Lucky... 0
Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
QuoteYou lose your ass. They will 4 or 5 fine officers and slam your ass to the ground and forcibly pull your blood from you. Of course they wake the judge to get their telephonic warrant to searcha nd seize your body for evidence. It used to, "Shock the conscious" of the SCOTUS, but not now.
_____________________________________
Let me ask you this; Have you ever, personally experienced such actions by 4 or 5 'fine officers' or judge or witnessed such actions by law enforcement or are you just trying to stir-up some shit?
Chuck
Quotestir-up some shit
Ahhhhh, don;t get like that
I have a friend who had that happen to him. That's it
I'm doin more $^*()^% research to show you guys.
Lucky... 0
Hey masterrig, I'm just over here stirring up some sh......, oh, wait, I'm right again - I love being right. Of course I can't contrast it with being wrong, because I never am 
.
I spent the <1 minute to do the google and here they are.....
http://www.prisonplanet.com/032403policedrawblood.html
Then they asked for something else: his blood. Having been convicted of drunk driving once before, Mr. Miller refused to cooperate. So after he was taken to a hospital, five officers pinned him to the floor as a medical technician stuck a needle in his arm. His blood-alcohol level was 0.266% -- more than twice the legal limit. Mr. Miller, who declined to comment, challenged the tactic in court but lost. He pleaded no contest, was sentenced to up to 90 days in jail and lost his license for 18 months.
"If we have to literally strap you down if you refuse, that's what can happen to you," says Lt. Tony Almaraz, a Nevada Highway Patrol spokesman.
Frustrated by the increasing savvy of drunks and defense attorneys, at least eight states -- Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada and Texas -- have in recent years enacted statutes specifically permitting police to use reasonable force to obtain blood samples in DUI cases.
Many such rulings cite a little-known fact about driving laws in the U.S.: All motorists are considered to have consented to a search of their blood, breath or urine. Such "implied consent" laws were introduced in New York in 1953, and today all 50 states and the District of Columbia have them.
The circumstances under which blood can be taken vary. In some states, blood can be taken only from repeat offenders or in cases where people are killed or injured in crashes. Some allow exceptions for members of religious groups that oppose certain medical treatments and for those with health conditions that make blood draws dangerous, such as hemophiliacs. Warrants usually aren't required because alcohol dissipates from the bloodstream, leaving police little time to seek one -- an "exigent circumstance" long allowed by courts as an exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements.
SO much for ethics:
Some physicians are alarmed when doctors or those working for them draw blood for police without consent. The doctors argue that the Hippocratic Oath requires them to put patients' needs and desires first and to respect their privacy and decisions to decline medical procedures. The American College of Emergency Physicians said in 1998 that it opposes requiring or permitting doctors to give blood-test results to police "because such reporting fundamentally conflicts with the appropriate role of physicians in the physician-patient relationship."
http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/005760.html
.
I spent the <1 minute to do the google and here they are.....
http://www.prisonplanet.com/032403policedrawblood.html
Then they asked for something else: his blood. Having been convicted of drunk driving once before, Mr. Miller refused to cooperate. So after he was taken to a hospital, five officers pinned him to the floor as a medical technician stuck a needle in his arm. His blood-alcohol level was 0.266% -- more than twice the legal limit. Mr. Miller, who declined to comment, challenged the tactic in court but lost. He pleaded no contest, was sentenced to up to 90 days in jail and lost his license for 18 months.
"If we have to literally strap you down if you refuse, that's what can happen to you," says Lt. Tony Almaraz, a Nevada Highway Patrol spokesman.
Frustrated by the increasing savvy of drunks and defense attorneys, at least eight states -- Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada and Texas -- have in recent years enacted statutes specifically permitting police to use reasonable force to obtain blood samples in DUI cases.
Many such rulings cite a little-known fact about driving laws in the U.S.: All motorists are considered to have consented to a search of their blood, breath or urine. Such "implied consent" laws were introduced in New York in 1953, and today all 50 states and the District of Columbia have them.
