If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Not really news: Injured man frisked in Twin Cities. News: Man arrested for videotaping the police frisk. Fark: Arrested under the Health Care law. We're finally finding out just what is in the healthcare bill   (wnd.com) divider line 160
    More: Scary, Ramsey County, health law  
•       •       •

2471 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2013 at 10:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 07:44:27 AM  
Would be interesting if the link weren't to one of the single greatest purveyors of lies and faked news in the english-speaking world. They give pravda.ru a run for their money.
 
2013-01-09 07:46:50 AM  
I know I shouldn't expect much from WND but while the headline says it was under the Healthcare law the article body says nothing about it. Also there was an ambulance and paramedics involved, so I'm sure there is a legitimate link to a healthcare law somewhere.
 
2013-01-09 07:49:10 AM  
The allegation that his recording of the incident violated HIPAA, or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is nonsense, said Jennifer Granick, a specialist on privacy issues at Stanford University Law School.

The rule deals with how health care providers handle consumers' health information.

"There's nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who's not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets," Granick said. "HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that."



So basically cops being cops, and trying to find some justification to cover their asses. Color me shocked.
 
2013-01-09 07:54:23 AM  

Sybarite: "There's nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who's not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets," Granick said. "HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that."


HIPAA does say that healthcare providers have to take reasonable precautions in the prehospital setting to protect the privacy of their patients, though, especially if they're in a compromising position. It'd not be a violation of HIPAA if I allowed a member of the media, for example, to take a picture of us carrying Senator Boener out of his house on the cot. It would, on the other hand, if I tossed the sheet back and showed them the 15 inch stainless steel dildo he had gotten lodged up his bum. (NTTIAWWT, of course *kinky grin*)

On an unrelated note, they can also arrest anyone interering with an EMT's duty in most states on the request of the EMT, although more often than not they typcially escort the person off the scene and give them a stern talking to.

I find it odd that the guy was thrown in jail for taking a picture and that's it. There's got to be more to the story. Of course, I doubt DerpNetDaily would report it if there was, because that would take away from the healthcare law derp.
 
2013-01-09 08:08:26 AM  
HIPAA is not Obamacare, not even the same millenium.

And Sybarite is correct, cops being cops.
 
2013-01-09 08:12:54 AM  

Nofun: HIPAA is not Obamacare, not even the same millenium.


Not so fast there:

www.strangecosmos.com
 
2013-01-09 08:18:13 AM  
"World Net Daily: For when the story is too derpy for even Fox News"
 
2013-01-09 08:27:43 AM  

BronyMedic: I find it odd that the guy was thrown in jail for taking a picture and that's it. There's got to be more to the story.


No there doesn't. It's not uncommon for the police to do that. It doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen enough that it's been litigated numerous times, and in fact it almost always happens to come out in favor of the videotaper/photographer having the right to record/photograph in public, but the police still do it anyway on some pretext, as appears to be the case here.
 
2013-01-09 08:43:34 AM  

dittybopper: No there doesn't. It's not uncommon for the police to do that. It doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen enough that it's been litigated numerous times, and in fact it almost always happens to come out in favor of the videotaper/photographer having the right to record/photograph in public, but the police still do it anyway on some pretext, as appears to be the case here.


You're right. I found an article on it that's NOT from DerpNetDaily, and it appears to be a case of complete douchebaggery on the account of the Deputy being filmed.
 
2013-01-09 08:47:53 AM  
Henderson, 28, took out his small handheld video camera and began recording. It's something he does regularly with law enforcement.
Something tells me that Henderson probably thinks he's always innocent and that it's just the man coming down on him.
 
2013-01-09 09:08:14 AM  
TECHNICALLY, submitter wasn't lying.
He was arrested under "the health care law".
Submitter just didn't specify which one.


/and submitter is still an asshat.
 
2013-01-09 09:13:07 AM  

SilentStrider: TECHNICALLY, submitter wasn't lying.
He was arrested under "the health care law".
Submitter just didn't specify which one.


/and submitter is still an asshat.

nailed it!
 
