Cops Forcibly Take Blood From Drivers Suspected of Drinking

This is done POST arrest only. You people need to get your facts straight before you fly off the handle. The reason it's done in the field is to have a more accurate reading closer to the time of the incident. Again this is POST arrest only.

Paramedic in North Carolina who has done blood draws of this type many times.

reply to post by jude11


Extreme Haemophiliacs may see this as far more dangerous but if it is carried out by anyone other than a medical trained person constitutes a clear breach of international human rights laws concerning the treatment of person the infringement of human dignity (which also gives them the internationally recognised right to refuse medical treatment if they are not insane or a convicted criminal or in imminent danger of death), now I do not like drink drivers but this is going too far.
Insurance queries as concerns the unauthorised and medically unqualified use of this technique need to be asked.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by jude11

 

Extreme Haemophiliacs may see this as far more dangerous but if it is carried out by anyone other than a medical trained person constitutes a clear breach of international human rights laws concerning the treatment of person the infringement of human dignity, now I do not like drink drivers but this is going too far.
Insurance queries as concerns the unauthorised and medically unqualified use of this technique need to be asked.

Its done by a nurse

Originally posted by Redarguo

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by jude11

 

Extreme Haemophiliacs may see this as far more dangerous but if it is carried out by anyone other than a medical trained person constitutes a clear breach of international human rights laws concerning the treatment of person the infringement of human dignity, now I do not like drink drivers but this is going too far.
Insurance queries as concerns the unauthorised and medically unqualified use of this technique need to be asked.

Its done by a nurse

edit on 1-7-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

Well, It's all ok then.

Peace

reply to post by jude11


I hope everyone here notices how intentionally vague you are about the procedure to incite anger.

Then when someone explains it.... here you come all short tempered.

Its very dishonest, but you already know that.

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by Redarguo

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by jude11

 

Extreme Haemophiliacs may see this as far more dangerous but if it is carried out by anyone other than a medical trained person constitutes a clear breach of international human rights laws concerning the treatment of person the infringement of human dignity, now I do not like drink drivers but this is going too far.
Insurance queries as concerns the unauthorised and medically unqualified use of this technique need to be asked.

Its done by a nurse

edit on 1-7-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

Well, It's all ok then.

Peace

Sorry I thought the objection was because the poster thought it was not.

Originally posted by mus8472
This is done POST arrest only. You people need to get your facts straight before you fly off the handle. The reason it's done in the field is to have a more accurate reading closer to the time of the incident. Again this is POST arrest only.

Paramedic in North Carolina who has done blood draws of this type many times.

In the true essence of this thread, you are in support of this violation of human rights and therefore in support of the destruction of the CONSTITUTION.

Post arrest means nothing as anyone can be arrested for any fabricated charge and in your eyes must then submit to any and all violations of their rights.

If you are indeed a paramedic I feel sorry for any that you have contact with. Your job is to save lives. Please stop kneeling.

Shame on you.



Peace

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by jude11

 

I hope everyone here notices how intentionally vague you are about the procedure to incite anger.

Then when someone explains it.... here you come all short tempered.

Its very dishonest, but you already know that.

If you actually read and followed the sources, you would understand.

Too much to ask?

Very simple...FORCEFULLY TAKING BLOOD FROM "SUSPECTED" DRUNK DRIVERS.

"SUSPECTED" "FORCEFULLY" "BLOOD"

Need any more clarification?

If you were anywhere near to understanding this stepping stone to complete dominance of humans and the absolute destruction of our rights as humans, you would understand.

This is not a debatable issue when people understand the fundamental issues of total dominance over a Nation, over the World. It's reality and deserves nothing but a fight against it.

If you are in agreement with these tactics there is nothing left to say is there?

Jude11

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by jude11

 

Maybe if you had a better idea of how to catch and prevent drunk driving we could scrap the whole thing.

People subvert laws written in the blood of innocents in the name of freedom. What should be done?

This is just a pretext to yet another loss of rights and freedoms.

If they can do this for this reason, why not other reasons? Once it becomes accepted in the public eye, it's on to the next.

Since there is a law that states either you give the breathalyzer or be considered guilty, isn't that enough? No, this is much more.

They are holding people down, restraining them, twisting their necks and drawing blood against their will. And what if you are NOT drunk? Same treatment.