The circumstances under which blood can be taken vary. In some states, blood can be taken only from repeat offenders or in cases where people are killed or injured in crashes. Some allow exceptions for members of religious groups that oppose certain medical treatments and for those with health conditions that make blood draws dangerous, such as hemophiliacs. Warrants usually aren't required because alcohol dissipates from the bloodstream, leaving police little time to seek one -- an "exigent circumstance" long allowed by courts as an exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements.
SO much for ethics:
Some physicians are alarmed when doctors or those working for them draw blood for police without consent. The doctors argue that the Hippocratic Oath requires them to put patients' needs and desires first and to respect their privacy and decisions to decline medical procedures. The American College of Emergency Physicians said in 1998 that it opposes requiring or permitting doctors to give blood-test results to police "because such reporting fundamentally conflicts with the appropriate role of physicians in the physician-patient relationship."
http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/005760.html
Quotestir-up some shit
Ahhhhh, don;t get like that
I have a friend who had that happen to him. That's it
I'm doin more $^*()^% research to show you guys.__________________________________-
Maybe, your friend should've been more cooperative with the 'fine officers'.
Chuck
QuoteHey masterrig, I'm just over here stirring up some sh......, oh, wait, I'm right again - I love being right. Of course I can't contrast it with being wrong, because I never am
I spent the <1 minute to do the google and here they are.....
http://www.prisonplanet.com/032403policedrawblood.html
Then they asked for something else: his blood. Having been convicted of drunk driving once before, Mr. Miller refused to cooperate. So after he was taken to a hospital, five officers pinned him to the floor as a medical technician stuck a needle in his arm. His blood-alcohol level was 0.266% -- more than twice the legal limit. Mr. Miller, who declined to comment, challenged the tactic in court but lost. He pleaded no contest, was sentenced to up to 90 days in jail and lost his license for 18 months.
"If we have to literally strap you down if you refuse, that's what can happen to you," says Lt. Tony Almaraz, a Nevada Highway Patrol spokesman.
Frustrated by the increasing savvy of drunks and defense attorneys, at least eight states -- Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada and Texas -- have in recent years enacted statutes specifically permitting police to use reasonable force to obtain blood samples in DUI cases.
Many such rulings cite a little-known fact about driving laws in the U.S.: All motorists are considered to have consented to a search of their blood, breath or urine. Such "implied consent" laws were introduced in New York in 1953, and today all 50 states and the District of Columbia have them.
The circumstances under which blood can be taken vary. In some states, blood can be taken only from repeat offenders or in cases where people are killed or injured in crashes. Some allow exceptions for members of religious groups that oppose certain medical treatments and for those with health conditions that make blood draws dangerous, such as hemophiliacs. Warrants usually aren't required because alcohol dissipates from the bloodstream, leaving police little time to seek one -- an "exigent circumstance" long allowed by courts as an exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements.
SO much for ethics:
Some physicians are alarmed when doctors or those working for them draw blood for police without consent. The doctors argue that the Hippocratic Oath requires them to put patients' needs and desires first and to respect their privacy and decisions to decline medical procedures. The American College of Emergency Physicians said in 1998 that it opposes requiring or permitting doctors to give blood-test results to police "because such reporting fundamentally conflicts with the appropriate role of physicians in the physician-patient relationship."
http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/005760.html
______________________________________
That all you got?
Chuck
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuotestir-up some shit
Ahhhhh, don;t get like that
I have a friend who had that happen to him. That's it
__________________________________-
Maybe, your friend should've been more cooperative with the 'fine officers'.
Chuck
OOOOOOOOOOOHhhhhhhhhhhhhh, so first I'm stirrin shit cause those practices don't happen, now that I've stablished they do, we defer to more primal arguments such as, 'just do whatever the nice officer asks - cavity checks and all.'
The issue is that cops are regulated by all kinds of means, statute, case law (bright line rules), etc... too bad theses rules aren't enforced, as when some cop accidentally murders someone it's all about the, "Good Faith Exception" or some other exonerating piece of crap rule that allows them to do what they want and skate.
Some states don't allow cops to forcibly hold down and draw blood, others decide this isn't evasive, so what's your next remark, 'move to a state that doesn't do that?'
To summarize, I merely stated that cops do practice forcible blood drawing, you said I was stirring shit by lying, I established that the practice does occur. Don't you live in Texas? If so, they practice it, you should know. Regardless, there is nothing I could tell you about police brutality where you would not say that these people could have just followed the officer and been OK.