2013-01-09 09:13:44 AM  

Nofun: HIPAA is not Obamacare, not even the same millenium.

And Sybarite is correct, cops being cops.


Correct.  And the suggestion that something happening on a public is covered by HIPAA is ridiculous.  By this standard, a news crew filming an accident in which someone was injured is violating HIPAA.
 
2013-01-09 09:26:06 AM  
I'm not surprised to see the Libbo Creeps at WND HATE on our proud heroes in uniform that are only there to keep us safe from terrorism.  Why do they hate the First Responders so much?
 
2013-01-09 09:28:46 AM  

SilentStrider: He was arrested under "the health care law".


Actually, no. He has been criminally charged; the report does not indicate an arrest.
 
2013-01-09 09:47:18 AM  

BillCo: And the suggestion that something happening on a public is covered by HIPAA is ridiculous.  By this standard, a news crew filming an accident in which someone was injured is violating HIPAA.


While the public is not liable under the HIPAA law, the EMS agency and - if they provide medical care in any capacity, even first aid, the Law Enforcement agency on scene are. If I didn't take steps, as a treating Paramedic, to keep my patient's privacy reasonably protected, he's more than able to sue me under the law even though I didn't willingly disclose PHI. Letting the camera man get up in his face was release enough. It'd be the same thing as if I allowed someone into a hospital to film patients without their permission.

But it's still douchebaggery that she took his camera. At most, she should have told him to stay out of the EMTs way, or escorted him off scene.
 
2013-01-09 10:08:19 AM  

BillCo: Nofun: HIPAA is not Obamacare, not even the same millenium.

And Sybarite is correct, cops being cops.

Correct.  And the suggestion that something happening on a public is covered by HIPAA is ridiculous.  By this standard, a news crew filming an accident in which someone was injured is violating HIPAA.


I suppose the news media technically violated the law when they listed the Virginia Tech massacre victims.  Adults have the right to post-secondary enrollment status privacy under FERPA.
 
2013-01-09 11:04:05 AM  
I love the smell of derp in the morning. It smells like ass.
 
2013-01-09 11:04:08 AM  
It's WorldNutDaily Wednesday!
 
2013-01-09 11:05:26 AM  
WND = no clicky
 
2013-01-09 11:08:49 AM  
A lot of police don't know shiat about most laws. Also, the article paints the camera operator as some innocent good Samaritan......it is usually the case that he was a loud mouthed farkwad that was interfering with emergency personnel and not listening to reasonable requests by officers prior to being accosted.
 
2013-01-09 11:10:02 AM  
Getting pretty desperate now that ACA is taking effect.
 
2013-01-09 11:10:13 AM  
What is up with the World Net Daily blitz? Three of them are on the main page this morning.
 
2013-01-09 11:10:21 AM  
Suby fails at reading his own article.
 
2013-01-09 11:11:51 AM  
The story linked on Drudge was from twincities.com

It;s almost as if one of the modmins picks and chooses irreputable websites in order to control the narrative or peoples opinion before they can read the story.
 
2013-01-09 11:12:08 AM  
This is an outrag... *zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*
 
2013-01-09 11:12:41 AM  
My god.... it burns.
 
2013-01-09 11:13:30 AM  

Sybarite: So basically cops being cops, and trying to find some justification to cover their asses. Color me shocked.


Wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that if we asked those cops what HIPAA was or what it did, we'd have been met with blank stares or mumbling about "patient privacy".

// or we'd be under arrest as well
// has worked in several HIPAA-covered places
 
2013-01-09 11:16:01 AM  

Nofun: HIPAA is not Obamacare, not even the same millenium.

And Sybarite is correct, cops being cops.


If President Obama is as evil as they say wouldn't there be enough real evidence to where they wouldn't have to make stuff up?
 
2013-01-09 11:16:38 AM  

Giltric: The story linked on Drudge was from twincities.com

It;s almost as if one of the modmins picks and chooses irreputable websites in order to control the narrative or peoples opinion before they can read the story.


