Cops forcefully drawing blood-drunk driving

reply to post by jfj123

Yes, I agree with you. I was just talking about heavy drinkers. As I understand the law this was to get the drinkers that are 3rd 4th etc offenders.
Recently in Colorado 2 people were killed on the way to DIA to catch a flight and were hit by someone that have been convicted 3 times of drunk driving. That person was free on bond 2 days later

Huh? Please tell me this is a bad joke.

No one is gonna take my blood if I dont want to. My blood is priceless

They deff would have to take me in for Failure to Obey a Lawful Order.

This World ain't just Crazy, it's totally LOST

it is simply unconstitutional. If you refuse the breathalizer, you are guilty. there is no need to forcefully take blood. I would assume quite a few lawyers will be moving to Texas to fatten the old wallet. this wont go well for the state. Drinking and driving is a crime and illegal. Put the guilty in jail. Only a medical professional can draw blood. (flebotomist) But please don't go around saying how you are going to beat up the cops. They are doing their job. The law is what needs to be changed/fixed.

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by jfj123

 

You are not forced to get a drivers license or drive on the state owned roadway..

If you don't want to give blood, don't drive...

Or even easier.. Don't drink and drive...

Semper

I disagree that I'm not forced to get a drivers license. If I drive without a drivers license I'll eventually get punished very severely. Without food on my plate, I could possibly die. And without a car, I can't get to my job to earn money to put food on my plate. I work at various locations, so it is simply not possible for me to car-pool. Most locations in the USA are set up so that without car or you may actually not be able to earn more than a poverty wage because the only jobs within 10 miles of a very large number of residences are minimum wage jobs. Without being able to drive my life is very adversely affected, as is true with about any American. In countries where a walking or biking commute is possible I may think differently.

Nobody in America drives on any state-owned roadways. As a taxpayer I am the rightful owner of the roads (collectively with others). The state manages my roads, as they are public-owned but state maintained. Please don't forget that government is supposed to be in a master-servant relationship. People like me are the master and the government is my servant.

I consider driving a right unless I show that I have been systematically an unsafe driver or I cause an extreme problem by an obvious mistake. I'll go a step further and say that drivers should be allowed to drive as drunk as they want as long as the driver does not drive recklessly or start swerving. As far as I'm concerned each person has a greatly different ability to handle alchohol. I would never drink and drive but only because I think I could not do so safely. Other people who are complete drunks all day could probably drive perfectly at .08 or higher because their body adapts.

I have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. My interpretation of that is that I can do whatever I want so long as I'm not causing harm to others.

Drawing blood is fine so long as it is performed by a qualified person under probable cause, AND the information is handled on a proper need to know basis. But it usually is done improperly as the government violates that privacy by taking my information and never relinquishing it, even regardless of whether the punishment has already been carried out or whether or not I was found guilty. The state does not need to keep my blood sample forever but I'm sure in a lot of cases they would do exactly that, whether or not I turn out to be guilty.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Aakron]

That seems a little harsh but i guess it makes sense because a breathalizer cant tell you if you just shot up heroin or just hit the bong.

Originally posted by jfj123
The needle itself may be sterile but you're assuming that qualified personnel are performing the draw in a safe and sterile manner.

No, I'm presuming, based on the implementation and funding of a program that requires all DUI suspects to give blood, that the officers will receive training.

That being said, the only reason I mentioned I wouldn't mind a breathalizer is that it is not invasive. I would NOT allow them to draw blood.

If I was the cop, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A CHOICE! becauase I would TAKE YOUR BLOOD BY FORCE!

My point is that you could be pulled over and accused of whatever the cop wants including drunk driving.

