Fox:Man screams "What country is this!" while the pigs strap him down and draw blood!

[Jarlaxle]

So, the guy gets drunk, drives, is pulled over and refuses the breathalyzer. Then he is forced, by law, to have blood drawn to determine if he was too impaired to drive. And conservatives in this thread are whining about it. What should the police have done -- let him go about his merry way? Would you guys rather see a drunk on the road?

Refuse the breathalyzer test?

Refuse the blood-draw test?

Automatic 'Guilty' plea to DUI charge.

And this is your idea of a better solution? A DUI conviction without evidence of guilt?

He is a GOOD little fascist!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Refuse the breathalyzer test?

Refuse the blood-draw test?

Automatic 'Guilty' plea to DUI charge.

Automatic towing-and-impounding of car and trip to jail and final chance to change mind about testing and formal charging (booking) and plea-entry and bail and scheduling of appearance for sentencing.

Automatic suspension or revocation of driver's license.

This way, there is no ultra-personal 'invasion' and the guy is off-the-street.

Win-Win.

How psychotic. Read the 5th Amendment...for comprehension this time, pisshead.

Thank you for your feedback, my vicious, nastly little Internet butt-nugget.

Now, why don't you amaze us with your Constitutional Scholarship, and give us some specifics regarding what you are objecting to, and the Constitutional basis for such objection(s).

Yer PROJECTING again, junior!

 

[FA_Q2]

Seeing as it is Jones there is only half the story. I don't even have to check to know whatever happened didn't have to.

The conversation, however, is about the ability for police to FORCE a blood draw on a SUSPECT of a crime (in this case DUI). The source is irrelevant as is the specific instance – the fact that the police can and do forcibly draw blood is not in question. That is a fact and there is even a SCOTUS ruling on that. The question then becomes whether or not you think the concept is right and whether or not you support its use.

 

[FA_Q2]

In my state I can choose a breathalyzer, a blood test performed at a hospital or decline and lose my driving privileges for a year. If I decline both then there is no arrest record, no trial for DUI and no conviction. It is my choice. I don't drink and drive - I rarely drink when I am not at home and I might have as many as three beers a year. This law is not only unlawful - in view of the existing law but it could be fatal for some. If they need to take blood then get it done at a hospital or doctors office not with four cops tying you down to a gurney and on twisting your head to the point it could cause injury or death.

This I can get behind. IF you rescind your consent then the state rescinds its consent to license you to drive for an extended period. Without conviction of a crime or any record/arrest, it alleviates much of the assumed guilt problem. That is simply the result of withdrawing your consent that was part of the driving contract.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with that punishment, but if that is the law, then that's all the more reason to not refuse one, or better yet, don't drive drunk.

Well…
You would be far better off refusing if you actually were drunk. A year without a license is far less than what you would get as a DUI, or at least should be. DUI’s are usually quite pricy.

 

[FA_Q2]

I guess you didn't read the link.

Back in Bush's day, the Supreme Court ruled this is constitutional.

AND?

Does EVRYTHING have to be partisan to you?

Seriously, we were having a fair conversation without referring to bullshit partisanship sans a few posters that have been largely ignored. We can debate the facts without being upset that it was not debated 5 years ago. The when it started is entirely irrelevant to the question as to whether or not it is right.

 

[FA_Q2]

Thank you for your feedback, my vicious, nastly little Internet butt-nugget.

Now, why don't you amaze us with your Constitutional Scholarship, and give us some specifics regarding what you are objecting to, and the Constitutional basis for such objection(s).

Would you please explain your rationale for considering a trip to jail, impounding of your car, and revocation of your driver license as "win-win."

I could understand the firm adherence to principles of liberty if submitting to the breathalyzer was unreasonable and unnecessarily oppressive. But drunk drivers are a menace and these tests are the only means of discouraging their presence on the roads where you and your loved ones could be injured or killed by them. It isn't like being pulled over and searched to see if you're carrying marijuana. It is something that operates in the interest of every sober and responsible driver on the road.

If you're not DUI you will be on your way. If you are DUI you'll get away with a fine and considerably less unpleasantness and loss than if you stand on some unreasonable principle, plead guilty to DUI, get fined, possibly serve six months, and lose your license to drive for a year or more.