Lucky... 0
QuoteThat all you got?
Yes, it's all I need to establish you were wrong. What else you want; more web sites? I can post more, there was an entire page of them - think I established that the act of cops forcibly holding people down to draw blood for DUI stops is practiced. I can't understand why you responded with, "That all you got?"
QuoteQuoteThat all you got?
Yes, it's all I need to establish you were wrong. What else you want; more web sites? I can post more, there was an entire page of them - think I established that the act of cops forcibly holding people down to draw blood for DUI stops is practiced. I can't understand why you responded with, "That all you got?"
_________________________________
You haven't established a thing. A few generalities, inciteful rhetoric, some quotes...
Chuck
I know someone else who (in Ca.) refused a breathalyzer. They forcibly took blood. I do believe if there is bodily harm they are by law allowed. He didn't do any property damage and hurt no oneQuoteQuoteQuoteYou must have practiced when we actually had a conscious then, because they slam your ass to the ground like a dog and stick you, then pull out your blood.
Very funny.
Of course, they don't do that.
Gee, really? I know a person that had them do that. I felt kinda bad, cause I told him to refuse all field sobriety tests or submission of blowing, blood if you are drunk. They got a telephonic warrant and did the deed.
Will you be embarrassed if I do internet research that provides that they do do that, counselor? I'm just a little ole layperson over here
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Pretty much. As I said in another thread. Multiple charges to get you to cop a plea. For instance. My breakup w/ my last wife was NASTY. She called crying and lying and got a restraining order against me. I called my son twice on his birthday to say hello, happy birthday son. Couple weeks later I get charged w/ 4 counts of violation of said order and 2 counts AGGRAVATED STALKING. (the fuckin judge wanted to put me in prison for 5 yrs) Gimme a fucking break. After 2 yrs of probation my officer (a black women) said after numerous contact w/ the ex said " I finally figuired out you were the victim in this one"QuoteQuoteI've had 3 DUI's. I just think it's fucked up. I'm not normal til I'm .08 LOL
and you are saying the "system" is what's wrong?
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Lucky... 0
QuoteI know someone else who (in Ca.) refused a breathalyzer. They forcibly took blood. I do believe if there is bodily harm they are by law allowed. He didn't do any property damage and hurt no oneQuoteQuoteQuoteYou must have practiced when we actually had a conscious then, because they slam your ass to the ground like a dog and stick you, then pull out your blood.
Very funny.
Of course, they don't do that.
Gee, really? I know a person that had them do that. I felt kinda bad, cause I told him to refuse all field sobriety tests or submission of blowing, blood if you are drunk. They got a telephonic warrant and did the deed.
Will you be embarrassed if I do internet research that provides that they do do that, counselor? I'm just a little ole layperson over here
According to masterrig, "You haven't established a thing. A few generalities, inciteful rhetoric, some quotes... "
Of course these guys do this and even in Texas.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteThat all you got?
Yes, it's all I need to establish you were wrong. What else you want; more web sites? I can post more, there was an entire page of them - think I established that the act of cops forcibly holding people down to draw blood for DUI stops is practiced. I can't understand why you responded with, "That all you got?"
_________________________________
You haven't established a thing. A few generalities, inciteful rhetoric, some quotes...
Chuck
I could have a video of it and you would still doubt me. I posted 2 very comprehensive sites and you just ignore. Remember:
ALL COPS = GOOD
ANYONE WHO ISN'T A COP = SHOULD BEND OVER FOR ALL COPS UPON DEMAND
____________________________________________________________
Here ya go, it's from Findlaw, not some liberal sissy-faggot website. It cites a criminal appeallate case that supports Texas forcibly drawing blood via a DUI matter. Are you going to say it's just a bunch of letters and numbers now? And this is your state, where your wife is a cop.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=app/107901a&invol=1
Here is probably the biggest piece of case law that governs forcible draws.... it supports it.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
Satisfied??????
