This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • jimcool59 Dec 6, 2012

    Ooops! I meant bambi08757

  • jimcool59 Dec 6, 2012

    Donedidit: You sir or mam as it may be, nailed it! Well spoken. But now what worries me is his lack of being able to interpt such a simply written law. Like what or where did he study, G.I Joe comic books? This is kid stuff to any law student or any public for that matter.

  • bambi08757 Dec 6, 2012

    Donedidit : You are quoting the law and that is a fact, however, you are not correctly interperting that statute. It does say that a Medical Professional will take the blood (not the officer), but that only means that it must be DONE by a Medical Professional but it does not protest to dictate to a hospital which Medical Professional must do it. If that hospital has a lab tech that normally pulls blood, then the officer would have to wait until a lab tech was available. To bad for his luck. He abused his authority of which he had none in that hospital. He was correctly punished for his abuse.

  • Ifyousayso Dec 6, 2012

    Anonemoose, try finish reading the rest of that statute you referenced, GS 20-139.1(c). Then answer your own question you posed. The General Statutes are not a smorgasbord of laws that you can pick and choose which parts you want to apply to support a case.

  • jimcool59 Dec 5, 2012

    So how did this cop come to pick her, was she even qualifed most hospitals have the lab tecks do it. Someone may have to draw it but what law says her. Gestapo tactics, Hey U! in the white skirt, cause I said so! Hands behind the your back NOW!

  • jimcool59 Dec 5, 2012

    Fraid not. He can even refuse the testing himself. Unless they have a warent for a specific person to do the drawing of blood then the cop now becomes the crimnal in this case. Two other officers with the city agree and so does this yo-yo cops boss.Personally I,d love to see it go to trail. You can,t fool me kid.

  • anonemoose Dec 5, 2012

    20-139.1(c) Blood and Urine for Chemical Analysis. – Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a blood or urine test is specified as the type of chemical analysis by a law enforcement officer, a physician, registered nurse, emergency medical technician, or other qualified person shall withdraw the blood sample and obtain the urine sample, and no further authorization or approval is required.

    So, who was really right? Legally she was required to draw the blood.

  • jimcool59 Dec 5, 2012

    "Innocent until proven GUILTY"
    Thats presumed innocent until proven guilty and only then in a court of law. And I haven,t seen one sentence until yours mentioning anything about it being easy, If fact it most likely is not or you would be doing it instead of us finding you here misquoting law. If he was really doing his job he would have manned up and arrested himself for unlawful detention and causing a public disturbance.

  • mmaney Dec 5, 2012

    Innocent until proven GUILTY, He was doing his job and if all the people on here doing the bashing thinks Law enforcement is so easy then go do these guy's job. Please

  • Marty King Dec 3, 2012

    Why was he not fired and criminally charged with kidnapping?

  • bubbaredneck Dec 3, 2012

    Should have been fired!! Abuse of power and pure stupidity!!

  • jimcool59 Dec 3, 2012

    All that babble and still the awnser is no! he did not have a court order saying for her to be the one to take blood. As for the equally meaningless babble about him just doing a job. Keep in mind Hitler had a job as well as do the demons in hades. Was he sopposed to handcuff all nurses and docters or just the first one to happen along that pouted his ego? Just doing his job indeed!

  • jimcool59 Dec 3, 2012

    All that meaningless babble and still the awnser is

  • donedidit Dec 3, 2012

    There was a court order, although per NC General Statutes (20-139.1) it is NOT required. The statute stipulates medical personnel SHALL conduct a blood draw. In law enforcement terms that means you WILL. As for the handcuffing – that may not have been a “popular” response; however, it was a legal action per NCGS 20-38.2. This officer should NOT have been suspended OR demoted. He was doing his job. If law enforcement officers just said “okay” to everyone who refused to follow legal direction then what is the point of having laws and law enforcement officers? Hence the name LAW ENFORCEMENT. It’s a shame that he was demoted for doing his job. The media was fed partial information they have a right to publish and personnel laws do not allow employers to release information. He had no defense and now his reputation is forever tarnished. A little bit of investigative reporting may have helped prevent that.I guess officers should be issued a code book to know who has immunity t

  • livinright Dec 3, 2012

    Adequate disciplinary action!

  • timmystrickland402 Nov 30, 2012


  • Rebelyell55 Nov 30, 2012

    Whoa, he should of been fired. This guy has no business being in LEO or carrying a gun. Please, if he's on the force make him go for evaluation....

  • jimcool59 Nov 30, 2012

    Did this dumbell shamless cop have a court order saying this particular nurse had to be the one to draw the blood? What a county yo-yo.

  • westernwake1 Nov 30, 2012

    Why wasn't he fired?

Oldest First