Hospital patient went on a walk with an IV drip. Security thought he was stealing medical equipment

[DaShuckster]

Oh. So he left the hospital with their property without permission, was questioned, eventually arrested for disorderly conduct, and yet this is all about racism.

If the first words to me out of some yahoo security officer's mouth was, "What are you doing stealing hospital equipment? Planning to put it on ebay?" I think my reaction wouldn't have been too pleasant either. Good grief, he's wearing a hospital smock for crying out loud!!!

 

[Crazyhole]

If the first words to me out of some yahoo security officer's mouth was, "What are you doing stealing hospital equipment? Planning to put it on ebay?" I think my reaction wouldn't have been too pleasant either. Good grief, he's wearing a hospital smock for crying out loud!!!

Again, believing the word of a criminal. Why don't you believe the word of the cop, the security guard, the doctor, the independent investigator?

How do you turn every hypothetical into fact like you do? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone acted inappropriately except for the guys who were arrested and you are siding with them because they are black.

 

[DaShuckster]

Again, believing the word of a criminal. Why don't you believe the word of the cop, the security guard, the doctor, the independent investigator?

You'd be asking me the exact, same thing about the father of the Black little girl who shoplifted a doll. When the police arrive, the cop claimed in his report that the father resisted arrest.

But -- low and behold -- a bystander filmed the confrontation and showed the cop popping the father to the ground and then kicking him without any provocation. With no bystander film, it's honest cop versus criminal, right?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone acted inappropriately ...

So the police officer flipping off the cameraman with double-barreled birds is professional? Whoa.

… except for the guys who were arrested and you are siding with them because they are black.

For the record, the alleged law-breaker was walking around in his hospital smock with his IV machine in hand. Not exactly the profile of a sinister criminal.

 

[Crazyhole]

You'd be asking me the exact, same thing about the father of the Black little girl who shoplifted a doll. When the police arrive, the cop claimed in his report that the father resisted arrest.

But -- low and behold -- a bystander filmed the confrontation and showed the cop popping the father to the ground and then kicking him without any provocation. With no bystander film, it's honest cop versus criminal, right?



So the police officer flipping off the cameraman with double-barreled birds is professional? Whoa.

For the record, the alleged law-breaker was walking around in his hospital smock with his IV machine in hand. Not exactly the profile of a sinister criminal.

You keep trying to conflate two separate things to justify your opinion. Were the cops that arrested Dukes the same cops that acting inappropriately with the parents of that girl? Or are you just using that as an excuse to justify your confirmation bias? Why don't you compare this situation to Jussie Smollet, who you admit made the whole thing up? Were those cops also wrong in investigating him? I mean, he did make a claim that there was racism involved so why not just take him at his word?

 

[UCFWayne]

You keep trying to conflate two separate things to justify your opinion. Were the cops that arrested Dukes the same cops that acting inappropriately with the parents of that girl? Or are you just using that as an excuse to justify your confirmation bias? Why don't you compare this situation to Jussie Smollet, who you admit made the whole thing up? Were those cops also wrong in investigating him? I mean, he did make a claim that there was racism involved so why not just take him at his word?

he was so close but then decided to put his head back in the sand

 

[DaShuckster]

You keep trying to conflate two separate things to justify your opinion. Were the cops that arrested Dukes the same cops that acting inappropriately with the parents of that girl? Or are you just using that as an excuse to justify your confirmation bias?

What's YOUR justification, Crazy? The fact is, you have no more justification for your belief as I have for mine. It's all a 'he said vs he said' thing.

Why don't you compare this situation to Jussie Smollet, who you admit made the whole thing up?

Great example! The Smollett thing smelled from the get-go. That didn't mean that the police shouldn't have investigated it or that the media shouldn't have covered it, but that said, it didn't make sense.

With this story, the circumstances surrounding the story made the officer's story just as hard to believe. The very notion that two supposed professionals had no accountability for what happened is extremely hard to swallow.
​

 

[UCFWayne]

 

[UCFKnight85]

Still waiting for Shookster to show how he knows for a fact that the doctor authorized this guy to walk freely around the hospital with an IV in his arm.