No one would have read the story at all if the real details were used, and it certainly wouldn't belong in the politics tab. The "Health Care law" in question was HIPAA and the cop's actions are likely to be determined to be illegal.
 
2013-01-09 11:16:41 AM  

BronyMedic: BillCo: And the suggestion that something happening on a public is covered by HIPAA is ridiculous.  By this standard, a news crew filming an accident in which someone was injured is violating HIPAA.

While the public is not liable under the HIPAA law, the EMS agency and - if they provide medical care in any capacity, even first aid, the Law Enforcement agency on scene are. If I didn't take steps, as a treating Paramedic, to keep my patient's privacy reasonably protected, he's more than able to sue me under the law even though I didn't willingly disclose PHI. Letting the camera man get up in his face was release enough. It'd be the same thing as if I allowed someone into a hospital to film patients without their permission.

But it's still douchebaggery that she took his camera. At most, she should have told him to stay out of the EMTs way, or escorted him off scene.


Didn't your article say he was filming from 30 feet away?
 
2013-01-09 11:18:23 AM  

BillCo: Nofun: HIPAA is not Obamacare, not even the same millenium.

And Sybarite is correct, cops being cops.

Correct.  And the suggestion that something happening on a public is covered by HIPAA is ridiculous.  By this standard, a news crew filming an accident in which someone was injured is violating HIPAA.


You don't sound tired Bill. You sound reasonable.
 
2013-01-09 11:19:24 AM  

redmid17: BronyMedic: BillCo: And the suggestion that something happening on a public is covered by HIPAA is ridiculous.  By this standard, a news crew filming an accident in which someone was injured is violating HIPAA.

While the public is not liable under the HIPAA law, the EMS agency and - if they provide medical care in any capacity, even first aid, the Law Enforcement agency on scene are. If I didn't take steps, as a treating Paramedic, to keep my patient's privacy reasonably protected, he's more than able to sue me under the law even though I didn't willingly disclose PHI. Letting the camera man get up in his face was release enough. It'd be the same thing as if I allowed someone into a hospital to film patients without their permission.

But it's still douchebaggery that she took his camera. At most, she should have told him to stay out of the EMTs way, or escorted him off scene.

Didn't your article say he was filming from 30 feet away?


Hes part of the blue wall of silence.....theres only them and us.
 
2013-01-09 11:19:25 AM  

heavymetal: Nofun: HIPAA is not Obamacare, not even the same millenium.

And Sybarite is correct, cops being cops.

If President Obama is as evil as they say wouldn't there be enough real evidence to where they wouldn't have to make stuff up?


He's just so evil that he has surpassed evil itself - his essence being of evil, he doesn't have to do anything, since he is made up of evil in the first place. He has thrown off his material vestiges and become one with the oversoul.
 
2013-01-09 11:20:48 AM  
AAAhhhh... The Buttinski evidence.
This story is complete now.
 
2013-01-09 11:21:10 AM  

Generation_D: Would be interesting if the link weren't to one of the single greatest purveyors of lies and faked news in the english-speaking world. They give pravda.ru a run for their money.


MmmmBacon: "World Net Daily: For when the story is too derpy for even Fox News"


Twin Cities link for the WND-phobes.
 
2013-01-09 11:21:15 AM  
There's a Little Canada?
 
2013-01-09 11:22:48 AM  

BronyMedic: I find it odd that the guy was thrown in jail for taking a picture and that's it. There's got to be more to the story.


Here's the cop:
Muellner has been with the sheriff's office since 1980. Her personnel file includes numerous awards, commendations and thank-you letters. There are two citizen complaints from the 1980s, found by the office to be "not sustained."

Here's the offender:
Henderson, 28, took out his small handheld video camera and began recording. It's something he does regularly with law enforcement.

Here's the charge:
A week later, Henderson was charged with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors.

So my guess as to what went on, the cop showed up to a medical welfare call to help someone out and then this jackass who likes to make it a habit of getting in cops faces and recording them gets in their way. The cop incorrectly uses HIPAA as an excuse to take his camera and from there it escalates. The cop is no longer helping the person she was called for, thus the obstruction of legal process. The guy acts like a jackass in the process thus the disorderly conduct.
 