I would say that's being a real loser, not winning.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

US Constitution, Amendment V

The SCOTUS seems to not agree though. If they are capable of strapping you down and taking blood then a breathalyzer is no different. It seems to me they are not seeing this as witnessing against yourself but rather simple evidence collection. Please clarify your position because reading that response makes it look like you are against the forced blood collection and that would rather surprise me.

 

[FA_Q2]

Simple solution, don't drink and drive. Sit in your house and get drunk or, have a sober designated driver.
If you refuse to cooperate when pulled over, then they need to get you off the road and some evidence as to why you were taken off the road and a blood test gets that evidence.
Personally, I think that law enforcement should be able to do to the driver, the same as they do for those who deal drugs out of the car in some areas; confiscate the car and auction it off (in the drunk drivers cases, with proceeds going to the victims of drunk drivers and a permanent ban on the guilty person being allowed a driver's license). Too many people have been victims of drunk drivers. It has to stop.

Sure, that's simple enough...

Now what happens when you're driving with a BAL of 0.00 because you don't even drink, but some cop decides to pull you over anyway, on "suspicion"?

Some of y'all don't get that nobody in the thread is defending drunks. They're defending non-drunks.

Drivers drunk on alcohol are a menace on the roads. That's a given. But police drunk on power are too.

See the attitude? That's what I'm talking about.

That's your defence? "So sue me"?? Every time I get police-overreached I'm supposed to go file another suit?

Are you insane?

Sure. Bad apples do get jobs in law enforcement. MAYBE you got stopped by one, and your cowardice in not confronting him and taking your case to his boss is going to result in his continued employment, and violating other people's rights. Grow a pair and do something.....or are you just gonna tolerate it and let it keep happening?

I bet his in-car camera would tell a different story. And who knows, maybe your vehicle matched the description of a vehicle involved in a kidnapping, or murder or some other serious crime, so GOD FORBID he had to inconvenience you to check out your car and ensure you weren't the REAL criminal they were looking for.

Im sure if your kid was kidnapped by a white male in a brown Ford truck, you'd demand cops NOT stop all the brown Ford trucks out there for "bullshit" reasons in an effort to find her.........right?

And, Im sure you read the daily crime reports issued to all the cops, so you KNOW that couldnt have been the case in your stop, right?

Get over it. You got stopped. It was minor. You drove away inconvenienced for a few minutes. Im sure the cop either had a good reason.......or, he wont be in LE for very long. A little longer thanks to you not speaking up, but eventually someone else with some guts will expose him.

Once again your superior asshole attitude just demonstrates my whole point. That's the problem; police drunk on power who think they can push the populace around.

And again, no there was no "matched a crime somewhere". They were sitting there watching us as soon as we came out of the house and waited a considerable time before I pulled out, knowing they were there. It took a considerable time because I was accommodating a disabled friend whose motion is severely limited. They watched the whole thing. They were playing bullshit. As are you.

Some just do not understand. We must ALWAYS be carful with the powers that we giver the police – they are the first tools that are used in suppressing the people. Corruption and power go hand and hand.

I do not trust the police with powers that far, that is why this whole thing rings wrong to me. I like the solution above, the only one so far that both does not involve admission of guilt AND does not give the police the power to take that which you do not want to give. It is not totally clean BUT it is better than the other options here.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think that we have missed a greater point here though. We are getting bogged down in the smaller DUI issue that is not as stark as the realization that this, like all police powers and SCOTUS decisions, sets precedent for wider use. They are taking forced blood samples from those that are SUSPECTS to a crime. At what point is this too far? If they have that right here, there is NOTHING that states they do not have the right to forcibly take blood from you at your home when they suspect that you robbed the local store. One day, a cop might knock on your door, drag you out of your house and take you down to the station to forcibly take blood when you have done nothing wrong other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am HIGHLY uncomfortable giving the police that kind of blanket power. I can guarantee that this WILL be extended all over police practices as well. It might be as standard as fingerprinting in the years to come. Instead of a print database, they can establish a DNA one for anyone arrested, innocent or not.

The ONE saving grace here is that, AFAIK, a warrant is still required for such action. That helps with the constitutionality as you ARE subject to ‘unreasonable search’ WITH a warrant.

 

[J.E.D]

Then let them strap you down like that and see how you feel about it. You'd squeal like a stuck pig.

You rubes are so cute. Just now whining about something which has been going on since long before Obama.