Since you know, he's presented it as irrefutable fact 3x now.

 

[Crazyhole]

What's YOUR justification, Crazy? The fact is, you have no more justification for your belief as I have for mine. It's all a 'he said vs he said' thing.

Great example! The Smollett thing smelled from the get-go. That didn't mean that the police shouldn't have investigated it or that the media shouldn't have covered it, but that said, it didn't make sense.

With this story, the circumstances surrounding the story made the officer's story just as hard to believe. The very notion that two supposed professionals had no accountability for what happened is extremely hard to swallow.
​

But you havent given any credence to the officers side of the story. That's the point here. Why do you want to see accountability for someone who was accused of something with no evidence? The guys who were arrested have 10 minutes of video and haven't produced it in a way that we can objectively say that one side is right or wrong but you immediately jumped on the bandwagon of the side that fits your confirmation bias. As of now, we have 5 people giving a version of a story and 1 giving an opposite version of the story and you are siding with the 1 simply because of his skin color, and justifying it because someone 500 miles away was treated poorly.

I sincerely don't understand why you are siding with someone just because of the color of their skin.

 

[DaShuckster]

But you havent given any credence to the officers side of the story. That's the point here. … I sincerely don't understand why you are siding with someone just because of the color of their skin.

You can say I'm swayed by the color of the patients skin but, for the record, I'd add a few more things:

1. He was a hospital patient;
2. He was wearing nothing but a hospital smock;
3. He was doing nothing more 'menacing' than walking outside the hospital holding the rod attached to his IV machine;
4. He was encouraged to exercise by his doctor. (Yes, 85, we do KNOW this!)
5. He decided to extend his walk and -- somehow, someway was allowed to walk past a lot of professionals who should have stopped him -- and walked out of the hospital.
   
6. He was stopped outside by a security officer who, according to the patient and his companions, started the interaction by asking what he was doing stealing hospital equipment?
7. At this point, any hostility exhibited by the patient is explained by the horribly inappropriate way he claims he was treated by the security officer.
8. On the other hand, if we buy the 'official' story, what explains the patient's angry response? I mean we have two trained professionals who are there to deescalate every situation, so what's wrong with this picture? Your answer is that this hospital patient was being a total dick for no reason whatsoever. Really Crazy? Like the initial reports on the Smollett thing, that response doesn't pass my smell test. Most people are not belligerent for no reason---yes, even Black hospital patients!
9. An indication that maybe, just maybe, the professionals who interacted with this patient weren't quite as professional as we've been led to believe by the 'official story' is the "FU" bird flipping that the officer did at the end of the video when the cameraman asked him why he was smiling. I may be wrong, but I don't think they teach 'flipping the bird' in officer training school.
10. The notion that a 'independent' review exonerated the handling of this matter is laughable. At the very least, why wasn't something said about the hospital's abysmal lack of proper security? A patient clad only in a hospital smock and holding an IV machine walks past admissions staff, nurses, and, one would think, security officers and ISN'T STOPPED somewhere along the line??? But nooooo, the hospital did absolutely nothing wrong, right? This sad incident, from beginning to end, was entirely the fault of the patient. In no way, shape, or form was this independent review' lawsuit butt-protecting, right?

 

[Crazyhole]

You can say I'm swayed by the color of the patients skin but, for the record, I'd add a few more things:

1. He was a hospital patient;
2. He was wearing nothing but a hospital smock;
3. He was doing nothing more 'menacing' than walking outside the hospital holding the rod attached to his IV machine;
4. He was encouraged to exercise by his doctor. (Yes, 85, we do KNOW this!)
5. He decided to extend his walk and -- somehow, someway was allowed to walk past a lot of professionals who should have stopped him -- and walked out of the hospital.
   