Not as much of a point, as a very dull edge.

reply to post by xxpigxx


heh. you get a star for getting out of the law 'enforcement' racket. i know a few guys that became mercs (they're not all bad guys) after leaving the police force for similar reasons. from their point of view, they got into law enforcement on the premise that they would actually be making a difference but became disillusioned by the inability to do so.


also i'd like to add...

a blood test is going reveal much more about you than your breath. its is a way of testing people that are intoxicated by substances other than alcohol. the more violators that are pulled in the more revenue it generates for the county/municipal govt.

you can resist a blood test at the police station. they will have to get a court order, and you will be 'held in contempt', therefore jailed until you comply or sentenced if you do not comply. edit: that is unless you can afford top-notch legal advice!

if police are to be allowed to do this then they should be required to undergo proper training and be aware of cross contamination prevention procedures (just like a nurse or paramedic)... i'm not letting anyone without medical training get anywhere near me with a sharps. (even doctors admit the medical profession is a 'practice'.)

what happens when some unlucky individual that suffers from blenophobia (needles) is approached by a cop wielding the object of their greatest fear? next thing you know they are facing a felony charge for assaulting an officer.

hahaha. it's true, the state is out for your blood!




[edit on 25/5/2009 by gravykraken]

Originally posted by Illuminatus I

That being said, the only reason I mentioned I wouldn't mind a breathalizer is that it is not invasive. I would NOT allow them to draw blood.

If I was the cop, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A CHOICE! becauase I would TAKE YOUR BLOOD BY FORCE!

No you wouldn't

My point is that you could be pulled over and accused of whatever the cop wants including drunk driving.

Not as much of a point, as a very dull edge.

Do you think false arrests never occur?
Do you think police never go too far?
Do you think police never manipulate evidence?
Do you think police never issue false tickets?

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Illuminatus I

That being said, the only reason I mentioned I wouldn't mind a breathalizer is that it is not invasive. I would NOT allow them to draw blood.

If I was the cop, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A CHOICE! becauase I would TAKE YOUR BLOOD BY FORCE!

No you wouldn't

Yes I would, and there would be nothing you could do about it. If you resisted, I would tazer you, manipulate the evidence, and give you false tickets and probably plant some dope on you for good measure. Not only would you end up in the holding cell with a bunch of needle punctures, you'd have a few extra charges. I can waste all of your time that I want, buddy.

Do you think false arrests never occur?
Do you think police never go too far?
Do you think police never manipulate evidence?
Do you think police never issue false tickets?

Do you think it's obvious that you just have a chip on your shoulder?

Originally posted by Illuminatus I

That being said, the only reason I mentioned I wouldn't mind a breathalizer is that it is not invasive. I would NOT allow them to draw blood.

If I was the cop, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A CHOICE! becauase I would TAKE YOUR BLOOD BY FORCE!

No you wouldn't

Yes I would,

Wouldn't happen. Only in your mind

and there would be nothing you could do about it. If you resisted, I would tazer you,

No you wouldn't.

manipulate the evidence, and give you false tickets and probably plant some dope on you for good measure. Not only would you end up in the holding cell with a bunch of needle punctures, you'd have a few extra charges. I can waste all of your time that I want, buddy.

Nope.

Do you think false arrests never occur?
Do you think police never go too far?
Do you think police never manipulate evidence?
Do you think police never issue false tickets?

Do you think it's obvious that you just have a chip on your shoulder?

So you're saying none of that occurs and it's just me??? Do I really need to post article after article and video after video ????

[edit on 25-5-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123

Whatever. I can see you have the attitude of a little kid... I grow tired of your games. It's juvenile and it shows you don't have an appropriate grip on reality. You really need to grow up, you are not invincible. Grow up and realize your limitations and that you are in fact subject to the law just like everyone else.

So you're saying none of that occurs and it's just me??? Do I really need to post article after article and video after video ????

The fact that it sometimes occurs has no bearing on getting drunks off the road. We don't afford drunks the right to drive just because police make mistakes. This isn't some kiddie cops-and-robbers game where we have to be fair to the robbers.

