberty in both cases.
In the context of gun control, "We all have to go sometime" is another way of saying "I acknowledge the risks of bearing arms, but the associated liberty is worth more. Ergo, we should be at peace with the risks." In the context of police shootings, "We all have to go sometime" would mean "I acknowledge the risks of shielding police from prosecution, but saving officers' lives is worth more. Ergo, we should be at peace with police going unpunished for accidentally killing innocents."--the opposite of AS's position. He favours fewer civilian deaths (or, if you will, "greater liberty to engage the police and be engaged by the police without grave risk") at the expense of more police accountability and, likely, more dead police officers. Public liberty over (police) security, the same as before. Ill thank you not to put words in my mouth. That's not what I meant at all.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 20, 2019 17:45:25 GMT -5
Here is where the two intersect: In a society in which bearing arms is right that is difficult to limit to any meaningful extent, police officers are put in a position that it is more likely that they will encounter an armed individual. A desire for self preservation thus creates a quicker trigger finger. ... Fair point. Both issues concern a balance of security and liberty, and AS favours (public) liberty in both cases.
In the context of gun control, "We all have to go sometime" is another way of saying "I acknowledge the risks of bearing arms, but the associated liberty is worth more. Ergo, we should be at peace with the risks." In the context of police shootings, "We all have to go sometime" would mean "I acknowledge the risks of shielding police from prosecution, but saving officers' lives is worth more. Ergo, we should be at peace with police going unpunished for accidentally killing innocents."--the opposite of AS's position. He favours fewer civilian deaths (or, if you will, "greater liberty to engage the police and be engaged by the police without grave risk") at the expense of more police accountability and, likely, more dead police officers. Public liberty over (police) security, the same as before. Ill thank you not to put words in my mouth. That's not what I meant at all. My post concerns what OldCoyote said, not you. If he disagrees with my interpretation, I'm sure he'll let us know. I was offering an explanation as to why his stance on this issue isn't disingenuous, as you claimed.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 21, 2019 7:30:04 GMT -5
This is a case in point. Here is a case that truly appears to be an tragic accident,, The Prosecutor, easily found she need to be charged,, Too bad she was not a cop,,, after months or years of investigating, it would have been announced the they could not find any thing wrong ,,, no matter what. But because she is not a cop, here she is!!!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 21, 2019 19:21:41 GMT -5
This is a case in point. Here is a case that truly appears to be an tragic accident,, The Prosecutor, easily found she need to be charged,, Too bad she was not a cop,,, after months or years of investigating, it would have been announced the they could not find any thing wrong ,,, no matter what. But because she is not a cop, here she is!!!
Nurses are taught to check all medication names 3 times before administering. That's standard practice and what happened here is the reason for it. That med should have been checked when it was dispensed, before taking it in to the patient's room, and again before administering it. The nurse, in this case, did not follow standard protocol so is, ultimately, responsible for what happened, no matter her good intentions. Whether she's a "cop", or not, has absolutely nothing to do with it. As a nurse, there are lives in your hands. This would never have been dismissed as finding "nothing wrong". Know what you're talking about before you posts things like this, please. The nurse was grossly negligent and the patient is dead because of that negligence.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2019 21:44:55 GMT -5
This is a case in point. Here is a case that truly appears to be an tragic accident,, The Prosecutor, easily found she need to be charged,, Too bad she was not a cop,,, after months or years of investigating, it would have been announced the they could not find any thing wrong ,,, no matter what. But because she is not a cop, here she is!!!
