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

[bucs90]

HEY DUMBASSES:

This is why I dont come to this board much anymore. They AGREED to this by accepting a driver's license. "Implied Consent". You drive on government roads, you follow government rules. They REFUSED the breathe test. Read again: Refused the breathalyzer.

As the video shows, DRUNK DRIVERS KILL MORE AMERICANS PER YEAR THAN THE WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN COMBINED.

WHO is more dangerous to the average US citizen today? A terrorist? Or drunk driver? A DRUNK DRIVER.

Many of you who oppose this DUI enforcement are the SAME people who cheer waterboarding a terrorist. But, the drunk is a bigger threat than the terrorist to your daily life. The stats prove that.

1- Dont drive drunk
2- If you do, take the dame BA test that you already consented to by accepting a drivers license
3- If you dont like 1 and 2, dont drive on public roads.
4- If you dont like 1, 2 or 3.....then you'll get strapped down and blood taken so you wont drive drunk and contribute to the mass killing of Americans done by drunk drivers.

 

[Politico]

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.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

My response is you would do well in the future to avoid using this kind of specious reasoning. Because it will get you into serious trouble someday.

Specious reasoning? Look at you own statement:

You do not have a right to jeopardize others by driving while drunk!

Which is logically equivalent to:

You are allowed to jeopardize other people while driving, so long as you are not drunk.

That is what you said, correct? This is the axiom upon which your argument stands.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the reason is specious. You drive on We the People's roads, you obey the laws of We the People about those roads.

You are not at liberty to do otherwise; if you do, your freedom will be limited.

 

[bucs90]

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.

Yep, of course not. These loons have it in their head that just because they hate the government, that when they just say NO to the government and the government forces them to comply, that they are living in tyranny.

They had prior consent to the BA test. All 50 states have it. "Implied Consent". If you are suspected of driving drunk, you must blow. There are a lot of things that must happen first. Bad driving, the stench of booze on your breathe, FAILING field sobriety tests like the walk and turn, 1 leg stand, eye nistagmus, etc, etc. ONLY THEN are you arrested and given a breathe test, which driver's consent to when getting a license.

These folks refused the test they already consented to.

They can either not drive drunk, not refuse the BA test, not accept a license, or just stop bitching.

 

[bucs90]

Yes, the reason is specious. You drive on We the People's roads, you obey the laws of We the People about those roads.

You are not at liberty to do otherwise; if you do, your freedom will be limited.

Exactly right. Drunk drivers kill more Americans per year than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. They are more dangerous to us than Al Qaida.

I have no sympathy. They consented to drive sober and provide a breathe test when suspected of not driving sober.........when they accepted a driver's license. Implied consent. They knew that, or should have when they signed the damn paperwork for their license. For people who hate the govt so much, they must not have read the government document that they signed when they got their license.

Dont drive drunk. If you do, blow on the damn BA test. If you dont wanna do that, no sympathy, let the cops clean the streets of these drunks who are MORE dangerous than terrorists to US citizens.

 

[MikeK]

That’s really not a valid argument though. It is akin to stating that the cops can come to your home and demand to search it or they will shoot you in the head. You could have avoided being shot if you just submitted to the search….

Apples and oranges,

We're talking about a public highway, not one's home. When you drive drunk you jeopardize others. In your own home you endanger no one -- except possibly yourself.

Whether or not you can avoid the procedure is irrelevant. What matters is if the police really should have the power to strap you down and take blood with a warrant. I am leaning on the side of justifiable but the idea does bother me.

Yes! The police definitely should have that power. Because if you are driving drunk on the same road as my kids are driving on, or I am driving on, I want the cops to get you and any other drunks off that road by any means necessary.

And if you'll give it some thought I think you might agree.

 

[bucs90]

That’s really not a valid argument though. It is akin to stating that the cops can come to your home and demand to search it or they will shoot you in the head. You could have avoided being shot if you just submitted to the search….

Apples and oranges,

We're talking about a public highway, not one's home. When you drive drunk you jeopardize others. In your own home you endanger no one -- except possibly yourself.

Whether or not you can avoid the procedure is irrelevant. What matters is if the police really should have the power to strap you down and take blood with a warrant. I am leaning on the side of justifiable but the idea does bother me.

Yes! The police definitely should have that power. Because if you are driving drunk on the same road as my kids are driving on, or I am driving on, I want the cops to get you and any other drunks off that road by any means necessary.

And if you'll give it some thought I think you might agree.

You said it very well.

I dont know why some people are so outraged by this. Drunk drivers kill more Americans than BOTH middle east wars combined each year.

I think its more about cop hate than anything else. They just hate cops, and hate the idea that cops have any power at all. Without total anarchy, SOMEONE is gonna have power of authority by law. Cops are those people, unless they want martial law. Some reason I think the Marines wouldn't be quite as gentle in taking your blood when driving drunk.

 

[PaulS1950]

By the State's own laws the Breathalyzer test can be refused and no other tests are performed. The new law contradicts the old law by requiring the blood test.