6. He was stopped outside by a security officer who, according to the patient and his companions, started the interaction by asking what he was doing stealing hospital equipment?
7. At this point, any hostility exhibited by the patient is explained by the horribly inappropriate way he claims he was treated by the security officer.
8. On the other hand, if we buy the 'official' story, what explains the patient's angry response? I mean we have two trained professionals who are there to deescalate every situation, so what's wrong with this picture? Your answer is that this hospital patient was being a total dick for no reason whatsoever. Really Crazy? Like the initial reports on the Smollett thing, that response doesn't pass my smell test. Most people are not belligerent for no reason---yes, even Black hospital patients!
9. An indication that maybe, just maybe, the professionals who interacted with this patient weren't quite as professional as we've been led to believe by the 'official story' is the "FU" bird flipping that the officer did at the end of the video when the cameraman asked him why he was smiling. I may be wrong, but I don't think they teach 'flipping the bird' in officer training school.
10. The notion that a 'independent' review exonerated the handling of this matter is laughable. At the very least, why wasn't something said about the hospital's abysmal lack of proper security? A patient clad only in a hospital smock and holding an IV machine walks past admissions staff, nurses, and, one would think, security officers and ISN'T STOPPED somewhere along the line??? But nooooo, the hospital did absolutely nothing wrong, right? This sad incident, from beginning to end, was entirely the fault of the patient. In no way, shape, or form was this independent review' lawsuit butt-protecting, right?

Well this is going to take a while.

1: hospital patients can be criminals just as easily as anyone else.

2: a smock doesn't exonerate anyone. It's not a get out of jail free card. Basically, it's as irrelevant as #1.

3: you have absolutely zero evidence of this. It is an assumption based on one person's account, and that person was arrested for disorderly conduct.

4: again, we don't actually know this. You are making an assumption based on the word of a man who was arrested for disorderly conduct

5: another assumption, but this one isnt even based on anyone's testimony

6: you qualified this statement based on what the guy said so I can't refute it. But we also have the other side of the story which does refute it.

7: I said at the beginning of this thread that I also would have a hard time maintaining my composure if I was wrongfully accused of something. That doesn't mean that a person who is rightfully accused of something wouldn't act the same way so it's pretty much irrelevant.

8: see 7. Being belligerent doesn't equate to innocence.

9: I can't agree more about the fact that the security guard should not have flipped off the cameraman.

10: it isn't the job of admissions or nurses to question a patient on where they are going. It is the job of security, which in this case is who confronted him. You question the hospitals security which is somewhat laughable considering the fact that their security protocol is exactly what stopped the guy from leaving the hospital. You're saying on one hand that someone should have stopped him but on the other hand you are mad that they did. Pick a lane here. Should he have been stopped or not?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Color me shocked that Shookster dug in on a position by lying and outright inventing things to defend that position

Again

 

[UCFWayne]

lol this is going to be added to the ever growing list of things shookster is wrong about despite actual facts he doesnt want to look at because the color of the individual involved.

 

[DaShuckster]

Well this is going to take a while.

I can sum it up for you: Never take the word of a Black man -- especially one arrested for disorderly conduct. If the White guys said he was being an a-hole for no reason, they're right.

This thread reminds me of the crazy debates I had with the birther crowd. They threw common sense out the window but, nevertheless, were dead serious about their absurd positions.

 

[Crazyhole]

I can sum it up for you: Never take the word of a Black man -- especially one arrested for disorderly conduct. If the White guys said he was being an a-hole for no reason, they're right.

This thread reminds me of the crazy debates I had with the birther crowd. They threw common sense out the window but, nevertheless, were dead serious about their absurd positions.

When are you going to realize this has nothing to do with race? You are the only one interjecting the race aspect of this into the discussion.

 

[DaShuckster]

When are you going to realize this has nothing to do with race?

If you were the patient, you really think a security officer would have stopped you and asked if you were stealing hospital equipment?

 

[UCFWayne]

When are you going to realize this has nothing to do with race? You are the only one interjecting the race aspect of this into the discussion.

hes got low expectations for black people on top of massive white guilt so he has to make up for it somehow

 

[Crazyhole]

If you were the patient, you really think a security officer would have stopped you and asked if you were stealing hospital equipment?

I'm sure I would have been stopped if I tried to leave the hospital with their property. I'm also sure that if I became aggressive with the security guard he would have questioned my motives. Why do you think only black people are held accountable?