Replies

You said, "The woman's life was not endangered by the library's refusal to ID her. She was already receiving emergency treatment. What the library's refusal delayed was notification of relatives."

Many of you have the same argument -- essentially that there was no harm done.

Are you substituing your own judgement for the people involved in this matter? Aren't you assuming the police really had no need for information since their job is just to get her to a hospital and the hospital can worry about identifying her later? Do you think the police's need for the information was motivated merely by curiosity or perhaps an interest in helping the hospital get a head start on identifying the victim?

It appears to me that your statements evidence a decided bias against the police. And it is clear you have a decided bias in favor of the ALA policy as applied by the library. The actual library policy seems to allow for police emergencies, but it was applied in a way that seems to have ignored that provision.

Now neither you nor I were at the scene. While I have been asking questions and suggesting conclusions that may be drawn, you have been changing the facts to fit your own biases. Like the claim that it only took 10 minutes to decide to help the police. You leave out that the help for the police was refused. Only later was help offered, but it was too late by then. Yes, that may have only occured in 10 minutes, but saying it took 10 minutes to reach a decision clearly misrepresents the facts. You see, to make your case, it's apparent you need to rewrite the facts. Now what does that say about the weight one might give to your arguments?