There are diseases that have some of the same symptoms as intoxication - even the smell of alcohol on the breath. One of these is diabetes. There are others that mimic ethanol poisoning (too much to drink) that unless treated promptly could cause death. Then you have people like me, If someone were to turn my head that far it could kill me because of previous injury to the nerves and bones in my neck. I have had two surgeries to provide clearance for the nerves that control my lungs and my heart - twist my head that far and there would be no need to file charges - they would have a dead man on the table.

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.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Remember, this is the axiom upon which MikeK's argument stands:

You do not have a right to jeopardize others by driving while drunk!

Which is logically equivalent to:

You are allowed to jeopardize other people while driving, so long as you are not drunk.

 

[bucs90]

By the State's own laws the Breathalyzer test can be refused and no other tests are performed. The new law contradicts the old law by requiring the blood test.

There are diseases that have some of the same symptoms as intoxication - even the smell of alcohol on the breath. One of these is diabetes. There are others that mimic ethanol poisoning (too much to drink) that unless treated promptly could cause death. Then you have people like me, If someone were to turn my head that far it could kill me because of previous injury to the nerves and bones in my neck. I have had two surgeries to provide clearance for the nerves that control my lungs and my heart - twist my head that far and there would be no need to file charges - they would have a dead man on the table.

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.

So a drunk driver could just refuse the BA test, claim he has one of those diseases, take NO other tests, and then HOW would we ever convict anyone of DUI?

And cops are the ones who must tie them down. They are UNDER ARREST. Doctors dont have arrest powers. Cops do. Thats how it works. Besides, being restrained by a doctor is far creepier than by a cop.

They twist the head so you dont spit on them or the nurse. You know....those diseases and all.

But please tell me, without the BA test or blood test, and the convenient excuse of "oh I got that disease that makes me look, act and smell drunk", how would we ever convict anyeone of DUI? Ever? Would you have to prove you have the disease? NO. The state would have to prove you dont- burden of proof in court.

The Libertarian/Tea Party government hatred sounds good and all in a controlled environment. But in reality, we need cops and a military and a government, and sometimes they have to do some hard things to make society work in a civil manner.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I've done all three, and I gotta say -- Atlanta comes in dead last.
Those people are ******* NUTS.

 

[earlycuyler]

Not true. They have used thees tactics for years. Thees tactics were challenged years ago, and have been deemed fair.

They used Jim Crow for years and it survived challenges for several decades, that deems Jim Crow laws as fair?

GRANDSLAM!

Apples and cinder blocks. So, would you defend a sex offender from having there DNA collected against there will ? Or a murder suspect ? All this crap has come up and been dealt with long before the fat one used it to get moonbats to scare people into donating to infowars and prision planet.

 

[Pogo]

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

I was with you until the sentence that starts with the word "ANYTHING".
At that point I understood why Jake pointed out at the start of the thread that the Georgia Leg is "Republican, not Democrat". He was anticipating conclusions like this.

 

[bucs90]

So.....I assume all you people who are so outraged about this.........will now demand we stop strapping down terrorists, right? Afterall, terrorists kill FAR fewer people in America each year than drunk drivers.

I anticipate the thread where Tea Party types and Libertarians demand Gitmo be closed, or at least we stop strapping anyone down.

 

[Pogo]

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.

 

[bucs90]

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.

Here we go.................

Ok. 8 years working PD in that exact same city in the link.

A cop cant pull you just for "suspicion". He must have a moving violation first, like swerving, speeding, red light, etc, or, something factual that may tie you into a crime, like your car is similar to one that was the getaway car for a recent crime.

Now, lets say he pulls you for speeding. He cant just make you do a BA. Lawyers, rightfully so, have made that reality. He must have a few things. Like smelling alcohol on your breathe or car. Glossy eyes. Slurred speech. THEN he can articulate suspicion that you've been drinking.

He can THEN ask you to do roadside field sobriety tests. The alphabet. Walking the straight line. Or following the pen with your eyes. Even if you smell like booze a bit, but you pass these FST's, then you drive home free.

Now, if the cop has a reason to stop you, has the smell/sight indicators, and you fail Field Soberity tests, THEN he can handcuff you and arrest you.

THEN.....yes, after all that, you'll be offered the breathe test, which you have consented to with accepting a license. But you dont have to blow. You can refuse to blow.

And it seems judges are SICK AND TIRED like the rest of us of all these damn DUI drivers KILLING people, killing more than the 2 wars combined. So, the judges said **** it, they fail all those tests and refuse the breathe test, take a blood sample.

GOOD. Fewer dead Americans on our roads. At what cost? Taking blood from a person who failed the FST's, refused to blow, and showed physical signs of intoxication? **** IT, thats a price worth paying to keep Americans safe.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Here we go.................

Ok. 8 years working PD in that exact same city in the link.

A cop cant pull you just for "suspicion". He must have a moving violation first, like swerving, speeding, red light, etc, or, something factual that may tie you into a crime, like your car is similar to one that was the getaway car for a recent crime.

Now, lets say he pulls you for speeding. He cant just make you do a BA. Lawyers, rightfully so, have made that reality. He must have a few things. Like smelling alcohol on your breathe or car. Glossy eyes. Slurred speech. THEN he can articulate suspicion that you've been drinking.