Such blazing public displays of ignorance!

Such a blazing public display of puerility. Do you people always troll me when I leave you helpless and without a rebuttal? And what does it matter if it's been going on long before Obama? Nobody should be doing this to anyone!

I believe his point is that you're at least 8 years late with your faux-outrage. That you're fauxing about this now, when a Democrat is president, must only be a coincidence.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Yer PROJECTING again, junior!"

1. That's the second time you've used that 'projecting' response - on different posters on the same thread - within 24 hours - you really DO have to get some newer and snappier comeback material.

2. I see that you failed to engage on the particulars of your Constitutional objection; consequently, I'm left with little choice but to speculate that you're out of your depth there; even from a layman's perspective. Funny, if true, given your earlier rambling.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Enjoy slavery!

» Shock Video Shows Police Forcibly Drawing Blood Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Buy lots of guns and ammo, the time is near.

Not surprised it is Georgia.

Not surprised it's where? Listen to these bigots, you would think that they still live in the democrat party segregationist days. The weather channel is located in Atlanta. Personally I'd much rather drive through Georgia than Detroit or Chicago.

bigot? How so? And WTF has the weather channel got to do with anything?

 

[Kondor3]

Thank you for your feedback, my vicious, nastly little Internet butt-nugget.

Now, why don't you amaze us with your Constitutional Scholarship, and give us some specifics regarding what you are objecting to, and the Constitutional basis for such objection(s).

Would you please explain your rationale for considering a trip to jail, impounding of your car, and revocation of your driver license as "win-win."

I could understand the firm adherence to principles of liberty if submitting to the breathalyzer was unreasonable and unnecessarily oppressive. But drunk drivers are a menace and these tests are the only means of discouraging their presence on the roads where you and your loved ones could be injured or killed by them. It isn't like being pulled over and searched to see if you're carrying marijuana. It is something that operates in the interest of every sober and responsible driver on the road.

If you're not DUI you will be on your way. If you are DUI you'll get away with a fine and considerably less unpleasantness and loss than if you stand on some unreasonable principle, plead guilty to DUI, get fined, possibly serve six months, and lose your license to drive for a year or more.

I would say that's being a real loser, not winning.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

US Constitution, Amendment V

As one of our colleagues has pointed out recently, our legal system perceives that providing breath or blood is 'Evidence Gathering' rather than 'Testifying Against Ones' Self', and, therefore, the Fifth does not apply.

As another of our colleagues has pointed out recently, our legal system perceives driving as a Privilege rather than a Right, and that, by invoking that Privilege, you are consenting to provide evidence of your Blood-Alcohol Content if challenged by law enforcement; thereby diluting your rights under the Fourth for this narrow purpose.

That takes care of the legal mechanisms and interpretations.

Now, as to refusing to provide such evidence...

As a matter of personal opinion...

1. I believe that everyone SHOULD have the right to refuse a breathalyzer test or a blood test.

2. I believe that those who refuse such a test should be treated as if they failed the test.

Unless I'm mistaken...

Re: (1) (above) - in most jurisdictions, you STILL have a right to refuse, without being forced - unlike in Georgia, where, to my taste, they've gone one step too far.

Re: (2) (above) - in ALL (or almost all?) jurisdictions, this is happening already - treated as if they'd failed the test.

Also, in many (indeed, if not in most, or even all) jurisdictions, if you DO fail a test (or refuse a test and are therefore judged to be impaired by default)...

1. your car is towed and impounded

2. you're arrested and booked

3. your drivers license is suspended... six months... one year... two years.... three years... whatever

4. your conviction for a DUI is all but certain, once your court-date rolls around

If I've got that wrong, as a broad, sweeping observation about the state of things, nationwide, I'll be grateful for the correction.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Does anyone know how many States have this law? Other than Georgia?

Florida does.

When the law was put on the ballot, I tried to warn people. But they didn't listen.

True story.

A client of mine was sitting at a stop light, on her way home, minding her own business when a guy hit her car in the ass.

Let me set the stage. It was about 7:30PM and she was on her way home from a Happy Hour where she had two drinks.

She had just had a baby and the day she came home from the Hospital, her husband announced he was leaving her for another woman.

It had been about a Month since that happened and her co-workers talked her into going out with them for a couple drinks to try and lift her spirits because she was kinda depressed.

