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 23, 2019 15:19:32 GMT -5
There ya go mmhmm, it's been "mansplained" for you and "mansplained" why you, a licensed nurse with decades of experience are wrong, yet 2 men who have no experience are right. Don't you feel better and more "educated" now? *dripping in sarcasm*
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 23, 2019 15:49:05 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.
Oh, for God's sake, Virgil! Despite your logorrhea, we ARE teaching and enlightening. You're the one who is wielding your excessive elocution like a cudgel. One more time with feeling....nurses are supposed to check, double check and triple check before administering medication. If they don't, and a patient dies, IT'S GROSS NEGLIGENCE. Nothing accidental about it.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 23, 2019 15:51:55 GMT -5
There ya go mmhmm , it's been "mansplained" for you and "mansplained" why you, a licensed nurse with decades of experience are wrong, yet 2 men who have no experience are right. Don't you feel better and more "educated" now? *dripping in sarcasm*
Well, I certainly do! If I kill a patient through gross negligence, it's good to know it could be chalked up to an accident....like hitting a moose on the highway. "Ooops! Couldn't be helped! Next patient!!"
|
|
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 23, 2019 16:06:42 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.
Whatever, Virgil. I'll not indulge you further. Prattle on if you must about that which you do not (perhaps, will not) understand. To be frank, it's beneath me.
|
|
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 24, 2019 0:34:40 GMT -5
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.
Whatever, Virgil. I'll not indulge you further. Prattle on if you must about that which you do not (perhaps, will not) understand. To be frank, it's beneath me. You had no valid argument. You have no valid counterargument. I did my best. Agreed to disagree. We're off topic anyway. OldCoyote: If you wish to remain a member of the Society for the Prevention of 'Accidental' Misuse (SPAM), you must pay a fine of 30 'likes' and are heretofore prohibited from referring to Ms. Murphy's death as "accidental". Furthermore, you must delete the link to the MSN article--which inappropriately refers to Ms. Vaught's conduct as "tragic", "a mistake", "an error", and terms otherwise implying Ms. Murphy's death was unintentional--within 30 days of issuance of this notice. Failure to comply will result in additional virtue signaling and sarcastic quips.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 1, 2019 8:06:41 GMT -5
I want to take time here to thank all the police officers for their continued support with the never end stream of material for My thread!!! Then the other officer destroying evidence,, Wooooo Hoooo way to go guy's!!! The most suprising event here is the fact that the Dept. actually investigated this,,, in a some what timely manner!!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 1, 2019 8:13:14 GMT -5
Yep, no charges even after the police change their story many times,,,, The officer will not be charges,,, even though the victim was shot three times in the back,,,
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 1, 2019 8:24:58 GMT -5
The PJ lady Justine Damond, who was shot by police officer Noor, still does not have justice!! Believe it or not this cop still has not come to trial!!!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 1, 2019 8:47:40 GMT -5
Hmmm, one of the officer involved in this shooting , is being sued for another shooting,,,, Officer McMahon, who has been on the force for more than seven years, shot an unarmed black father of two just last year. On 13 February 2018, McMahon stopped Ronnell Foster, 32, who was riding his bike in downtown Vallejo. Foster fled toward an alley, prompting McMahon to chase after him and strike him over the head with a flashlight, according to a federal complaint.
McMahon eventually shot Foster several times in the back and the back of his head.
The department claimed McMahon fired the fatal shots after Foster took the officer’s flashlight and raised it in a threatening manner, but an eyewitness disputed that account. The complaint noted there was no evidence that the officer was injured in any way, and when he called in the shooting to dispatch, his only statement was that Foster had fled from him.
It is unclear why McMahon followed or stopped Foster in the first place.
|
|
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 Mar 2, 2019 11:54:47 GMT -5
You CANNOT take someone with an 85 IQ and a GED-level education, poor reasoning skills, limited communication skills, essential cowardice, impulse control and anger management problems, addiction to sex/drugs/alcohol, and a deep-seated pathological need to bully and abuse and give them some minimal training, a badge, a gun, and almost absolute immunity and unaccountability and expect them to go out into the community and perform as professional peace officers who chose to protect and serve. It simply CANNOT happen. It DOES NOT happen. And we read about it every single day.
Amadeus Jones
If you narrowed any police force down to its members with 85 IQ, GED level education, poor reasoning skills, limited communication skills, essential cowardice, impulse control and anger management problems, addiction to sex/drugs/alcohol, and a deep-seated pathological need to bully and abuse, you'd be looking at fewer than 1 in 1,000 officers. Even limiting the critera to 85 IQ, poor communication skills, and pathological need to abuse, I'd be shocked if more than 1 in 20 officers qualified on a typical force.
