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

[J.E.D]

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

The left? Democrats? So, Florida and Georgia are run by leftist legislatures? You're full of shit and not too bright on top of it.

First, it happened while Lawton Chiles (D-Scumbag) was Governor.

And? Who is governor now?

Secondly, it was pushed... HARD... by the leftist group MADD.

So, MADD runs the FL state legislature?

Third, Florida went for the scum-sucking piece of shit obama in the last two elections.

Tissue?

Fourth, go suck a dick. Do it today.

No, thanks. I'm not into chicks with dicks.

 

[MikeK]

Regarding the police actions, did you by any chance watch the video? Not only did they restrain innocent citizens, they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but they grabbed and twisted the neck into an unnatural position. My neck movement is somewhat impaired. I cannot imagine the pain that might cause. They are damned lucky someone does not come up claiming a neck injury and sue every last one of them, the department and the state.

Immie

I did watch the video and, as I've said, it is a disturbing thing to see. But as EarlyCuyler has said, the subject of the forcible blood test had an opportunity to avoid it by cooperatively submitting to a breathalyzer test. And while the breathalyzer test is in itself an offensive indignity the fact that such occasional annoyances do serve to discourage DUI makes them easier to accept.

I was stopped on the Garden State Parkway (NJ) some time ago. I had changed lanes several times within a short distance and the cop who stopped me said I was driving erratically. He wasn't offensive and I could tell by his leaning in close, looking closely at my eyes and engaging me in conversation that he was "eyeballing" me for DUI. When he was satisfied that I wasn't drunk he apologized, gave me back my papers, and left me alone.

I would have been annoyed by and resentful of the inconvenience but the reality of what he was doing justified his actions. Driving while perfectly sober and alert is dangerous enough because it doesn't take much to preciptitate a lethal accident. DUI and distracted driving is stupidly irresponsible. So although I am a strong opponent of anti-drug laws, and I despise narcs, I have no problem with anti-DUI enforcement activities because there is a legitimate need for them. So if someone refuses to submit to basic scrutiny and cooperative testing, I do not oppose the use of force.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rep worthy comments, J.E.D. and mikek.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm not watching an Alex Jones video. Why is blood being drawn from the guy?

It's not an Alex Jones video. It's a Fox 5 Local news video. Most of Alex Jones videos/articles are recycled from other news sources, mostly MAINSTREAM sources.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They have the legal and moral American duty to do so.

We don't want you drinking and driving.

Big differance between a 21 year old 100 lb driver that had 4 beers and a 50 year old 200lb driver that had 4 beers... They are busting people who just rinsed their mouth with alcohol based listerment.Why not just get away with the DUI laws and bust people with reckless driving? on cell phones or drunk as hell???

Then take your breath analyzer, for someone's sake if not your own, and monitor your own intake. But when it comes to drinking and driving, son, you are not in charge if you get in that vechile.

and btw since I guess your older then I asshat you could get busted for a fucking DUI ttaking your legal medically prescribed OxyContin (for example ...heroin )during a forced blood test....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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?

Yes, at some point liberty triumphs over security. This leads to false confessions and torture, and quickly.

 

[Wyatt earp]

and hell if you even eat a poppy seed bun and get a blood test.. it would say you have opium (heroin) in your system......

 

[earlycuyler]

and hell if you even eat a poppy seed bun and get a blood test.. it would say you have opium (heroin) in your system......

Only if you eat a shit ton of poppy seed muffins.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

keep telling yourself that Jakeyboy...

you have the human right to travel.....it's only when you interfere with other travelers you should get into trouble...

and just who do you think pays for the roads you drive on?......WE DO.......WE THE PEOPLE own the public roads...it should be our RIGHT....not privilege.....to drive on them...

Sorry, Sparky, I'm a libertarian and I'm here to tell you that no, you don't have the right to drive an automobile on a public road. You do so at the grace of the state and you follow their guidelines. If you don't like it then find another means of transportation.

why....? because our government 'said so'.....? people traveled the dirt roads of America for centuries without a government license that 'permitted' them to do so....

i do agree with having rules of the road for safety reasons....plus i agree we need to arrest those who break the rules.....(although forcible drawing of blood is way over the line)

but i refuse to agree that it is just our "privilege" to drive on OUR ROADS.....as if Big Brother Government is granting us some sort of favor...

Yes, people traveled dirt roads on horses and buggies, not two ton automobiles traveling that 70 MPH that can kill people. Surely you understand the difference.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Until the 1900's heroin, cocaine and other drugs weren't illegal either. Are you suggesting that since these things were legal in the past, it's our right to use them as we see fit?

Yes

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

keep telling yourself that Jakeyboy...

you have the human right to travel.....it's only when you interfere with other travelers you should get into trouble...

and just who do you think pays for the roads you drive on?......WE DO.......WE THE PEOPLE own the public roads...it should be our RIGHT....not privilege.....to drive on them...

Sorry, Sparky, I'm a libertarian and I'm here to tell you that no, you don't have the right to drive an automobile on a public road. You do so at the grace of the state and you follow their guidelines. If you don't like it then find another means of transportation.