Who wouldn't be?

So anyway, she's in her car, minding her own business and gets hit.

The Ambulance comes and -- Let me tell you.... When an Ambulance shows up, they don't get paid by anybody unless they take you to the Hospital, so they try to talk you into going to the Hospital. So they made her nervous and she went with the Paramedics.

In Florida, if it's an Injury Accident, Hospitals are REQUIRED to test for alcohol REGARDLESS of who is at fault

Three weeks later, a State Trooper shows up at where she works, goes to her desk, handcuffs her and perp-walks her out of her Office for DUI.

Of course, she lost her job. And almost lost her mind.

I knew her. She was my Customer. Incidentally, so was the Trooper.

People, you need to understand something.......

ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING proposed by the left? There's a turd in there somewhere. They believe in an all-powerful State and ain't nothing ever gonna change them.

Although I do have a proven cure.

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a true story as best as I can remember it.

Hand to God.

NEVER trust a dimocrap.

Fukking NEVER

proposed by the left? Florida and Georgia are controlled by Republicans.

 

[Kondor3]

Refuse the breathalyzer test?

Refuse the blood-draw test?

Automatic 'Guilty' plea to DUI charge.

And this is your idea of a better solution? A DUI conviction without evidence of guilt?

I missed this earlier.

And, upon reflection, I do not like what I wrote.

You are right, and I was wrong.

I was on a roll and was in the middle of conjuring-up a list of the things that SHOULD materialize upon Refusal of a Test.

I added one item too many onto that list; I got ahead of myself.

And, from a Constitutional Process perspective, I was wrong-as-wrong-can-be.

Good-on-you, for pointing that out.

The only excuse that i have is...

If you Refuse a Test, as things stand now, your conviction on a DUI charge is almost a certainly.

ALMOST.

But, of course, 'almost' is NOT the same thing as a CERTAINTY.

And every 'almost' deserves its day in court.

Nolo contendere.

I agree with you entirely on that point and - retroactively - strike that item from The List of Things That Should Materialize After Refusing a Blood Alcohol Content Test.

All or most of the remainder of The List can still stand, insofar as I'm concerned, but that bullet point was a Biggie, and, in truth, had no place on that List.

Point conceded - gratefully - well-done.

 

[Truthseeker420]

So, the guy gets drunk, drives, is pulled over and refuses the breathalyzer. Then he is forced, by law, to have blood drawn to determine if he was too impaired to drive. And conservatives in this thread are whining about it. What should the police have done -- let him go about his merry way? Would you guys rather see a drunk on the road?

Refuse the breathalyzer test?

Refuse the blood-draw test?

Automatic 'Guilty' plea to DUI charge.

And this is your idea of a better solution? A DUI conviction without evidence of guilt?

How about stiffer penalties for those who refuse...?

 

[boilermaker55]

How well stated. They will never admit it to it though. It is too honest for them to admit

You rubes are so cute. Just now whining about something which has been going on since long before Obama.

Such blazing public displays of ignorance!

Such a blazing public display of puerility. Do you people always troll me when I leave you helpless and without a rebuttal? And what does it matter if it's been going on long before Obama? Nobody should be doing this to anyone!

I believe his point is that you're at least 8 years late with your faux-outrage. That you're fauxing about this now, when a Democrat is president, must only be a coincidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your sadistic-psychotic streak is showing again, pops.

Enforcement of a sensible law by the lege when a criminal refuses to follow it is sadistic-psychotic in your estimation? Jarl, you just described yourself.

You are projecting YET AGAIN, pops!

That is you in the mirror you are talking to.

Climb into a car and drive on public roads is an act of implied consent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Will not take a breath or blood test?

Fine.

Impound, confiscate, and sell the car for the state transportation fund.

 

[Kondor3]

Will not take a breath or blood test?

Fine.

Impound, confiscate, and sell the car for the state transportation fund.

Sounds good, on a 'gut' or visceral level, but somebody's gonna scream 'coercion' in connection with testing, and they might be right...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Will not take a breath or blood test?

Fine.

Impound, confiscate, and sell the car for the state transportation fund.

Sounds good, on a 'gut' or visceral level, but somebody's gonna scream 'coercion' in connection with testing, and they might be right...

Then take the test, because there is nothing unconstitutional or immoral in having to do so.