Nurses are taught to check all medication names 3 times before administering. That's standard practice and what happened here is the reason for it. That med should have been checked when it was dispensed, before taking it in to the patient's room, and again before administering it. The nurse, in this case, did not follow standard protocol so is, ultimately, responsible for what happened, no matter her good intentions. Whether she's a "cop", or not, has absolutely nothing to do with it. As a nurse, there are lives in your hands. This would never have been dismissed as finding "nothing wrong". Know what you're talking about before you posts things like this, please. The nurse was grossly negligent and the patient is dead because of that negligence. I agree with most of your post, but your rebuke at the end is unfair. AS is emphasizing that accidental deaths resulting from negligence in any other career--such as nursing--are met with the full force of the law, while negligent behaviour by police (and frankly, "negligence" is too generous an assessment in many cases) routinely goes unpunished.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 21, 2019 23:49:22 GMT -5
No, Virgil Showlion, my remark is not unfair. I know the rules/laws that apply to nurses providing care to patients. AS does not. Therefore, AS is responsible to do his research before making comparisons that not only don't hold water, but don't evidence a grain of subject knowledge. When I see that kind of thing, I will call it out. I don't make comment on AS's business practices because I don't know anything about the rules and regulations that apply to that business. AS has no idea of rules and regulations that apply to the profession of nursing. This was not, as AS claimed, "a tragic accident". This was gross negligence and, in the case of a nurse, will always be handled as a very, very serious matter. As to what's done with police matters, I'll not be arrogant enough to announce my bottomless cornucopia of knowledge concerning such. I'm not cognizant of those matters and will gladly admit that. What's fair is to watch what you call "a tragic accident" and be sure, before you post, it is, indeed, a tragic accident and not something punishable under the law.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 22, 2019 10:09:02 GMT -5
Nurses are taught to check all medication names 3 times before administering. That's standard practice and what happened here is the reason for it. That med should have been checked when it was dispensed, before taking it in to the patient's room, and again before administering it. The nurse, in this case, did not follow standard protocol so is, ultimately, responsible for what happened, no matter her good intentions. Whether she's a "cop", or not, has absolutely nothing to do with it. As a nurse, there are lives in your hands. This would never have been dismissed as finding "nothing wrong". Know what you're talking about before you posts things like this, please. The nurse was grossly negligent and the patient is dead because of that negligence. I agree with most of your post, but your rebuke at the end is unfair. AS is emphasizing that accidental deaths resulting from negligence in any other career--such as nursing--are met with the full force of the law, while negligent behaviour by police (and frankly, "negligence" is too generous an assessment in many cases) routinely goes unpunished. Thank You Virgil!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 22, 2019 10:31:31 GMT -5
No, Virgil Showlion , my remark is not unfair. I know the rules/laws that apply to nurses providing care to patients. AS does not. Therefore, AS is responsible to do his research before making comparisons that not only don't hold water, but don't evidence a grain of subject knowledge. When I see that kind of thing, I will call it out. I don't make comment on AS's business practices because I don't know anything about the rules and regulations that apply to that business. AS has no idea of rules and regulations that apply to the profession of nursing. This was not, as AS claimed, "a tragic accident". This was gross negligence and, in the case of a nurse, will always be handled as a very, very serious matter. As to what's done with police matters, I'll not be arrogant enough to announce my bottomless cornucopia of knowledge concerning such. I'm not cognizant of those matters and will gladly admit that. What's fair is to watch what you call "a tragic accident" and be sure, before you post, it is, indeed, a tragic accident and not something punishable under the law. I am glad you posted this, Double, triple checked ?? when police go to a wrong address, kick in the door , kill the dog, kill the husband, kill the wife,,
Suppose some one should have checked the address two, three times?? Highly trained police??, How many time were they told check the background, make sure every thing is clear ,, them, shoot a bunch of by standers! Or the "caring " police that taser a man eleven time, when he is not resisting,,, Even going to the point ripping the handcuff man's pants down!!! Tasing the man's testicles... The police did nothing except fora short suspension,,,, until 1 1/2 years later, only after the news got a hold of in!! The nurse on the other hand,, Instant,, career death sentence, and now a bunch of legal problems,,, for an accident!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2019 13:04:46 GMT -5
No, Virgil Showlion , my remark is not unfair. I know the rules/laws that apply to nurses providing care to patients. AS does not. Therefore, AS is responsible to do his research before making comparisons that not only don't hold water, but don't evidence a grain of subject knowledge. When I see that kind of thing, I will call it out. I don't make comment on AS's business practices because I don't know anything about the rules and regulations that apply to that business. AS has no idea of rules and regulations that apply to the profession of nursing. This was not, as AS claimed, "a tragic accident". This was gross negligence and, in the case of a nurse, will always be handled as a very, very serious matter. As to what's done with police matters, I'll not be arrogant enough to announce my bottomless cornucopia of knowledge concerning such. I'm not cognizant of those matters and will gladly admit that. What's fair is to watch what you call "a tragic accident" and be sure, before you post, it is, indeed, a tragic accident and not something punishable under the law. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that something cannot be both a tragic accident and gross negligence. Moreover, if you don't consider the death tragic or you don't believe the nurse killed the woman accidentally, let us know.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 22, 2019 18:15:00 GMT -5
