Woman Jailed After Reporting Being Raped

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Donegeal
We'd be opening ourselves to alot more lawsuits if we just let them have the stuff. Imagine the headline "Man dies of Cocaine overdose from drugs given by officers!".

We get sued all the time. I bet 90-95% get dismissed or never make it past the lawyers (as no one will take their cases).

I'm talking about a serious lawsuit. If this lady gets pregnant then the department could easily be on the hook for child support. If the officer did not follow policy in denying access to this woman's medication then he shoul be reprimanded/fired.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Krill
And if the guy you arrested died from an asthma attack?

damn

It's a tricky situation. For me, all I'd have to do is point at the policy and say "I was following policy WCSD 301.576."

Sure the county might be held liable, but not me. And this is also why I don't like to write policy (I'll help, but I won't write). Much too tricky.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Imagine the headline "Man dies of Cocaine overdose from drugs given by officers!".

"Man dies of asthma attack after officer snatches his inhaler!"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Donegeal

Sure the county might be held liable, but not me. And this is also why I don't like to write policy (I'll help, but I won't write). Much too tricky.

Again, if the officer was following policy here then nothing should happen to him individually. Even if he wasn't, then police departments usually cover the lawsuit costs, but there should be serious professional consequences for him.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I'm talking about a serious lawsuit. If this lady gets pregnant then the department could easily be on the hook for child support. If the officer did not follow policy in denying access to this woman's medication then he shoul be reprimanded/fired.

I'm not sure about the child support thing, but if the officer did follow policy, then it's possible that the department might not be held responsable because policy was followed, but I don't know.

Now if the officer did not follow policy, then the department might be held responsable for employing someone who would not follow policy, and the officer in question should be fired/disciplined (based on past job performance).

[KrazyHorse]

if the officer did follow policy, then it's possible that the department might not be held responsable because policy was followed

Actually, if this was a result of an officer properly following departmental policy then the department becomes more liable for the consequences, not less. If the officer disobeyed policy then more of the liability falls on his shoulders and less on the department's. The distribution of liability between officer and department is, as I said, usually moot because the department will cover costs and penalties which are the result of an officer's actions in the line of duty, even if they were against regulations.

[KrazyHorse]

If a police department sets a policy which says that blacks are to be shot on sight it does not mean that wrongful death lawsuits brought as a result of this can be dismissed because policy was properly followed. Police department policies do not have force of law any more than do the policies of other employers. If an employer crafts a ****ty policy and this causes harm to somebody then the employer is on the hook for the consequences.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
"Man dies of asthma attack after officer snatches his inhaler!"

We do have oxygen on hand. And pre-RN-approved inhalers at the Jail (plus the county hospital is right across the street).

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If a police department sets a policy which says that blacks are to be shot on sight it does not mean that wrongful death lawsuits brought as a result of this can be dismissed because policy was properly followed. Police department policies do not have force of law any more than do the policies of other employers. If an employer crafts a ****ty policy and this causes harm to somebody then the employer is on the hook for the consequences.

This is where your agrument about a department covering legal cost of an out of line officer falls apart. Departments have been known to go after out of line officers, as would most likey happen in the outrageous example you have described.

Just remember that the officers out on the street are not the guys that write policy. Sargeants, Luitenants, Captians and Administrators are generally the ones writting policy (and at my department, they have to get approved by the Sheriff, a democraticly elected official).

[Arrian]

She shoulda paid the restitution. I'll buy that the cops had to arrest her - outstanding warrant means arrest. That flies.

Denial of the pill is another matter. Perhaps more facts will come out, but at this point it looks dodgy as hell.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Donegeal


This is where your agrument about a department covering legal cost of an out of line officer falls apart. Departments have been known to go after out of line officers, as would most likey happen in the outrageous example you have described.

Err....actually, in my example, it was the department which was out of line. What I was saying was that departments can't write policies which result in needless harm and expect to get away with a defence of "but policy was followed". The liability of the department increases when policy was followed and harm still resulted.

Just remember that the officers out on the street are not the guys that write policy. Sargeants, Luitenants, Captians and Administrators are generally the ones writting policy (and at my department, they have to get approved by the Sheriff, a democraticly elected official).

Who's arguing with this? My point is simply that a blanket prohibition on medications for the first 12 hours after arrest (or however long the nurse is not around) is going to lead to a serious risk of unnecessary harm. If departmental poliy does not take extraordinary situations like this one into account when writing policy then they're going to end up paying through the nose when something like this happens.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Arrian
She shoulda paid the restitution. I'll buy that the cops had to arrest her - outstanding warrant means arrest. That flies.

Yeah, I have no problem with this.

Denial of the pill is another matter. Perhaps more facts will come out, but at this point it looks dodgy as hell.

-Arrian

Exactly my point. If she asked for the pill and attempted to make the officer aware of the importance of getting it in a timely manner, then either that officer or the department or both are in the jackpot.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Just the other day I had to snatch someone's inhaler out of their hands when they were trying to take some after they were arrested. Sure it turned out to actually be an abuteral inhaler, but at the time how did I know the thing wasn't laced with some other drug?

Wow. Your policy is completely ****ed up.

[Donegeal]

How am I to know what is in the inhaler? Is it really just an abuteral inhaler, just because he says it is? Should I go around assuming everything is as it appears? If I did that, I'd be dead, and my personal safety is paramount to just about everything else.

[Kuciwalker]

DD's counterexample completely destroys that policy. If you withhold vital medication from someone and he dies you killed him.

And hell, if someone knows being caught means they'll be denied the medication that they might need to not die, that would be a good incentive to resist arrest.