Recommended Posts
Took you long enough! Hey! These are the jokes, folks! Yuck it up!
Chuck
Chuck
Quote
That's the logical approach, but more likely some fine, fine insurance corporation called in a marker to get the limit lowered for these reasons:
1) Fewer drunk drivers = less claims
2) Lower limits = more drunk driving arrests = higher premiums
3) fewer impaired drivers = less dead people?
The impairment to reflex time and thinking skills is very demonstable even at .08. It is the lack of a critcal event that lets these 'less drunk' people get home without incident.
I don't believe the insurance companies have been effective as MADD in these matters. The companies have managed to set things up so they can surcharge for 10 years after a conviction.
QuoteQuote
You implied this would be typical police response, but your one cite involves a repeat offender at triple (IOW, fucking obvious PC) the limit?
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.
No, it's nothing like kicking down a random door to find drugs inside. A person with a BAC at .25 is obviously drunk (or fucking drunk or passed out). They are easy to identify in a crowd of sober people.
Andy9o8 2
I'm igNORing youuu
<> la la la la la la la
<
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteTruth is that they can do what they want. If I find a case where a person with no priors had this done, will you concede?
How would a case demonstrating that this was done prove it as "typical"?
Not arguing with the anguish that this was EVER done, or is legal anywhere.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"typical" was your word, not mine. I just wrote that it happens. Soif only 1 girls gets raped, it's not a big deal? The point behind innocent until proven guilty is trashed by using priors to determine the degree of Constitutional rights a person should have.
So with your logic if the cops are following a car and the cops run the plate and discover the owner hashad a prior speeding ticket, they should then be able to pull you over since you match the description given by dispatch.
Your trashing of the presumption of innocense won't be admired by me.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou 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.
Truth is that they can do what they want. If I find a case where a person with no priors had this done, will you concede?
Let's clarify your statement
They will 4 or 5 fine officers and slam your ass to the ground and forcibly pull your blood from you.
When this was written, I see pictures of Rodney King getting kicked and beaten.
Though later you define that statement as ~ the cops will take you to a hospital and have an MD draw blood. (I don't see any slamming to the ground in your clarification)
I had a friend that related a story to me where they physically slammed him down in a mobile van.
Some cops draw blood as I read as I was researching this topic.
Funny how it goes from, 'cops don't do that' to, 'ok, let's split hairs so we can justify it as acceptable. Look, kids, drawing blood from someone against their will is what it is. The venue can be in the street, it can be in the hospital or it can be in a mobile van and it's still the same thing. If I cited some story about a gil being raped, would you question the venue? Ridiculous...
Lucky... 0
QuoteIn the State of Texas, to draw blood from a person arrested for DWI and that person has refused the breathalizer test, a search warrant must be obtained prior to any blood sample(s) being taken.
Chuck
Jesus Christ, I only wrote that 2 pages ago, thanks for reading for comprehension. It's a procedural telephonic warrant; takes minutes.
Lucky... 0
QuoteTook you long enough! Hey! These are the jokes, folks! Yuck it up!
Chuck
Sad how you can't own up to being wrong, then having to delete 3 posts to cover it up.... too bad I quoted you on reply
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
That's the logical approach, but more likely some fine, fine insurance corporation called in a marker to get the limit lowered for these reasons:
1) Fewer drunk drivers = less claims
2) Lower limits = more drunk driving arrests = higher premiums
3) fewer impaired drivers = less dead people?
The impairment to reflex time and thinking skills is very demonstable even at .08. It is the lack of a critcal event that lets these 'less drunk' people get home without incident.
I don't believe the insurance companies have been effective as MADD in these matters. The companies have managed to set things up so they can surcharge for 10 years after a conviction.
Quote3) fewer impaired drivers = less dead people?
I agree, I don't know how many years since my last drink - never really liked it. I'm not defending drunk driving. Of course,
4) Outlaw skydiving = no skydiving deaths
We can apply that logic anywhere, how about this:
5) No 4th Amendment = more crimes solved = ultimately less crime
The idea is to find the balance between safety and privacy and I think forcibly drawing any fluid from people crosses that line and not by just a little. Many doctors refuse to do it, as it violates the patient / doctor relationship.
QuoteI don't believe the insurance companies have been effective as MADD in these matters. The companies have managed to set things up so they can surcharge for 10 years after a conviction.
I'm sure insurance companies don't care about DUI limits and haven't donated millions to the cause
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
You implied this would be typical police response, but your one cite involves a repeat offender at triple (IOW, fucking obvious PC) the limit?
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.
No, it's nothing like kicking down a random door to find drugs inside. A person with a BAC at .25 is obviously drunk (or fucking drunk or passed out). They are easy to identify in a crowd of sober people.
There ya go speaking for all the functioning drunks out there. I'm shitfaced after .05, I'm sure, but some folks function well after .25, not that they should be driving. My stepdad was one.
Again, you started by commenting on the sequence of the find, then drifted off. If a cop finds a beer can in your car, fine, use it as PC to search the rest, but not slam you and throw a needle in your arm.
Lucky... 0
QuoteI'm igNORing youuu
<> la la la la la la la
Nothing wrong with an embarrassed ex-lawyer ignoring me.......
Chuck
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites