Separate names with a comma.
Welcome to Oklahoma Shooters Association! Join today, registration is easy!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by OKCHunter, Apr 12, 2021.
And again there is a process to address this if the officer was wrong, lying, or mishandling her.
So, were the other cops in the video "good cops"?
This went on for 2 hours before she was arrested. Some research as you suggested. https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/eye-...onscious-drunk-drivers-L2TLpX8xG0-FfxEJk6tFFA
How did this all resolve? I saw in a comment that the Lt was fired and she got $500k. Is that accurate?
Here's the process results:
We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong. Now screw off and let us go back to doing anything we want.
Not sure what you are trying to relay here? It went on for 2 hours because neither party would budge. The officer was asking the nurse to break the law and thus she possibly could've lost her license.
Not sure why you posted that the Supreme Court found it's lawful 2 years after this incident?
It looks to me like: 1) the LEO that cuffed nurse was fired. 2) Nurse got $500k and 3) the LEO's supervisor was demoted from Lt to patrol officer.
How do you think it should have been resolved?
That all happen precisely because she did NOT go along with what was demanded... She fought the illegality the whole way. The comment I was addressing seemed to be saying she should have gone along with the illegal bullcrap and sorted it later after infringing on someone's rights.
It will go along with the hospital/police department/policy change from this incident along with the officers lawsuit.. If he loses Ill go ahead and agree Yipee one for your side.
She was breaking her jobs policy policy policy. Could Could Could lose license.
Not seemed to be saying. Was saying Did say. You almost got it
Sentence fragments......not not not making total sense.
I don't have a side here. The policy was agreed upon between the two entities. The officer and his supervisor shouldn't have tried to unlawfully compromise this policy. Seems the courts and the their higher ups agreed.
Speaking of research, one should question why they were so insistent on getting the blood? The poor bastard was a victim of a nasty auto collision where the State police were chasing an individual that crashed into the victim. Again, why so insistent on the blood? Trying to displace blame much?
I'm all for backing the blue within reason, but this whole scenario was complete BS from the start.
A neat article on "implied consent" the officer was basing his lawsuit on...... doesn't look good.