Thank GOD those brave officers were willing to protect the populace of Kansas City and serve the citizenry so responsibly.
I wish police training impressed upon candidates that they are not the judicial system, and therefore any situation they are in should be treated only on the basis of what is presently happening. Obviously, if you run a plate and you've got a hot car, murder charges, etc., that's one thing. But not the rap sheet she had.
However, I'm extremely dismayed that she filed a wrongful death suit. I get so nervous every time shit like that happens.
> However, I'm extremely dismayed that she filed a wrongful death suit. I get so nervous every time shit like that happens.
Why does it dismay you? Because she may have miscarried whether she was imprisoned overnight or not, or because she was only three months pregnant and it's another step down the 'abortion == murder' slippery slope, or..?
(I hope this doesn't sound confrontational; I'm genuinely curious what aspect of it dismays you.)
Salva becomes upset after officers take awhile to get her identifying information. "I have a baby in my stomach and I'm bleeding and I open my underwear for you to see," she says.
The officers handcuff Salva after learning she has outstanding city warrants for mistreatment of children, trespassing, driving while suspended and other traffic violations.
Deliberately playing devil's advocate, here. She was clearly not bleeding at all profusely - if she was in a position where she'd have to -pull down her underwear- to show that she was bleeding, this is not visible enough that an officer would be expected to see it.
Someone with that many outstanding violations is not someone whose word I would take, were I average joe cop, and I have to say I fully expect they'd have treated the situation differently were she actually -visibly bleeding- instead of - as far as they could tell - simply claiming she was.
In fact, if I were the cop in this case and had a woman with multiple outstanding warrants asking me to *check inside her underwear*, I would be scared SHITLESS that the result would be a sexual abuse charge.
I would be more concerned with processing officers at the jail than the arresting officers, myself - since I'm fairly certain it's standard procedure to check someone for weapons before putting them in a cell, and since they would have much more time, reason, and ability to actually check her claim. That she was arrested doesn't surprise me - the surprising part is that it took them until the next day and her passing a blood clot to at least get her a medical exam.
And wrongful death on a three-month-old fetus is fucked up; I'm certain there's something more appropriate for 'assault/interference causing a miscarriage'.
I was going to comment, but I think I'll just go with "What he said". I'm usually pretty hard on the cops, but in these circumstances I think the arresting officers did, if not the right thing, at least nothing that could be easily criticized.
That doesn't change the fact that the bleeding wouldn't have been visible, and that in order to see it they'd have had to be investigating inside her underwear, something I fervently hope they'd be reluctant to do.
Just because the bleeding isn't visable does not make it real though. IMO they should have escorted her to the hospital, and stayed with her there. That way when the docter got her stabilized they could have taken her in Then. There are so many things that can go wrong in a pregnancy, ignoring it like this was just -wrong-
Now, does it earn wrongful death? No. But it Does earn a lawsuit. They put her life in danger. A miscarriage can be deadly, even if the bleeding starts out light. It takes very little time for an infection to form from rotten fetal tissue.
My point being that if a charge of sexual assault was a genuine concern, then have her examined by a couple of women before making the decision whether or not to take her to the hospital. That's usually how those kinds of security issues are handled in not-on-crack jurisdictions.
Yeah, she had priors, but fuck, it's not like only upstanding citizens ever get knocked up or have health problems.
Here here. Having a criminal record does not justify them risking your life or health permanently on a bench warrent. Look at that Florida woman who was arrested after being raped. Mabey if her warrent was for a school shooting where she killed a dozen kids and may have more hostage somewhere, but not a bunch of old nonviolent stuff.
My point being that if a charge of sexual assault was a genuine concern, then have her examined by a couple of women before making the decision whether or not to take her to the hospital.
Absolutely. At the jail. When arresting someone on the road, you don't have the time, resources, proficiency, or (I would hope) authorization to conduct a medical exam on a woman to decide whether she's taken to the hospital or the lockup. You arrest her - particularly with a list of priors like that - you get her to lockup, and you let *THEM* examine her.
As I said, if anyone's at fault it's not the arresting officers.
No, you take them to the hospital, let them examine her, and if she's trying to pull a fast one you charge her with public mischief or whatever the penalty is for wasting the cops' time.
What you do not do is willfully endanger the life of a woman who may be hemorrhaging.
Sorry, did you not say "My point being that if a charge of sexual assault was a genuine concern, then have her examined by a couple of women before making the decision whether or not to take her to the hospital.?"(Emphasis mine)
Pick one. Taking her to the hospital first would have been another option for the arresting officers, but - again, as I said - they had aboslutely no visible evidence that she was telling the truth, no reason to believe she would be telling them the truth, and no way to verify her claim without either taking her to the hospital or getting her to officers who did have the time and authorization to perform that kind of check.
Changing your tune doesn't change that what the arresting officers did was probably the right thing to do.
Again, no, you're wrong, here. The correct thing to do is take her to the hospital, just like if she'd complained of chest pains or being suddenly blind in one eye or unable to feel her legs at all. Arrest, escort to hospital, let the doctors examine and treat her, and pick her up again when she's discharged. This is STANDARD PROCEDURE. It's also perfectly sensible.
I guess you're not a doctor. Neither am I, but I'll be one in a year, and I'm taking gynecology right now.