Quote
Then they asked for something else: his blood. Having been convicted of drunk driving once before, Mr. Miller refused to cooperate. So after he was taken to a hospital, five officers pinned him to the floor as a medical technician stuck a needle in his arm. His blood-alcohol level was 0.266% -- more than twice the legal limit. Mr. Miller, who declined to comment, challenged the tactic in court but lost. He pleaded no contest, was sentenced to up to 90 days in jail and lost his license for 18 months.
You implied this would be typical police response, but your one cite involves a repeat offender at triple (IOW, fucking obvious PC) the limit?
Years ago the legal limit was .2. All about money babe. Need to just do the impaired standard. W/ all the video available nowadays I'm sure a jury can tell if you are impaired. Like I and someone else stated different people have different thresholdsQuoteQuote
Then they asked for something else: his blood. Having been convicted of drunk driving once before, Mr. Miller refused to cooperate. So after he was taken to a hospital, five officers pinned him to the floor as a medical technician stuck a needle in his arm. His blood-alcohol level was 0.266% -- more than twice the legal limit. Mr. Miller, who declined to comment, challenged the tactic in court but lost. He pleaded no contest, was sentenced to up to 90 days in jail and lost his license for 18 months.
You implied this would be typical police response, but your one cite involves a repeat offender at triple (IOW, fucking obvious PC) the limit?
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I don't care to have you twisting my words around so you can make some kind of 'point'. Whatever that may be. Have a nice day!
Chuck
Chuck
pirana 0
QuoteNot in any way condoning drunk driving, but why should someone who is not impaired but has BAC >.08 be a problem to anyone.
For the same reason we don't have speed limits set based on each individuals ability to handle a vehicle. Fraught with peril; there would be exploitation of loopholes before the ink dried, and it would be an administrative nightmare.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
Then they asked for something else: his blood. Having been convicted of drunk driving once before, Mr. Miller refused to cooperate. So after he was taken to a hospital, five officers pinned him to the floor as a medical technician stuck a needle in his arm. His blood-alcohol level was 0.266% -- more than twice the legal limit. Mr. Miller, who declined to comment, challenged the tactic in court but lost. He pleaded no contest, was sentenced to up to 90 days in jail and lost his license for 18 months.
You implied this would be typical police response, but your one cite involves a repeat offender at triple (IOW, fucking obvious PC) the limit?
I never said it was typical, in fact, I stated that some staes allow this and some don't. If you do reading you will see that the SCOTUS sees this as a very gray area and kind of turns their head.
As for triple the limit, that isn't discovered until after the blood draw, so that's immaterial. That's like the cops saying they kicked down the door of a house w/o a warrant, but they found contraband, hence a good search. The 4th is supposed to exterminate, "ends justifies the means" practices.
I don't drink, hate the taste of the shit - even beer, and I think drunk drivers pose a threat to others, but to get several cops and to hold down a person and extract blood while they're kicking and squirming really bothers me. But hell, I'm leberal, so I actually care for the rights of people.
Lucky... 0
QuoteYears ago the legal limit was .2. All about money babe. Need to just do the impaired standard. W/ all the video available nowadays I'm sure a jury can tell if you are impaired. Like I and someone else stated different people have different thresholdsQuoteQuote
Then they asked for something else: his blood. Having been convicted of drunk driving once before, Mr. Miller refused to cooperate. So after he was taken to a hospital, five officers pinned him to the floor as a medical technician stuck a needle in his arm. His blood-alcohol level was 0.266% -- more than twice the legal limit. Mr. Miller, who declined to comment, challenged the tactic in court but lost. He pleaded no contest, was sentenced to up to 90 days in jail and lost his license for 18 months.
You implied this would be typical police response, but your one cite involves a repeat offender at triple (IOW, fucking obvious PC) the limit?
Sure about money, but seat belt, insurance, helmet and DUI laws are driven by corporations wanting to limit their liabilities to increase their profit margins. The slimy corps buy via campaign contributions and other ways, the loyalties of these politicians who in turn pass these laws. This is textbook fascism due to the laws really being written by corporations instead of elected officials representing the people.
Gee, really? I know a person that had them do that. I felt kinda bad, cause I told him to refuse all field sobriety tests or submission of blowing, blood if you are drunk. They got a telephonic warrant and did the deed.
Will you be embarrassed if I do internet research that provides that they do do that, counselor? I'm just a little ole layperson over here
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites