Cops Forcibly Take Blood From Drivers Suspected of Drinking

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


sorry mate, you seem to have missed the bit where i said "if you are obviously drunk"

as in, you know, slurring, reeking of booze, falling down...obviously drunk.




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   


According to common law or natural law there must be a injured party before it is considered unlawful. In this case they will force a blood draw if refused consent happens regardless if there is an injured party. If there is no accident resulting in injury or property damage than technically they shouldn't even be arrested to begin with.
As far as the 5th goes you are correct about the right not to testify against yourself, but it also includes the right against self incrimination. By giving the driver a choice to consent or not is also giving the driver the choice to self incriminate or not. However, by forcibly drawing blood one way or the other than unfortunately it matters not


The Common law is law made by the decisions courts on a case by case backs, setting precedence, either in non statutory areas or by statutory interpretation.

Cause no harm is not a good basis for all law, conspiracy to commit harm is also, as is reckless or negligent actions. Ie it would be illegal for me to leave my new born kid at home alone while I when out to the pub, even if no actual harm came to him. As would driving the wrong way down the M8, regardless of any one is harmed and that's just basics.

Once you get in to competition and employment law in many cases there is no injured party, ie I can sue an employer for failing to meet minimum safety requirements, even if no accident occurs, I am still at risk. The right to not incriminate your self extends pretty much to the right to silence or not submit evidence in the absence of a court order, evidence can be taken from you against your consent by court order, ie DNA can be taken if suspected of murder.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-7-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Not true and a common misconception used by those wierdo's in the Freeman movement.

Common law is Law set by case precedent. It has nothing to do with whether there is an injured party or not.

The Freemen often like to confuse this up with statute law, by claiming that one is different from the other, but in reality statute law is that made by the legislature (could be regarded as raw law) which is then interpreted (refined) by the courts which then becomes case/common law.


Exactly. I dont know whats more crazy the fact that people believe FMOTL, or the fact that some have obviously devoted a lot of time to studying it.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


You're use of insults only shows your small mind. This search is not a violation of the law. After you're arrested your rights change. I have no problem doing this if it keeps the drunks from killing people on the streets. Until you've pulled some innocent person from a mangled wreck caused by some selfish drunk I don't want to hear it.

And yes I've saved many lives. How many have you saved?



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by stumason
 


sorry mate, you seem to have missed the bit where i said "if you are obviously drunk"

as in, you know, slurring, reeking of booze, falling down...obviously drunk.


Another ridiculous position to take. Someone can look perfectly "normal" and not be "obviously drunk", yet still be over the limit and pose a risk to themselves and others from slower reaction times, poor judgement and disorientation.





new topics

top topics
 
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join