Police get search warrant to remove bullet from teen's forehead

  1. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/21/te....ap/index.html

    Interesting case. I would like to hear comments from members of allnurses. My opinion is that it would definitely be a violation of his rights to force him to undergo surgery if he doesn't want it. Even if the doctors say that surgery to remove the bullet is not life-threatening, even the simplest surgery carries some risks. I don't like the precedent this case would set if the police get their way, and I wouldn't want to be part of the medical team that performed this surgery.
    •  
  2. 11 Comments

  3. by   Spidey's mom
    There is "fatty tissue" on your forehead?

    Well, you can go after evidence in orifices of the body . . . .

    I dunno . . have to think more on it but my first reaction is when you do a criminal act, you lose some "rights". He admitted being there. All sides say it isn't life threatening - I doubt you'd need general anesthesia for this but even so, no one thinks it will kill him. Also, he is accused of trying to kill the businessman to shut him up . . . if he did try to kill someone, doesn't that outweigh a minor surgery?

    We take blood from people's bodies for blood alcohol levels and illegal drug levels.

    I'm just not seeing where his rights are being taken away . . . . he just wants to hide evidence.

    steph
  4. by   Katnip
    I agree with Steph. I believe the law says when someone is suspected (with cause) of a crime you can get court orders and such to force them into this.

    Same as if a patient confides in you that they are involved in or is about to become involved in harming themselves or another you can violate the privacy rules.
  5. by   nuangel1
    i agree with steph and cyberkat .they should be able to get the bullet for evidence.
  6. by   Roy Fokker
    given how the "duke case" has played out recently (amongst others):

    ... i'm less and less inclined to side with the "police" and "prosecutors". especially with those who cite "grand jury indictments" as evidence!

    my first reaction is when you do a criminal act, you lose some "rights".
    (not berating/hounding you steph! but...) and we were part of a jury that established this as "fact" ?

    by the way: since when did anyone "lose" their "rights" ? the 'constitution' doesn't spell that out - even accused (or not) "criminals" have "rights".

    why this 'automatic' assumption that the media 'tells' us 'someone' has 'confessed' and we assume it to be true - for want to legal reckoning or fact?

    because it appears convenient? because we assume it to be true? because we think our legal system is infalliable and mistakes cannot be made? because we think lawyers are unimpeachable defenders of man's moral charecter?

    why then, the quick rush to defame or defend someone? anyone? accused by the powers that be for some wrong doing? does katrina and her aftermath ring a bell? or does the current duke "rape" case ring one?

    or am i simply going " 'on and on' about 'prosecutorial misconduct' and not naming enough names when it comes to the 'defence'." ?

    "when the medical profession divorces itself from its own responsibility and makes itself an arm of the state, it's a dangerous path," said rife kimler, bush's lawyer.
    [emphases mine]

    do i think mr. bush is innocent or guilty? that's up to the jury to decide.

    do i think the legal system is being made to play (and pay!) the fool in the process? absolutely!

    cheers,
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Jan 19, '07
  7. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from roy fokker

    (not berating/hounding you steph! but...) and we were part of a jury that established this as "fact" ?


    cheers,
    he admitted to being there, he has a bullet in his forehead (duh) . . .at the very least he is a suspect. of course everyone has the right to a fair trial but during the investigation some leeway is built into the process to let investigators investigate. they got a search warrant . . . they didn't pull him into a hospital without going before a judge first.

    the duke case is appalling but doesn't mean we should suspend the ability of law enforcement to investigate for just this one idiot prosecutor.

    besides, i think the two cases are different . . . . requesting evidence embedded in a suspect's forehead and lying about evidence to bolster your career are two different things.

    "when the medical profession divorces itself from its own responsibility and makes itself an arm of the state, it's a dangerous path," said rife kimler, bush's lawyer.

    well, then we er nurses better not be taking those blood alcohol levels or checking pee for drugs anymore . . . . .

    steph
    Last edit by Spidey's mom on Jan 20, '07
  8. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from stevielynn
    The Duke case IS appalling but doesn't mean we should suspend the ability of law enforcement to investigate for just this one idiot prosecutor.
    No - I'm just questioning the lax-a-dasical attitude folks have when it comes to "indictments" and "prosecution". Who is to say that this "one idiot prosecutor" doesn't exist in dozens of counties and districts?

    Quote from stevielynn
    Besides, I think the two cases are different . . . . requesting evidence embedded in a suspect's forehead and lying about evidence to bolster your career are two different things.
    See, I happen to think they are the same. Bending the rule books is still bending the rule books - be it "requesting evidence" or "lying about evidence".

    Just because Robin Hood robbed the rich to pay the poor doesn't make his actions any more honorable.

    Do you trust the prosecutor who charged the nurses and the doctors with negligence and abandonment post Katrina with running prosecution in your county? Do you trust the joker doing the Duke case to represent your county? Why not?

    Quote from stevielynn
    Well, then we ER nurses better not be taking those blood alcohol levels or checking pee for drugs anymore . . . . .
    Steph,

    You and I will probably never agree on this - we each have differing opinions on how/when State interference is "legit" ..... but:

    Ask yourself - was it the medical or nursing profession that mandated that ER nurses/staff collect those items of "evidence" - or the State?


    cheers,
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Jan 20, '07
  9. by   Spidey's mom
    Roy - what rules are being bent to try to retrieve evidence? Am I missing a part of the story? The authorities got a legal search warrant.

    We in the ER get a person's blood and/or urine to test for substances that will make a difference in the care they receive. It is up to the prosecutors to get a judge to ok them getting the results as evidence. We don't hand it to them.

    There are bad cops, prosecutors, nurses, doctors, accountants everywhere - I'd rather go with the thought that people are honest until proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty . . .

    By the way, I'm agreeing with you on another thread and you did receive that hefty check in the mail, right?????

    steph
  10. by   babynurselsa
    All I can say is that boy better be glad he isn't mine. I would have retrieved the bullet myself and handed him and the bullet over to them.....
  11. by   Katnip
    Roy, what about the man this teen allegedly tried to kill? Does he not have the right to justice? Do we allow a potential murderer go free to rob and possibly kill?

    The kid is likely refusing the procedure because he knows that bullet will implicate him in attempted homicide. Does he have the right to withhold the evidence?
  12. by   Kelly_the_Great
    Hey guys, my opinion is that, although I think this guy is totally guilty, I also think this is a slippery slop; in particular towards the violation of personal property rights.

    I mean, I'm sorry, I don't know how much more of an establishment of property and the possesion thereof you can have than it to be inside your body! Let alone, inside your *******' brain!

    It may set a precedent down the road that wouldn't be too pretty.

    BTW, they've already got witnesses and I believe he, himself, has stated he was there at the scene. What more evidence would they need anyway???
    Last edit by Kelly_the_Great on Jan 20, '07
  13. by   JBudd
    Quote from cyberkat
    Roy, what about the man this teen allegedly tried to kill? Does he not have the right to justice? Do we allow a potential murderer go free to rob and possibly kill?

    The kid is likely refusing the procedure because he knows that bullet will implicate him in attempted homicide. Does he have the right to withhold the evidence?
    I'm on the fence here, victim's rights are too often subsumed by the "alleged" attacker. On the other hand, the 5th amendment says he doesn't have to incriminate himself.

    I cooperate with search warrents for legal blood samples, our state has an implied consent for drivers: refusal to do the breathalyzer (sp?) is an automatic loss of license. Not to mention we have one of the worst DWI problems in the US. At some point the rights of society are greater than the rights of the individual, drawing the line gets tough. Oh right! that's what the Constitution is for!

close