No, Virgil Showlion , my remark is not unfair. I know the rules/laws that apply to nurses providing care to patients. AS does not. Therefore, AS is responsible to do his research before making comparisons that not only don't hold water, but don't evidence a grain of subject knowledge. When I see that kind of thing, I will call it out. I don't make comment on AS's business practices because I don't know anything about the rules and regulations that apply to that business. AS has no idea of rules and regulations that apply to the profession of nursing. This was not, as AS claimed, "a tragic accident". This was gross negligence and, in the case of a nurse, will always be handled as a very, very serious matter. As to what's done with police matters, I'll not be arrogant enough to announce my bottomless cornucopia of knowledge concerning such. I'm not cognizant of those matters and will gladly admit that. What's fair is to watch what you call "a tragic accident" and be sure, before you post, it is, indeed, a tragic accident and not something punishable under the law. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that something cannot be both a tragic accident and gross negligence. Moreover, if you don't consider the death tragic or you don't believe the nurse killed the woman accidentally, let us know. If I had failed to check my medications before giving them to a patient it would not have been an "accident". It would have been gross negligence. I know, in advance, the rules regarding patient medication. If I choose not to follow those rules, the result is not an accident. It's a direct result of the choice I made - knowing that choice was not safe. I won't even bother with your final blather. You see this one way and I see it another. I am a nurse. You are not. Had I done such a thing I would fully have expected to be brought before the court.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 22, 2019 18:21:42 GMT -5
No, Virgil Showlion , my remark is not unfair. I know the rules/laws that apply to nurses providing care to patients. AS does not. Therefore, AS is responsible to do his research before making comparisons that not only don't hold water, but don't evidence a grain of subject knowledge. When I see that kind of thing, I will call it out. I don't make comment on AS's business practices because I don't know anything about the rules and regulations that apply to that business. AS has no idea of rules and regulations that apply to the profession of nursing. This was not, as AS claimed, "a tragic accident". This was gross negligence and, in the case of a nurse, will always be handled as a very, very serious matter. As to what's done with police matters, I'll not be arrogant enough to announce my bottomless cornucopia of knowledge concerning such. I'm not cognizant of those matters and will gladly admit that. What's fair is to watch what you call "a tragic accident" and be sure, before you post, it is, indeed, a tragic accident and not something punishable under the law. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that something cannot be both a tragic accident and gross negligence. Moreover, if you don't consider the death tragic or you don't believe the nurse killed the woman accidentally, let us know. Killing a patient with the wrong meds is not an accident.Like Mmhmm said, it's gross negligence.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2019 19:47:28 GMT -5
accidentn. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads. n. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion. n. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident. n. An unexpected event with negative consequences occurring without the intention of the one suffering the consequences. n. An unintended event such as a collision that causes damage or death. n. An unplanned event that results in injury (including death) or occupational illness to person(s) and/or damage to property, exclusive of injury and/or damage caused by action of an enemy or hostile force. I can go on. Now, for all I know, "accident" has some esoteric, connotative meaning in nursing whereby no death resulting from negligence can be called "accidental". However, as you yourself just finished pointing out, AS would have no knowledge of this esoteric usage, nor would the readership, nor should any of us be expected to. By the definitions accessible to him, me, and everyone else on this public message board, to call the death a "tragic accident" is 100% correct, comports 100% with the authoritative definitions, and to rebuke him for misuse is, at the very least, unfair. You're at fault here; not him. If none of this is news to you, your error was in not passively explaining, "We need to be careful about using the term 'accident' to describe negligence, since in nursing..." sans rebuke or sanctimony. My $0.02. Thank you for your consideration.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 22, 2019 20:55:55 GMT -5
Let me put it this way, Virgil: If you drive your car down the wrong side of the freeway at 100 miles per hour, and hit another car resulting in the deaths of a family of four, you will be charged with vehicular homicide. That's not an accident. It's a wreck, but not an accident. Why? Because it shouldn't be unexpected. If you drive down the wrong side of the freeway at 100 mph, you can most certainly expect to cause damage, or harm. The law in this country sees medication errors in exactly that way.