Sorry dude, the Supremes already ruled the using drug dogs was illegal, this will in time I think be rulled the same. but not up to speed on just taking someone to the hospital at a check under just a hunch of a DUI...
Justices Strike Down Drug Checkpoints - ABC News

The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down the police practice of executing random drug searches at highway checkpoints, calling the practice a violation of Americans’ right to privacy. With the court’s most conservative members dissenting, the justices ruled against the city of Indianapolis, voting 6-3 that the police use of roadblocks and random stops to cut the flow of illegal drugs through the city was unconstitutional.

I'm not defending what these asshole cops are doing. I'm countering his claim that we have a right to automobile travel on public roads.

 

[MikeK]

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?

Yes, at some point liberty triumphs over security. This leads to false confessions and torture, and quickly.

Do you have any children? give some thought to the following -- and keep in mind it's only one of many examples of why DUI is a serious problem and needs to be addressed.

6-year-old boy dies of injuries from drunk driving accident | Berkeleyside

 

[Wyatt earp]

and hell if you even eat a poppy seed bun and get a blood test.. it would say you have opium (heroin) in your system......

Only if you eat a shit ton of poppy seed muffins.

Prove it. ..... a pee test tells real fast. I know...for a fact because it happened to me...ate a sonics chicago style hot dog once and took a pee test an hour latter for a job not thinking....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

you have the human right to travel.....it's only when you interfere with other travelers you should get into trouble...

and just who do you think pays for the roads you drive on?......WE DO.......WE THE PEOPLE own the public roads...it should be our RIGHT....not privilege.....to drive on them...

Conservatives and their "rights". Not everything you do is a right and driving a car on a road is not a right. Nor is eating junk food.

You do have the right to remain stupid. If you do, everything you post can and will be used against in the court of public opinion.

Everything you do, other than harm, steal or lie (fraud) to others is a right, unless that right is delegated to the federal or state or local government.

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You have a LOT of learning to do. You can start with Popular Sovereignty, Natural Rights and Social Contract.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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?

You automatically lose your license for 12 months in Georgia if you refuse a Breathalyzer.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

why....? because our government 'said so'.....? people traveled the dirt roads of America for centuries without a government license that 'permitted' them to do so....

Yes, they did, but they weren't driving cars. They were walking, riding horses, driving wagons or carts pulled by horses, dogs, ponies, donkeys or oxen, but once people starting driving cars, licenses were required. When the speed of travel became such that people risked life and limb by driving, laws were enacted to ensure that those driving were fit and competent.

Until the 1900's heroin, cocaine and other drugs weren't illegal either. Are you suggesting that since these things were legal in the past, it's our right to use them as we see fit?

You're saying getting hit by a horse and carriage, which can't even break immediately, was not a life-threatening scenario?

 

[Immanuel]

This is a very difficult issue to draw a conclusion from.

On one hand is the extremely disturbing action of government agents forcibly restraining citizens and, against their will, drawing their blood for sobriety tests. There is something almost Orwellian about that.

On the other hand is the extremely lethal problem of DUI. This irresponsible action kills and maims a lot of people, including children, a circumstance which is sufficiently serious to justify forcibly administering a blood test -- but only if the officer recommending the test is absolutely certain the subject of the test is intoxicated.

According to the report I read, every situation wherein a DUI blood test was forcibly administered the subject was found to be intoxicated (positive). In view of this comparative level of certainty, opposition to the forcible test might be reconsidered if a compensatory payment of $5,000 was automatically awarded, along with appropriate apologies, to any subject of a forcible blood test who is found to be negative.

I am sufficiently confident that the average highway cop is perfectly capable of telling whether someone is intoxicated or not just by talking with and observing his/her behavior, looking at the eyes and smelling the breath. I know I can easily make that determination and I'm not a trained, experienced cop.

Regarding the police actions, did you by any chance watch the video? Not only did they restrain innocent citizens, they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but they grabbed and twisted the neck into an unnatural position. My neck movement is somewhat impaired. I cannot imagine the pain that might cause. They are damned lucky someone does not come up claiming a neck injury and sue every last one of them, the department and the state.

Immie

Or just have blown into the device, or better yet, just have budgeted some $$ for a cab. Then it never would have been an issue.

You seem to assume that all those who have had this procedure forced on them are guilty. I tend to agree with the man that asks, "what country are we in?" These are not the tactics of a police force in a free country.

I always understood that if you refuse to take the BA test, it was as good as an admission of guilt and you lost your license for at least a year. As far as I am concerned if you want to make the penalty for refusing even stiffer than that, I am fine with it. But taking blood by force in that manner is more like Gestapo tactics than anything else

Immie

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Did you bother to read or comprehend your own article?

Georgia is one of numerous states that enforce “no refusal” checkpoints where police can forcibly draw blood. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional for the state to hold down Americans and forcefully withdraw blood. A January 2013 ruling affirmed that a warrant must be obtained for the process, although police could dispense with the warrant requirement in an “emergency”.

See: Missouri v. McNeely.

And the exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement may rarely, if ever, be used with regard to DUIs.

Consequently references to ‘slavery’ and the need to ‘buy guns and ammo’ is ignorant idiocy.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

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.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Don't blame the Police. The Supreme Court ruled that involuntary self incrimination with your own blood is not a violation of the 5th Amendment. Reasonable force can be used to take it.

The police still chose to do it, didn't they?

They have the legal and moral American duty to do so.

You need to read a page from Martin Luther King:

I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.