Just grow up.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Illuminatus I]

Originally posted by Illuminatus I

Originally posted by jfj123

Whatever. I can see you have the attitude of a little kid... I grow tired of your games. It's juvenile and it shows you don't have an appropriate grip on reality. You really need to grow up, you are not invincible. Grow up and realize your limitations and that you are in fact subject to the law just like everyone else.

So you're saying none of that occurs and it's just me??? Do I really need to post article after article and video after video ????

The fact that it sometimes occurs has no bearing on getting drunks off the road. We don't afford drunks the right to drive just because police make mistakes. This isn't some kiddie cops-and-robbers game where we have to be fair to the robbers.

Just grow up.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Illuminatus I]

I never said it did.
Yes we do need to be fair to the robbers. It's part of the legal system. I'm a bit surprised you're not familiar with it.

Originally posted by Illuminatus I
Originally posted by jfj123


Whatever. I can see you have the attitude of a little kid...

You're making statements. I'm simply responding to them. Your statements dictate my responses so it seems to me you've chosen childish statements. Your bad

I grow tired of your games.

I didn't start the games. You made a point of telling me what you would do to me. I simply made a point of telling you, you are wrong What do you expect me to say? Yes sir, whatever you say sir??? Come on !

It's juvenile and it shows you don't have an appropriate grip on reality.

Again, I'm only responding to your statements.

You really need to grow up, you are not invincible.

I never said I was. I simply stated that YOU wouldn't be able to take my blood. Sorry if your ego is too fragile for you to handle the truth.

Grow up and realize your limitations and that you are in fact subject to the law just like everyone else.

I never suggested I wasn't subject to laws. I have only suggested that I won't have blood drawn.




[edit on 25-5-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Illuminatus I

Originally posted by jfj123

Whatever. I can see you have the attitude of a little kid... I grow tired of your games. It's juvenile and it shows you don't have an appropriate grip on reality. You really need to grow up, you are not invincible. Grow up and realize your limitations and that you are in fact subject to the law just like everyone else.

So you're saying none of that occurs and it's just me??? Do I really need to post article after article and video after video ????

The fact that it sometimes occurs has no bearing on getting drunks off the road. We don't afford drunks the right to drive just because police make mistakes. This isn't some kiddie cops-and-robbers game where we have to be fair to the robbers.

Just grow up.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Illuminatus I]

I never said it did.
Yes we do need to be fair to the robbers. It's part of the legal system. I'm a bit surprised you're not familiar with it.

We don't need to be fair to the robbers as in, give them a head start to get away. That's what you are implying with blood-tests being too invasive for testing drunks. By the time it takes a cop to get someone down to the hospital who refuses a Breathalyzer, and waiting to get blood drawn, BAC levels can go down below the legal limit.

Originally posted by jfj123

The "I'm rubber, you're glue" game is not witty.

I simply stated that YOU wouldn't be able to take my blood. Sorry if your ego is too fragile for you to handle the truth.

Somebody can take your blood, and I'm that somebody for the purposes of this thread, or do you seriously not understand hypothetical situations?

You obviously seem to think that you are immune to any of your crooked cop examples from taking your blood then.

I never suggested I wasn't subject to laws. I have only suggested that I won't have blood drawn.

Then you'll be subject to the fairness of the law which applies to robbers: You will be charged with a DUI and arrested.

Hey, but at least you kept your blood right?

Originally posted by Illuminatus I

We don't need to be fair to the robbers as in, give them a head start to get away. That's what you are implying with blood-tests being too invasive for testing drunks. By the time it takes a cop to get someone down to the hospital who refuses a Breathalyzer, and waiting to get blood drawn, BAC levels can go down below the legal limit.

I'm implying nothing of the kind. I've even mentioned that those who choose not to have blood tests can expect a defacto judgement against them.

And for the record, we're not talking about robbers, we're talking about drunk drivers.