When you have your law degree AND your nursing license, please remember to share your unique knowledge with us all. That goes for AS, as well. You have no clue what definition would be applied by "everyone on this public message board" in this situation. While it might come as a surprise to you, some folks know more about the matter than you do. If you're not versed in a subject, it might be better not to make judgments against those who are.
I'll refund your $0.02 and ask you not to share any more of it with me.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 23, 2019 1:53:06 GMT -5
Your $0.02 notwithstanding, meds are supposed to be checked multiple times. If a nurse doesn't check, double check and triple check, it's not an accident. It's negligence. Nothing accidental about it.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 23, 2019 6:57:04 GMT -5
Your $0.02 notwithstanding, meds are supposed to be checked multiple times. If a nurse doesn't check, double check and triple check, it's not an accident. It's negligence. Nothing accidental about it. Hmmmmm, too bad police don't have some kinda of a same policy ,, like check an address two three times before they go in guns blazing!! Oh well civilians are the only one held accountable for accidents,, and on purposes!! It appears that the nurses here could give the police some lessons on policing of their own,,
Hmmmmm, wonder if they would continue that maintain Standard if they were also the only one's that hold the evidence,,,,, Annnnd do their own investigation??
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 23, 2019 13:53:04 GMT -5
Let me put it this way, Virgil: If you drive your car down the wrong side of the freeway at 100 miles per hour, and hit another car resulting in the deaths of a family of four, you will be charged with vehicular homicide. That's not an accident. It's a wreck, but not an accident. Why? Because it shouldn't be unexpected. If you drive down the wrong side of the freeway at 100 mph, you can most certainly expect to cause damage, or harm. The law in this country sees medication errors in exactly that way. Firstly, AS never said the nurse shouldn't be charged with negligent homicide. His core thesis in this thread is that police should be charged with negligent homicide.
Secondly, driving 100mph down the wrong side of a highway presents a risk of death thousands (if not millions) of times greater than not checking the label on a medication bottle three times, hence one can easily dismiss your analogy on this basis alone.
Thirdly, some people would indeed still call the speeding incident an accident (particularly those sympathetic to the driver in the wrong lane), and could do so justifiably given the formal definition of the word. Finally, assuming the highway incident wasn't precipitated by some factor beyond the control of the driver (e.g. a stroke), driving down the wrong side of the road is a very purposeful and deliberate act of commission, while failing to check the label on a bottle of medication three times is sine qua non an error of omission. While the law may not distinguish between these in any given circumstance, the English language (vis a vis "accidental") certainly does.
I don't need either to read a dictionary.
Precisely why dictionaries exist. To give us the universally accepted definition of a word in public contexts, such as a message board.
You are in error for assuming (in fact, insisting) that AS use the nursing-specific definition of "accident", if there even is such a thing. You're also breaking your own express rule against presuming the meaning of AS's statement in a situation where you have no standing to do so. Your expertise in nursing doesn't give you carte blanche to unquestioningly interpret his remarks in the context of your choice, or even to gainsay his judgment on whether the nurse's actions morally constitute negligence, for that matter, if it turns out he disagrees with you.
You could have used his statement as an opportunity to teach and enlighten, but instead you're wielding your expertise like a cudgel.
|
|