A woman bleeding lightly from a miscarriage can, at any time and especially that late in pregnancy, start to bleed profusely.
I'm not saying they should have let her go, but I am saying they should have taken her to the hospital. Unless, of course, those cops had the competence to examine and diagnose a bleeding pregnant woman. I think they didn't have that competence.
See comment above. The arresting officers had absolutely no reason to believe her, and every reason to fear that she might have been lying or trying to do something that could look *very* bad. An exam should have been conducted before she was put in a cell, definitely, and she should have been taken to a hospital then, but it's very hard for me to find fault with the street cops in this case.
Cops who play doctors are always bad, and I think that was what they did.
That's the reason cops are not allowed to imprison drunks without examination, here. They can't see the difference between being drunk and being a hypoglycemic diabetic, so one guy died of hypoglycemia in the holding cell.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-02 08:33 pm (UTC)I wish police training impressed upon candidates that they are not the judicial system, and therefore any situation they are in should be treated only on the basis of what is presently happening. Obviously, if you run a plate and you've got a hot car, murder charges, etc., that's one thing. But not the rap sheet she had.
However, I'm extremely dismayed that she filed a wrongful death suit. I get so nervous every time shit like that happens.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-02 08:44 pm (UTC)Why does it dismay you? Because she may have miscarried whether she was imprisoned overnight or not, or because she was only three months pregnant and it's another step down the 'abortion == murder' slippery slope, or..?
(I hope this doesn't sound confrontational; I'm genuinely curious what aspect of it dismays you.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-02 08:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-02 11:19 pm (UTC)If it was already a miscarriage then the wrongful death part needs to be dropped.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-02 11:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-02 08:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 03:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-02 09:52 pm (UTC)The officers handcuff Salva after learning she has outstanding city warrants for mistreatment of children, trespassing, driving while suspended and other traffic violations.
Deliberately playing devil's advocate, here. She was clearly not bleeding at all profusely - if she was in a position where she'd have to -pull down her underwear- to show that she was bleeding, this is not visible enough that an officer would be expected to see it.
Someone with that many outstanding violations is not someone whose word I would take, were I average joe cop, and I have to say I fully expect they'd have treated the situation differently were she actually -visibly bleeding- instead of - as far as they could tell - simply claiming she was.
In fact, if I were the cop in this case and had a woman with multiple outstanding warrants asking me to *check inside her underwear*, I would be scared SHITLESS that the result would be a sexual abuse charge.
I would be more concerned with processing officers at the jail than the arresting officers, myself - since I'm fairly certain it's standard procedure to check someone for weapons before putting them in a cell, and since they would have much more time, reason, and ability to actually check her claim. That she was arrested doesn't surprise me - the surprising part is that it took them until the next day and her passing a blood clot to at least get her a medical exam.
And wrongful death on a three-month-old fetus is fucked up; I'm certain there's something more appropriate for 'assault/interference causing a miscarriage'.
-K"H"S
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-02 10:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-02 11:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 03:05 am (UTC)-K"H"S
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 07:03 am (UTC)Now, does it earn wrongful death? No. But it Does earn a lawsuit. They put her life in danger. A miscarriage can be deadly, even if the bleeding starts out light. It takes very little time for an infection to form from rotten fetal tissue.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 03:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 04:18 am (UTC)PROTECT & SERVE my ass...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 04:22 am (UTC)Yeah, she had priors, but fuck, it's not like only upstanding citizens ever get knocked up or have health problems.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 07:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 01:28 pm (UTC)Absolutely. At the jail. When arresting someone on the road, you don't have the time, resources, proficiency, or (I would hope) authorization to conduct a medical exam on a woman to decide whether she's taken to the hospital or the lockup. You arrest her - particularly with a list of priors like that - you get her to lockup, and you let *THEM* examine her.
As I said, if anyone's at fault it's not the arresting officers.
-K"H"S
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 01:53 pm (UTC)What you do not do is willfully endanger the life of a woman who may be hemorrhaging.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 02:17 pm (UTC)Pick one. Taking her to the hospital first would have been another option for the arresting officers, but - again, as I said - they had aboslutely no visible evidence that she was telling the truth, no reason to believe she would be telling them the truth, and no way to verify her claim without either taking her to the hospital or getting her to officers who did have the time and authorization to perform that kind of check.
Changing your tune doesn't change that what the arresting officers did was probably the right thing to do.
-K"H"S
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 02:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 02:58 pm (UTC)They picked a third option; one which endangered her life and made them liable for charges of reckless endangerment.
Your definition of "the right thing to do" is markedly different from mine.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 11:57 am (UTC)A woman bleeding lightly from a miscarriage can, at any time and especially that late in pregnancy, start to bleed profusely.
I'm not saying they should have let her go, but I am saying they should have taken her to the hospital. Unless, of course, those cops had the competence to examine and diagnose a bleeding pregnant woman. I think they didn't have that competence.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 01:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-03 02:43 pm (UTC)That's the reason cops are not allowed to imprison drunks without examination, here. They can't see the difference between being drunk and being a hypoglycemic diabetic, so one guy died of hypoglycemia in the holding cell.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-02 09:55 pm (UTC)I am just so glad I don't live in some backwards Third-World country.
How in hell do we change any of this? Sometimes I feel like we are being quietly replaced by alien zombies.