Consider it. You are not drunk but the cop says you are. You are detained, strapped down, arm across your neck and head, needle stuck in you...and you are innocent. I believe you would have a different opinion of this if it actually happened to you.

Nope, not the answer at all.

Peace

So....... if you ARE drunk you are all for you being able to escape any checks to prove it and thus deny you the right to put other peoples lives at risk? To quote you, I believe you would have a different opinion of this if it actually happened to you (or added by me, any of your family or friends that was injured or killed by a drunk driver).

Doesn't the saying on here go that your rights exist until they violate mine? In this case that is a much more clear cut way of looking at this.

Originally posted by uncommitted

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by jude11

 

Maybe if you had a better idea of how to catch and prevent drunk driving we could scrap the whole thing.

People subvert laws written in the blood of innocents in the name of freedom. What should be done?

This is just a pretext to yet another loss of rights and freedoms.

If they can do this for this reason, why not other reasons? Once it becomes accepted in the public eye, it's on to the next.

Since there is a law that states either you give the breathalyzer or be considered guilty, isn't that enough? No, this is much more.

They are holding people down, restraining them, twisting their necks and drawing blood against their will. And what if you are NOT drunk? Same treatment.

Consider it. You are not drunk but the cop says you are. You are detained, strapped down, arm across your neck and head, needle stuck in you...and you are innocent. I believe you would have a different opinion of this if it actually happened to you.

Nope, not the answer at all.

Peace

So....... if you ARE drunk you are all for you being able to escape any checks to prove it and thus deny you the right to put other peoples lives at risk? To quote you, I believe you would have a different opinion of this if it actually happened to you (or added by me, any of your family or friends that was injured or killed by a drunk driver).

Doesn't the saying on here go that your rights exist until they violate mine? In this case that is a much more clear cut way of looking at this.

Please remember...

"Suspected"...not guilty.

And if this law of "Suspected" allows law enforcement to conduct such draconian measures, where does it stop?

Think outside the box on this one. If this is allowed, where does it stop?

Knocking on your door, entering, seizing anything they want and then using the precedent of "Suspected" is next.

Are you ok with them illegally doing this in your home?

If so, good luck.

Peace

Key thing tho, like the blood they need a warrant to size your property. Following your logic the police could not gather any evidence nor arrest anyone, as they are just suspects.

Obviously they will be suspects before being tried, in order to be tried they need evidence. In order to get evidence or arrest they need reasonable cause.

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by uncommitted

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by jude11

 

Maybe if you had a better idea of how to catch and prevent drunk driving we could scrap the whole thing.

People subvert laws written in the blood of innocents in the name of freedom. What should be done?

This is just a pretext to yet another loss of rights and freedoms.

If they can do this for this reason, why not other reasons? Once it becomes accepted in the public eye, it's on to the next.

Since there is a law that states either you give the breathalyzer or be considered guilty, isn't that enough? No, this is much more.

They are holding people down, restraining them, twisting their necks and drawing blood against their will. And what if you are NOT drunk? Same treatment.

Consider it. You are not drunk but the cop says you are. You are detained, strapped down, arm across your neck and head, needle stuck in you...and you are innocent. I believe you would have a different opinion of this if it actually happened to you.

Nope, not the answer at all.

Peace

So....... if you ARE drunk you are all for you being able to escape any checks to prove it and thus deny you the right to put other peoples lives at risk? To quote you, I believe you would have a different opinion of this if it actually happened to you (or added by me, any of your family or friends that was injured or killed by a drunk driver).

Doesn't the saying on here go that your rights exist until they violate mine? In this case that is a much more clear cut way of looking at this.

Please remember...

"Suspected"...not guilty.

And if this law of "Suspected" allows law enforcement to conduct such draconian measures, where does it stop?

Think outside the box on this one. If this is allowed, where does it stop?

Knocking on your door, entering, seizing anything they want and then using the precedent of "Suspected" is next.

Are you ok with them illegally doing this in your home?

If so, good luck.

Peace

Why are you putting 2 and 2 together and using your logic to come up with an answer other than 4? Before you start that kind of 'out of box' thinking it helps to look at facts. If someone is acting like they are drunk, gives any indication of being drunk while being a risk to others then taking evidence is about making sure they are less likely to injure themselves or others.

Never mind, that means looking at the safety of others rather than getting indignant for the sake of it.