Lack of police accountability is a serious problem, but don't tar all officers with the same brush. The world has enough problems without us blowing them way out of perspective.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 3, 2019 8:42:08 GMT -5
Under the Public Records Request, received a list of 12,000 police officers that bent or broke the law!!! But California Attorney General Xavier Becerra wants to keep it covered up!!! Police investigating police, Works every time!!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 3, 2019 10:42:43 GMT -5
From your link: On Jan. 8, both men received two files containing a spreadsheet with 12,000 names. It included officers and applicants convicted of a crime, but as Lewis said, it also “included current and former peace officers and applicants, and individuals who applied and went through part of the process and then got rejected.” It is an interesting situation worth getting the accurate details from your link.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 6, 2019 8:28:39 GMT -5
This happened almost five years ago, no mention on why it came to light now. Is this another case where the Dept. knew about it all along, only did something when a news story breaks??
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 7, 2019 6:58:39 GMT -5
Oh brother,, saw a flash, that is why these two police officers sent twenty round down range, Annnnd most of the bullets hit him in the back!! So, holding a cell phone is the same as armed and dangerous.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 7, 2019 7:08:00 GMT -5
It does leave me frustrated, in the fact, I could post almost every day, where police officers lie, beat some one,
repeated taser some one even to the point of pulling down their pants shocking their testicles,, the number of people that are unarmed, doing nothing wrong, killed on the front porch,, shoot them in the back,, the dept. and prosecutor cover it up for long periods of time,, until it becomes a brief news story!! Annnd We the public that they are doing this to, totally ignore it!!! Yet if Trump mis spells a word on tweeter,, the World erupts in indignation,,
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 6,961
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Mar 7, 2019 7:17:20 GMT -5
It does leave me frustrated, in the fact, I could post almost every day, where police officers lie, beat some one,
repeated taser some one even to the point of pulling down their pants shocking their testicles,, the number of people that are unarmed, doing nothing wrong, killed on the front porch,, shoot them in the back,, the dept. and prosecutor cover it up for long periods of time,, until it becomes a brief news story!! Annnd We the public that they are doing this to, totally ignore it!!! Yet if Trump mis spells a word on tweeter,, the World erupts in indignation,,
Probably because most of us have had good experiences with police officers and no good experiences with Trump. Really they all need cameras that they can't turn off, and an independent third party needs to review the footage any time there is a shooting.
|
|
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 Mar 7, 2019 7:40:46 GMT -5
It does leave me frustrated, in the fact, I could post almost every day, where police officers lie, beat some one,
repeated taser some one even to the point of pulling down their pants shocking their testicles,, the number of people that are unarmed, doing nothing wrong, killed on the front porch,, shoot them in the back,, the dept. and prosecutor cover it up for long periods of time,, until it becomes a brief news story!! Annnd We the public that they are doing this to, totally ignore it!!! Yet if Trump mis spells a word on tweeter,, the World erupts in indignation,,
If it makes you feel any better, "we the public" ignore pretty much every earthly injustice--including those that claim millions of lives--whenever Pres. Trump misspells a word on Tweeter. People prefer to direct their anger at individual people and tangible things. It's hard to shake one's fist at war in Kashmir or a cloud of nameless, negligent police officers in the US.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 7, 2019 8:11:10 GMT -5
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 6,961
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Mar 8, 2019 6:37:38 GMT -5
|
|
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 Mar 8, 2019 7:35:37 GMT -5
For this one, I'm on the police's side--narrowly. I suspect they could have done more to de-escalate the situation. But generally speaking: if you're approached by an officer, you're holding something, and he insists you put it down? Put it down. It's not an unreasonable demand by a peace officer. I don't care if I'm at the barbecue in my back yard, spatula in hand, surrounded by a cloud of friends and family: an officer asks, I put down the spatula. Citizens have a responsibility to comply with reasonable demands and de-escalate too, no matter how "in the right" we may be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 6:13:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 8:49:26 GMT -5
Oh brother,, saw a flash, that is why these two police officers sent twenty round down range, Annnnd most of the bullets hit him in the back!! So, holding a cell phone is the same as armed and dangerous.
This is a while ago, 30 years ? A person I went to school with was currently the chief of police in a neighboring town west of Chicago. All the town's bordering the North West side of Chicago pooled their resources for special weapons and tactics. It was/is called NIPIS. I was fortunate enough to be able to take the complete training course in the evening. It includes live fire and a laser course, plus a multi screen situational training area. I 'graduated' in the top ten percent. With that background, my take on this... In regards to this young man, in an arrest situation, carrying a possible weapon, ignoring officer directive. These officers have a job responsibility to protect the public. Which includes him possibly, actually carrying a weapon and running from just robbing, killing someone ? How do they know he isn't going to kick his way into the next house over and take/ kill hostages ? The police have legal right to detain or do what's necessary in an arrest situation. If you run in an arrest situation, the game changes with often serious consequence. Police officers aren't social workers, they are the last line in enforcment.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 8, 2019 8:57:42 GMT -5
These officers have a job responsibility to protect the public.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 6:13:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 9:47:08 GMT -5
These officers have a job responsibility to protect the public.
