Good stabbing in Vegas

[45dotACP]

I’ve seen this practice throughout my career and it sometimes fails spectacularly. Much of the problem stems from hospital staff confusion on what HIPAA allows to be communicated to police at the time of discharge if the patient is not under arrest. Hospital legal at one hospital that I worked at specifically forbade us from calling police once patients were discharged in this manner. Other problems arise when the patient/suspects elopes and commits another crime on hospital property near the time of leaving. Keep in mind that elopement is different than leaving AMA - when they elope they walk out often without telling us.

I completely understand the reasoning for the practice. However, it comes with some real danger to the public. I have no opinion as to how the cost/benefit analysis falls.

Boy howdy do I have a fun story with that one.

Basically it ended with the patient attempting to leave AMA and being arrested in the hospital elevator.

Patient knew once he left the hospital he was going to jail, but no police officer was left at the bedside and he wasn't handcuffed to the bed or anything.

The patients nurse didnt even know of his discharge disposition until she found a paper in his chart indicating he was under arrest and to call the police prior to his discharge. Hospital security said they would not detain or arrest the guy so the nurse had to basically follow the guy to make sure he didn't run off before the local PD arrived and they were in the elevator when the cops arrived. The doors opened to the two officers, the nurse stepped out and said "Hello officers this is Mr. -----" , at which point the nurse ran out of the elevator and said prisoner was returned to police custody.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

I’ve seen this practice throughout my career and it sometimes fails spectacularly. Much of the problem stems from hospital staff confusion on what HIPAA allows to be communicated to police at the time of discharge if the patient is not under arrest. Hospital legal at one hospital that I worked at specifically forbade us from calling police once patients were discharged in this manner. Other problems arise when the patient/suspects elopes and commits another crime on hospital property near the time of leaving. Keep in mind that elopement is different than leaving AMA - when they elope they walk out often without telling us.

I completely understand the reasoning for the practice. However, it comes with some real danger to the public. I have no opinion as to how the cost/benefit analysis falls.

We have deputies who work at the hospital full time and officers who work their part time. For someone who's a public threat we just assign an officer to stand in the hall and make sure he doesn't leave. OT for a hall monitor is cheaper than medical bills.

[jh9]

There are some fucked up quotes—both pro and con—buried in those reddit threads, including from Johnny Nguyen (stabber).

Dude is probably not doing himself any favors when the civil suit comes down the pike from Hoppy Mcstabbee’s mom.

Oh, good. That's one less thread we'll need to have then.

[Hot Sauce]

https://web.archive.org/web/20220805...ama/?fs=e&s=cl

Archived version with his responses preserved: https://web.archive.org/web/20220807...ing_owner_ama/

Unreal.

[jh9]

Anybody know what Jack Thompson is up to these days?

Archived version with his responses preserved: https://web.archive.org/web/20220807...ing_owner_ama/

Unreal.

Yeah. There's just.... It's like the first exit off the highway was "post on social media / ask me anything"? How old is this guy? When rob_s finds out he's a millennial:

[Totem Polar]

The dude is 22. Technically, gen z. Makes millennials look mature.

This one is really sticking with me (no pun intended), for a ton of reasons. One of the more far out UoF threads/incidents we’ve had a chance to dissect, if only because it’s in a fishbowl. A glance at an activity that predates homo sapiens by a million years.


Turns out he had no training beyond video games. Interesting. QOTD: “like stabbing a steak.”


SMH.

[TheNewbie]

Its been a few years since I lived there, unless it has changed, yep you can protect your property with deadly force.

It’s more complex than that.


https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-c...sect-9-42.html

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[Arbninftry]

It’s more complex than that.


https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-c...sect-9-42.html

Sure, I completely agree. But you just showed the code that states you can use deadly force to protect property. That is all I stated. Is it advisable, all I can say if my family was inside a structure, and someone had a molotov, you damn right I would dust him. But there is always going to depend on the situation.

This states if you got the balls to go out on a limb, and will always depend on the local prosecutor.-

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

[TheNewbie]

Sure, I completely agree. But you just showed the code that states you can use deadly force to protect property. That is all I stated. Is it advisable, all I can say if my family was inside a structure, and someone had a molotov, you damn right I would dust him. But there is always going to depend on the situation.

This states if you got the balls to go out on a limb, and will always depend on the local prosecutor.-

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

I figured you knew that, I just wanted to make it clear that you couldn’t use deadly force simply because someone took your bagel at 10am.


My understanding is that the law was even more broad in the 70s/80s, but I’m not sure how true that is and I’m too lazy to look up the prior statute.

[fly out]

...if my family was inside a structure, and someone had a molotov, you damn right I would dust him.

Don't shoot the guy. Just shoot the cocktail to put out an illegal upfacing light. What happens next is on him. Literally.

I think I just stumbled on a question for a law school exam.