2013-01-09 11:22:49 AM  

Sybarite: The allegation that his recording of the incident violated HIPAA, or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is nonsense, said Jennifer Granick, a specialist on privacy issues at Stanford University Law School.

The rule deals with how health care providers handle consumers' health information.

"There's nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who's not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets," Granick said. "HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that."


So basically cops being cops, and trying to find some justification to cover their asses. Color me shocked.


I am actually amazed by the towering intellect of the cop. He knew what HIPAA was and knew it covered patient confidentiality. Don't the cops usually mummble something about the patriot act as they forcably remove your camera from you.
 
2013-01-09 11:23:41 AM  
Our story so far, when someone is helping someone to the hospital think HIPAA.

i133.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 11:26:02 AM  
It's not FARK, it's WorldNutDaily.com.
 
2013-01-09 11:26:13 AM  

heavymetal: Nofun: HIPAA is not Obamacare, not even the same millenium.

And Sybarite is correct, cops being cops.

If President Obama is as evil as they say wouldn't there be enough real evidence to where they wouldn't have to make stuff up?


The fact that the real evidence is so hard to find is the most damning evidence of just how evil he is.
 
2013-01-09 11:27:57 AM  
Randy Gustafson, spokesman for the Ramsey County sheriff's office, declined to discuss details of the case, saying it is an "ongoing investigation."

blogs.orlandosentinel.com
 
2013-01-09 11:28:08 AM  
So because he has a job as a welder, he's ineligible to be represented by a public defender? Huh?
 
2013-01-09 11:29:38 AM  

sxacho: So because he has a job as a welder, he's ineligible to be represented by a public defender? Huh?


He has a job he's not indigent, even if he makes minimum wage.
 
2013-01-09 11:30:00 AM  
Why was the link to a WND link to the actual story? Oh, that's the way you get a green light. I see.
 
2013-01-09 11:31:36 AM  

SilentStrider: TECHNICALLY, submitter wasn't lying.
He was arrested under "the health care law".
Submitter just didn't specify which one.


/and submitter is still an asshat.


Actually it's the lying scum at the WND that made that claim.
 
2013-01-09 11:31:36 AM  

lennavan: BronyMedic: I find it odd that the guy was thrown in jail for taking a picture and that's it. There's got to be more to the story.

Here's the cop:
Muellner has been with the sheriff's office since 1980. Her personnel file includes numerous awards, commendations and thank-you letters. There are two citizen complaints from the 1980s, found by the office to be "not sustained."

Here's the offender:
Henderson, 28, took out his small handheld video camera and began recording. It's something he does regularly with law enforcement.

Here's the charge:
A week later, Henderson was charged with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors.

So my guess as to what went on, the cop showed up to a medical welfare call to help someone out and then this jackass who likes to make it a habit of getting in cops faces and recording them gets in their way. The cop incorrectly uses HIPAA as an excuse to take his camera and from there it escalates. The cop is no longer helping the person she was called for, thus the obstruction of legal process. The guy acts like a jackass in the process thus the disorderly conduct.


1) He was 30 feet away from the people he was filming
2) Cops cannot take your camera unless they are arresting you/used in commission of a crime

The guy might be kind of a jackass for filming that stuff, but he is in the right and the cop just reinforced people who think cops abuse power and need to be filmed. Almost like it's a vicious circle dollar or something.
 
2013-01-09 11:32:47 AM  

Giltric: sxacho: So because he has a job as a welder, he's ineligible to be represented by a public defender? Huh?

He has a job he's not indigent, even if he makes minimum wage.


I thought everyone had a right to a public defender.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

What am I missing?
 
2013-01-09 11:32:51 AM  

Giltric: sxacho: So because he has a job as a welder, he's ineligible to be represented by a public defender? Huh?

He has a job he's not indigent, even if he makes minimum wage.


This may be true where you live, but it's not accurate in any jurisdiction I've ever practiced in. However, a welder probably makes enough to avoid indigency, especially if he works full time.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report