For every officer who makes a mistake, shouldn't have the job as a police officer ? Is balanced off by a tidal wave of those who do the job correctly. All that needs to be posted, is the number of arrests where something bad doesn't happen, in comparison, by frequency.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 6:13:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 10:17:25 GMT -5
These officers have a job responsibility to protect the public.
For every officer who makes a mistake, shouldn't have the job as a police officer ? Is balanced off by a tidal wave of those who do the job correctly. All that needs to be posted, is the number of arrests where something bad doesn't happen, in comparison, by frequency. Believe me, you aren't going to get any kind of debate or thought out counterpoint on this, its been tried, you will just get more articles with exclamation points. ymam.proboards.com/thread/54115/police?page=2
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 8, 2019 10:36:53 GMT -5
These officers have a job responsibility to protect the public.
For every officer who makes a mistake, shouldn't have the job as a police officer ? Is balanced off by a tidal wave of those who do the job correctly. All that needs to be posted, is the number of arrests where something bad doesn't happen, in comparison, by frequency. I think that some of the situations which OldCoyote posts about are officers who truly made a mistake but not all. Some are concerning officers who commit crimes. I see a legitimate concern with criminals wearing a police uniform and not being held accountable for their crimes. Billions of people aren't going to murder anyone today. I am not going to give those who do a free pass because of it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 6:13:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 13:49:06 GMT -5
For every officer who makes a mistake, shouldn't have the job as a police officer ? Is balanced off by a tidal wave of those who do the job correctly. All that needs to be posted, is the number of arrests where something bad doesn't happen, in comparison, by frequency. I think that some of the situations which OldCoyote posts about are officers who truly made a mistake but not all. Some are concerning officers who commit crimes. I see a legitimate concern with criminals wearing a police uniform and not being held accountable for their crimes. Billions of people aren't going to murder anyone today. I am not going to give those who do a free pass because of it. To my perspective he seems to be attempting to affect a blanket policy because of a few bad cops. I agree that there is an element of criminality in all walks of life, including cops. I also agree that all instances should be looked into. However, most of those instances of deadly force, are officers doing their job correctly. Throwing in the media hype du jour, will not help the situation. As in "this man was shot while in his grandma's yard" doesn't accurately describe what was happening. It's designed to rile the viewer enough to tune back in later, for the latest developments on this, and of course up the viewer count ratings.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 8, 2019 15:25:41 GMT -5
... To my perspective he seems to be attempting to affect a blanket policy because of a few bad cops. I agree that there is an element of criminality in all walks of life, including cops. I also agree that all instances should be looked into. ... I agree that OldCoyote is looking for a "blanket policy" which would mean that the police don't investigate the police. I agree with him that some of the cases that he brings up are good examples of police officers getting too much benefit of the doubt when charges aren't filed. Some are really difficult calls (and a few are an extreme stretch).[/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 6:13:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2019 12:13:32 GMT -5
... To my perspective he seems to be attempting to affect a blanket policy because of a few bad cops. I agree that there is an element of criminality in all walks of life, including cops. I also agree that all instances should be looked into. ... I agree that OldCoyote is looking for a "blanket policy" which would mean that the police don't investigate the police. I agree with him that some of the cases that he brings up are good examples of police officers getting too much benefit of the doubt when charges aren't filed. Some are really difficult calls (and a few are an extreme stretch). [/quote] internal affairs are already separate from the police force. The problem is more in the terms used. Another organization of some type would still be policing the police.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 9, 2019 12:36:17 GMT -5
I agree that OldCoyote is looking for a "blanket policy" which would mean that the police don't investigate the police. I agree with him that some of the cases that he brings up are good examples of police officers getting too much benefit of the doubt when charges aren't filed. Some are really difficult calls (and a few are an extreme stretch). internal affairs are already separate from the police force. The problem is more in the terms used. Another organization of some type would still be policing the police. The prosecutor's office is "separate" also but relies heavily on the police force to help them do their job. I think police policing is just an impossible task in an imperfect world. I salute OldCoyote for keeping the heat on when it appears that someone in uniform is getting away with murder, even if at times he gets a little carried away.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 9, 2019 12:49:28 GMT -5
.... As far as coyote, I believe hyping those % of rare cases, doesn't really help, might even hurt. you don't seem to be aware of this so I want to point it out. We are posting on a small backwater message board. Anything that is said here has zero impact on the world.
|
|