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

[JakeStarkey]

It's every bit relevant for the reactionaries who keep voting Republican.

The law is legal. You don't like it? Then get the lege to change it.

As judge Napolitano says...many laws are legal...but that does not mean they are constitutional.

They are until they are declared otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

screaming eagle, no one of consequence or common sense gives a rat's ass about libertarianism.

who said anything about libertarianism....? i'm talking about the erosion of Constitutional rights......kind of like the way the State is now 'taxing' you for healthcare....

No one cares about the view point. The forced taking of blood in certain circumstance is legal and constitutional until competent authority (neither you nor I) determines otherwise.

Don't give into your impulses and drive and drink.

Just don't do it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Georgia's legislature is Republican not Democrat.

The OP doesn't mention either political party, but the moderate Republican feels a need to point out that Republicans passed this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Georgia's legislature is Republican not Democrat.

The OP doesn't mention either political party, but the moderate Republican feels a need to point out that Republicans passed this.

Because someone was suggesting a lefty lege was on the loose.

Just correcting stupidity as any good Republican would do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

We don't want you drinking and driving.

 

[rightwinger]

It is legal because the legislators passed a law but it can still be unlawful because it conflicts with the old law that is still on the books that says if you refuse the Breathalyzer, no test shall be issued.

It is unlawful to search without consent, probable cause or a search warrant issued as a result of probable cause and sworn to in front of a judge.

They get the warrants from a judge or magistrate so the warrant is legal, however the conflict with the existing law may still make the blood test unlawful.

Does operating a motor vehicle imply consent?

 

[MikeK]

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.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

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???

 

[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

 

[Unkotare]

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.

How are your convention plans coming along, champ?

 

[earlycuyler]

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.

It would be if that was the case, but its not. Thees guys had a chance to blow, they refused. By law, the cops can get a warrent and take your blood. The supreme court even says so.
I

 

[earlycuyler]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

We don't want you drinking and driving.

They do not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is legal because the legislators passed a law but it can still be unlawful because it conflicts with the old law that is still on the books that says if you refuse the Breathalyzer, no test shall be issued.

It is unlawful to search without consent, probable cause or a search warrant issued as a result of probable cause and sworn to in front of a judge.

They get the warrants from a judge or magistrate so the warrant is legal, however the conflict with the existing law may still make the blood test unlawful.

Does operating a motor vehicle imply consent?

Only if you think breathing requires you to do business with insurance companies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

We don't want you drinking and driving.

They do not.

Yup, they do, and, no, you don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What extremely lethal problem are you referring to? Please do not post statistics where there was an accident and a passenger was was a little but drunk to make your point here, point to the extremely lethal problem with DUIs.

By the way, how do you know that report you read was accurate? Even if it is accurate, what were the alleged levels of intoxication in those samples? How hard would it be to throw a little alcohol into a blood sample?

I am confident that the best way to deal with any problem you think there is is to put cops on the streets looking for reckless drivers, not setting up checkpoints where they can forcibly take blood samples if you refuse a sobriety check.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It would be if that was the case, but its not. Thees guys had a chance to blow, they refused. By law, the cops can get a warrent and take your blood. The supreme court even says so.
I

One of the many things the court is wrong about.

 

[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.

What?? are you drunk? did you even to bother to read the story "son"
1. they have check points
2. they are taking people to the hospital on just a ******* hunch they are DUI you know what even Drinving under the influence means? it used to be DWI.....Driving while intoxicated..
3. your mind only thinks of drinking and driving "son"....
4. Like I posted you could smoke a joint where its Legal now in Colorado and get busted at a check point in say Georigia. 3 weeks latter for a blood test sayinging you have weed in your system. for a ******* DUI...