The problem is that in some instances, cops are and will be acting as nurses without the proper training. In addition, bloodwork can be analyzed for more then just alcohol level without the knowledge or consent of the person. I'm all for throwing the book at drunk drivers but holding someone down and forcibly taking their blood violates their Constitutional rights as they're being asked to incriminate themselves.
The past administration has torn the Constitution into small pieces and used it for toilet paper and that needs to end not be expanded.

Originally posted by Illuminatus I
Originally posted by jfj123

The "I'm rubber, you're glue" game is not witty.

I simply stated that YOU wouldn't be able to take my blood. Sorry if your ego is too fragile for you to handle the truth.

Somebody can take your blood, and I'm that somebody for the purposes of this thread, or do you seriously not understand hypothetical situations?
You can be anyone you like for any purpose you like. It doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't allow my Constitutional rights to be violated.

I never suggested I wasn't subject to laws. I have only suggested that I won't have blood drawn.

Then you'll be subject to the fairness of the law which applies to robbers: You will be charged with a DUI and arrested.

No I wouldn't. There is a difference between robbery and drinking and driving. Completely separate things.
For the record, I would NEVER drink and drive but if I had a choice between taking a defacto judgement or having my blood drawn against my will, I'd take the judgement.

Hey, but at least you kept your blood right?

You still don't get that it's not just about your blood. Are you familiar with the United States Constitution?

[edit on 25-5-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
And for the record, we're not talking about robbers, we're talking about drunk drivers.

I'm glad you've finally realized that our discussion is allegorical.

The problem is that in some instances, cops are and will be acting as nurses without the proper training.

How do you know they won't have training?

In addition, bloodwork can be analyzed for more then just alcohol level without the knowledge or consent of the person.

Good! They can catch people who are driving under the influence of other drugs.

I'm all for throwing the book at drunk drivers but holding someone down and forcibly taking their blood violates their Constitutional rights as they're being asked to incriminate themselves.

They'll only hold down the ones that resist, like you. You are just bringing it upon yourself. If you don't drink and drive in the first place, or operate a vehicle under the influence of any other dangerous drugs, you have nothing to worry about. They aren't checking people who appear sober. If you can't drive when you are sober, then perhaps you shouldn't even be on the road.

Originally posted by jfj123
You can be anyone you like for any purpose you like. It doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't allow my Constitutional rights to be violated.

What would you do? Beat up the cops and go on a high speed chase? You can't refuse the test.


For the record, I would NEVER drink and drive but if I had a choice between taking a defacto judgement or having my blood drawn against my will, I'd take the judgement.


Enjoy losing your license.

You still don't get that it's not just about your blood. Are you familiar with the United States Constitution?

It's all about your blood.

Originally posted by Illuminatus I
Originally posted by jfj123
And for the record, we're not talking about robbers, we're talking about drunk drivers.

I'm glad you've finally realized that our discussion is allegorical.

I've been trying to explain this fact to you for awhile now but you've just not caught on until now.

The problem is that in some instances, cops are and will be acting as nurses without the proper training.

How do you know they won't have training?

Simply because they won't be able to go to school long enough to learn proper phlebotomy techniques. There are nurses and doctors who have a hard time finding good veins under the best of conditions let alone cops who've gone to a class or two.

In addition, bloodwork can be analyzed for more then just alcohol level without the knowledge or consent of the person.

Good! They can catch people who are driving under the influence of other drugs.

Still not getting it. Wow you're thick.

I'm all for throwing the book at drunk drivers but holding someone down and forcibly taking their blood violates their Constitutional rights as they're being asked to incriminate themselves.

They'll only hold down the ones that resist, like you. You are just bringing it upon yourself.

That's right. Everyone is just bringing it on themselves. We should tell the jews in nazi germany that too ! They just brought it on themselves.

If you don't drink and drive in the first place, or operate a vehicle under the influence of any other dangerous drugs, you have nothing to worry about.

Really? That easy huh? Just curious but when a cop pulls behind you when you're driving, do you get a bit nervous even though you're doing nothing wrong. Most people do. Why do you think that is????