• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Jussie Smollett Affair

Page 51 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
jackstar7 said:
Cool. Now look at it the other way.
Click to expand...
The wrong way? No thanks. If someone with a gun is following me I'm running away and looking to avoid a fight at (almost) all costs. Even if I am armed as well. Fighting is a last resort when there are no other alternatives available to avoid harm.

EDIT: My reason is that I don't feel I should have to let someone else attack me because you don't like guns or overvalue the life of violent criminals vs the people they victimize.
 
Last edited:
jackstar7 said:
When someone ends up shot, the person who brings the gun has some responsibility, yes.
Click to expand...
Man, you like to twist things. Yes, in a self-defense situation the person who killed the attacker is responsible for pulling the trigger and ending the attackers life. That's not the same thing as being at fault, but I suspect you already know that and are allowing your anti-gun bias to stop you from admitting it.

I've got news for you: in your perfect world without guns it does nothing to ensure folks suddenly love one another and play nice. Attack someone who is armed and pay the price, I say.
 
Paladin3 said:
The wrong way? No thanks. If someone with a gun is following me I'm running away and looking to avoid a fight at (almost) all costs. Even if I am armed as well. Fighting is a last resort when there are no other alternatives available to avoid harm.

EDIT: My reason is that I don't feel I should have to let someone else attack me because you don't like guns or overvalue the life of violent criminals vs the people they victimize.
Click to expand...

Then good luck to you.
 
Paladin3 said:
Man, you like to twist things. Yes, in a self-defense situation the person who killed the attacker is responsible for pulling the trigger and ending the attackers life. That's not the same thing as being at fault, but I suspect you already know that and are allowing your anti-gun bias to stop you from admitting it.

I've got news for you: in your perfect world without guns it does nothing to ensure folks suddenly love one another and play nice. Attack someone who is armed and pay the price, I say.
Click to expand...
My perfect world ends up with fewer dead people. Nowhere do I suggest some magic sense of community and love takes over.

There are always plenty of assholes and ne'er-do-wells out there.

EDIT: I will say that if cops didn't have to operate under the expectation that all criminals had guns (and they also didn't have guns), it would certainly decrease the number of dead innocent people. That's of interest to me.
 
Last edited:
Ichinisan said:
Scrolled past. In a list.
Click to expand...


I’m not buying it. Every hospital has (should have) secure online med records and it tracks everything you do. A glass barrier and to access it you have to break the glass is how I’ve heard it described, maybe somebody on here in the med field can fill in a bit more details. Not buying they just scrolled past.
 
UglyCasanova said:
I’m not buying it. Every hospital has (should have) secure online med records and it tracks everything you do. A glass barrier and to access it you have to break the glass is how I’ve heard it described, maybe somebody on here in the med field can fill in a bit more details. Not buying they just scrolled past.
Click to expand...

It depends on the EMR software and your relative level of access. When I still worked part time for a hospital, every job title had a different identifier that went with it, and tailored levels of access (trying to keep it roughly need to know.) And you would even see different views upon accessing different module, as in a receptionist might only see a list with name and room number, but a chaplain might see religious afiliation, and a clinical person would see name, location (ED room or floor room) and complaint or diagnosis.

Clinical folks, especially nurses and physicians had extremely broad access to dive deeper into those records, view progress notes, test results, etc. So, if they queried the DB for who saw his reason for being in the hospital, I could see it as being possible to get caught up in a drive by, while scrolling a list of current patients looking to chart a med or assessment. But, if they queried for who saw progress notes, other detailed info, I'd say your right.

So, it might not be completely one or the other, as it would depend on how they setup the query on what information was seen. Make sense?
 
And I'll also say, that even when I started 20+ years ago, there was some level of audit trail for everything I looked at. We had a similar but smaller scale incident then, when a prominent doctor was admitted in the hospital (for cancer treatment if I recall.)

They asked for an audit of their records, as what should have been private info was flowing freely as gossip, and they found several folks that did not have direct care responsibilities had looked at notes they shouldn't have.

Several people lost their jobs over it, and I could have been caught up in it, had it not been for a good manager that I worked for at the time. I'd been approached by the nursing supervisor and asked to keep an eye out early on while making my rounds (working security then), because the doc felt uncomfortable. When I did a quick report on it later (we did report on stuff for both documenting and justifying our time), I wasn't 100% on the room number and spelling of the Docs name (hyphenated and unusual), and I figured the report might get looked at by upper management later if it became an issue. So, I looked it up, but didn't view anything (though I had some additional access available because I worked multiple positions for the hospital.)

After the audit my manager pulled me in, and basically very vaguely asked if I was aware of issue. I said yeah (but not initially thinking about the access audit yet), in fact I filed a quick report on it when I was working a shift, and I'd tried to keep an eye on it, but didn't see much unusual activity.

He didn't ask any other questions, but he said he was behind on report review and to go get a snack, and give him some time to catch up.

He looked at the timestamp of my access to the basic demographic info (name spelling and room number), saw it was within minutes of my report filing, and that was the end of it he told me a little more later once the terminations started, as we had to standby for them, and that's when the audit thing came out. But, I got the impression if I hadn't been writing the report, I would have been gone also.
 
Last edited:
allisolm said:
Rats. Beat me by 4 minutes.
From the article:

"Now the grand jury has returned 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct for filing a false police report."
Click to expand...

I'd guess they're right about a plea deal covering all the separate state charges related to lying. If I was a betting person, I'd say some significant restitution regarding the investigation and some form of probation/suspended sentence.

But, the federal case for the "white powder" letter might really jam him up. Even fake terror threats sent through the mail can carry serious charges. And generally federal sentences are less lenient on probation/parole.
 
UglyCasanova said:
I’m not buying it. Every hospital has (should have) secure online med records and it tracks everything you do. A glass barrier and to access it you have to break the glass is how I’ve heard it described, maybe somebody on here in the med field can fill in a bit more details. Not buying they just scrolled past.
Click to expand...



My guess is that some of them searched on his name to see if he was there and just scrolled through the list without viewing his records. An audit would pickup the search criteria which would implicate them. I would speculate that it broke HIPAA rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top