Good luck with that

Originally posted by Daedalus
i agree, zero tolerance is the way to go with it. if you are obviously drunk, and you refuse, you get arrested, your car impounded, you go to jail for the night, you lose your license, and you have your day in court.

strapping people down, and taking their blood, because they did not want to comply with the request, it taking it too far.

How can they have their day in court and be punished if there is no evidence they were DUI? It's all very well being arrested for the suspicion of being DUI, but without a legal breath or blood test, it would get thrown out of court, letting them effectively get away with it.

Originally posted by Daedalus
there's no longer any need to collect evidence, because they're off the road, and won't be back on it legally for a long time.

Of course there is a need to get evidence, otherwise like I said they would not be charged and convicted of the offence, thus being able to walk off scot free and do the same again.

I'm also quite shocked that being DUI seems to be regarded as a relatively minor offence in the US, at least by certain members in this thread anyway. Over here it is pretty much the single worse thing you can do as a driver and just being caught can carry a 3 year ban, a massive fine and the loss of your job. God forbid you injure or kill anyone, then you'll be doing a lengthy stretch at HM pleasure.

reply to post by jude11


Oh please - being a suspect is probable cause and allows the Police to then take measure to collect evidence in relation to the offence you are suspected of committing. How else do you expect the Police to be able to catch criminals if they cannot collect evidence from those suspected of offences?

Look, I see you're getting funny about some hypothetical situation where a rozzer stops you for no reason (in that you did nothing wrong with your driving) then proceeds to ask you to do a breath test, which you refuse as a matter of principle (despite the fact providing said sample would make your life so much easier as they wouldn't be able to arrest you as you're clean). He then arrests you on suspicion of driving DUI (without evidence) and takes you down the station. You are then subjected to a blood test against your will.

Now, in such a situation, that test would come back negative and without any kind of supporting evidence, such as a video of your driving erratically or behaving drunk, the Police are then on very shaky ground and you could sue their arses off! Surely you guys have some sort of Police complaints procedure with independent oversight, no?

You are clearly getting your panties in a bunch of a hypothetical scenario, which in reality is very unlikely to happen. If it did happen, simply providing the breath sample would be enough to see you on your way. Here in the UK, whether you are drunk or not, refusing to supply a breath sample is itself a separate offence so why not simply comply if you are not DUI instead of having your arse dragged through the judicial system?

This is very disturbing indeed. Everyone that is forced to go through this should file suit against all officers involved for emotional trauma. Hitting them in the wallet and making them go through the hassles of court is at least better than doing nothing. Residents of that county should also start to protest in front of the police station. This would draw some kind of media attention and send a message to the other counties in that state who are considering doing this as well.

It's funny how they say that if you refuse you must have something to hide, but the same doesn't apply to them when they protest having a camera pointed at them. Wake up America! It's YOUR life, YOUR republic, YOUR choice.

Originally posted by Stashman
This is very disturbing indeed. Everyone that is forced to go through this should file suit against all officers involved for emotional trauma.

Even though (and I am willing to place a large wad of cash on this) everyone in that video being blood tested was actually over the limit and DUI? Remember, they were only there because they refused a roadside breath sample and then had their blood taking under warrant after being arrested for suspicion of being DUI.

Sure, if they have been arrested for no reason and the blood test proves them as being OK, go for the law suit, but I bet none of them were actually "wrongfully" arrested.

I am having a really hard time understanding the thought process of people who would defend such behaviour behind a thin veil of "rights". What about the rights of other road users not to be killed by an irresponsible, selfish prick?

I am a proud American. I am also proud that Americas founding fathers provided the bill of rights to us to protect us from things like this. Right now in America we are seeing the erosion of our God given rights. The 5th amendment among other things gives the right not to incriminate ourselves, and this so called new law is only a way for them to get around that.
Another thing is that this is not just about driving drunk. It also will apply to everyone in the vehicle that's been drinking, and sooner or later anyone drinking in public though not even driving. These officers take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and treading on the rights of others is a violation of that oath.

reply to post by Stashman


The 5th (which actually stems from English common Law and the Magna Carta which the Founding fathers just pinched) only protects you from being forced to testify against yourself. It doesn't protect you from having physical evidence of your law breaking being taken.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Stashman

 

The 5th (which actually stems from English common Law and the Magna Carta which the Founding fathers just pinched) only protects you from being forced to testify against yourself. It doesn't protect you from having physical evidence of your law breaking being taken.

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

Originally posted by Stashman
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.

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.