He can THEN ask you to do roadside field sobriety tests. The alphabet. Walking the straight line. Or following the pen with your eyes. Even if you smell like booze a bit, but you pass these FST's, then you drive home free.

Now, if the cop has a reason to stop you, has the smell/sight indicators, and you fail Field Soberity tests, THEN he can handcuff you and arrest you.

THEN.....yes, after all that, you'll be offered the breathe test, which you have consented to with accepting a license. But you dont have to blow. You can refuse to blow.

And it seems judges are SICK AND TIRED like the rest of us of all these damn DUI drivers KILLING people, killing more than the 2 wars combined. So, the judges said **** it, they fail all those tests and refuse the breathe test, take a blood sample.

GOOD. Fewer dead Americans on our roads. At what cost? Taking blood from a person who failed the FST's, refused to blow, and showed physical signs of intoxication? **** IT, thats a price worth paying to keep Americans safe.

Bull. SHIT. Happened to me last week, among many other times. We knew he was tailing us, I followed all the rules and he still did it. When we asked him on what basis he tried to tell me I had "smoke coming out of my tailpipe". I shit you not, that was all he could come up with. Lucky for me I had a severely disabled person in the car on a medical errand.

All that other shit is a simple matter of lying or self-delusion- "yeah I thought I smelled alcohol"... nobody can prove that, can they? Duh.

Poster please. Don't quote the book to me. I'm talking reality. Fact is you're taking your life in your hands just going out there with this kind of power abuse. Any of us could be a statistic tomorrow.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

But please tell me, without the BA test or blood test, and the convenient excuse of "oh I got that disease that makes me look, act and smell drunk", how would we ever convict anyeone of DUI? Ever? Would you have to prove you have the disease? NO. The state would have to prove you dont- burden of proof in court.

The Libertarian/Tea Party government hatred sounds good and all in a controlled environment. But in reality, we need cops and a military and a government, and sometimes they have to do some hard things to make society work in a civil manner.

Funny, because any Libertarian would tell you that the chances of being acquitted by a jury (for drunk driving) would be next to nil, even without hard evidence. How do you think juries managed to convict hundreds of years ago without all these tools of modern science? Oh yeah, guilty without reasonable doubt.

 

[bucs90]

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.

Here we go.................

Ok. 8 years working PD in that exact same city in the link.

A cop cant pull you just for "suspicion". He must have a moving violation first, like swerving, speeding, red light, etc, or, something factual that may tie you into a crime, like your car is similar to one that was the getaway car for a recent crime.

Now, lets say he pulls you for speeding. He cant just make you do a BA. Lawyers, rightfully so, have made that reality. He must have a few things. Like smelling alcohol on your breathe or car. Glossy eyes. Slurred speech. THEN he can articulate suspicion that you've been drinking.

He can THEN ask you to do roadside field sobriety tests. The alphabet. Walking the straight line. Or following the pen with your eyes. Even if you smell like booze a bit, but you pass these FST's, then you drive home free.

Now, if the cop has a reason to stop you, has the smell/sight indicators, and you fail Field Soberity tests, THEN he can handcuff you and arrest you.

THEN.....yes, after all that, you'll be offered the breathe test, which you have consented to with accepting a license. But you dont have to blow. You can refuse to blow.

And it seems judges are SICK AND TIRED like the rest of us of all these damn DUI drivers KILLING people, killing more than the 2 wars combined. So, the judges said **** it, they fail all those tests and refuse the breathe test, take a blood sample.

GOOD. Fewer dead Americans on our roads. At what cost? Taking blood from a person who failed the FST's, refused to blow, and showed physical signs of intoxication? **** IT, thats a price worth paying to keep Americans safe.

Bull. SHIT. Happened to me last week, among many other times. We knew he was tailing us, I followed all the rules and he still did it. When we asked him on what basis he tried to tell me I had "smoke coming out of my tailpipe". I shit you not, that was all he could come up with. Lucky for me I had a severely disabled person in the car on a medical errand.

All that other shit is a simple matter of lying or self-delusion- "yeah I thought I smelled alcohol"... nobody can prove that, can they? Duh.

Poster please. Don't quote the book to me. I'm talking reality. Fact is you're taking your life in your hands just going out there with this kind of power abuse. Any of us could be a statistic tomorrow.

Oh Lord. You're one of those types huh. Then file a lawsuit. If the cop stopped you for a reason that isn't lawful, and it is on video as all patrol cars are required to have them now, then your unlawful detention will be on camera, and you'll win a lawsuit and some money.

You dont know police work, and never will. Cops use bullshit reasons (although technically a real violation) to stop cars all the time. Cars in shady areas. Cars that resemble BOLO cars that were involved in another crime. Thats how they catch hard criminals. Afterall, the thugs dont carry big neon signs saying "HERE I AM". Cops have to find them. Sometimes, it means saturating an area and stopping a lot of people and cars, often times inconveniencing otherwise innocent people who didnt do anything but violate some petty law like tailpipe smoke, so that they can end up catching a rapist or predator.