It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida Cops Plan to Draw Blood at Checkpoints

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
how can you not agree with rcwj? he is an actual levelheaded cop who is willing to explain the reasons behind things. i don't agree with him all the time but 90% of the time i do. if you want to know something about police work just ask him and i am sure he will be glad to explain whatever you ask and in a polite manner. i have never seen him be mean or degrading even to people who are to him.




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I'm here in california and they did a forced blood test on me and I was the passenger in the car it was effin crazy,I asked for a attorney and they laughed and said I had no rights then had 6 cops restrain me to take my blood and the phlemtologist that ... Just stabbed me and took my effin blood o and then I get 13 hours in jail for resisting and o ya this is in fresno suprise suprise home of the officers that beat citizens and enforce the law how they see fit its garbage what they can and will do.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


they can forcefully draw it after getting a Judge to sign a warrant in austin. They just did it a few weeks ago the night of the superbowl



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
eyewitness is right...we cant take your blood without your permission or warrant. That is why your read implied consent about giving blood or breath or urine. If you refuse then you void your contract that you signed with DOT when you got your drivers license. But again remember...unless you have indicators of drinking and driving its a waste of our time to go through the process....so as we all have agreed...DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE and life will not skip a beat for ya....not to mention you don't put MANY innocent people at risk



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I hate drunk drivers but even i think this is over the line. Much better to cut back on the checkpoints and hand out severe sentences to those that do get caught. All DUI, even first time, should be classed as a felony and the offenders should lose their license for a couple years. I don't really favor prison time cause we don't have the space.

The way it is now, most DUIs just pay a fine.

We need to treat drunk driving as the super-violent drug crime it is.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by baseball101
 


No, it was not directed at you but I'm anticipating the usual crybaby parade that accompanies drunk driving threads. I can't believe anyone on here is so uninformed on how police depts. operate after all the threads on that subject that anyone believes they would harvest blood to begin with.

Once again, not directed at you, too lazy to hit the new post button!



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I like the idea mentioned that if you refuse a breathalyzer your license is suspended. Drunk driving has caused too many deaths and accidents, the police need some level of enforcement on this. Drawing blood at a common checkpoint crosses way over the line however. I would refuse for sure.

I was stopped once about 5 years at one of these, and the officer asked me if I had anything to drink, I wasn't going to lie, it was half a glass of wine 4 hours ago with a large meal, and I told him that. He said are you serious, to which I said yes, and he said ok move along. That was it, I appreciated that they were targeting only heavy drinkers, trying to stop them.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
There are a few issues here: We have a document called the Constitution, and it has the fourth amendment. This is a blatent disregard of the law...of course drinking and driving is bad, but bad people deserve to have their rights protected too. This is difficult for some to understand. Why should a psycho killer have access to great defense? Because if you believe in justice and his rights are infringed, logically yours/mine will be next. If we do not stand together for our rights, we GIVE those rights away, and thus begins a systematic taking away. Catching a criminal at the expense of our convictions is a slippery slope...don't you think?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Torsion girl
There are a few issues here: We have a document called the Constitution, and it has the fourth amendment. This is a blatent disregard of the law...of course drinking and driving is bad, but bad people deserve to have their rights protected too. This is difficult for some to understand. Why should a psycho killer have access to great defense? Because if you believe in justice and his rights are infringed, logically yours/mine will be next. If we do not stand together for our rights, we GIVE those rights away, and thus begins a systematic taking away. Catching a criminal at the expense of our convictions is a slippery slope...don't you think?


But to compare a murder to drunk driving isn't close. We as LE can't set up checks to prevent and catch murder, now road checks such as these looking for DUI's HAVE led to the arrest of those who have commited murder or had the fruits of the crime so a murder MAY have been prevented...but its NOT the same. Sure a murder suspect gets a defense attorney because WE or usually noone saw the act of murder take place...so he has the right to try and defend himself from prosicution. A drunk driver is more likely to be caught in the act and taken off the streets before he/she DOES kill someone....I again see no problems with it as long as its done right and in the manner stated in my other post. No rights will be violated once done in that manner.

[edit on 2/23/2009 by rcwj75]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
So, if there were a preventative, invasive, right infringing thing we could do to prevent murderers from killing, we should?? I do understand why LE would feel that this is an effective tool, it has a clear and concise result. But what of scientific advances that reveal other clear results? Will it one day be acceptable to genetically test for what may be decisisive evidence of criminal intent?

What I was saying, while comparing the related acts of murder and drunk driving, is that allowing this kind of blood testing could be a stepping stone to even more loss of privacy. EVERYTHING about you and me is in our blood, and I really do believe that the drafters of the Constitution sought to provide the framework of freedom. They could have never imagined their government forcing the taking of blood from a citizen. It is concerning.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join